Apple Inc v. Smith Interface Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01090
• Patent #: 10,725,581
• Filed: June 27, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Apple Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Michael S Smith
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 21, 29-31, 42-44, 54, 62-65

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Devices, Methods, And Graphical User Interfaces For Manipulating User Interface Objects With Visual And/Or Haptic Feedback
• Brief Description: The ’581 patent describes a user interface on a touch-sensitive device that distinguishes between different touch durations on a hyperlink. The system is configured to perform one of three actions: ignore a brief, inadvertent touch; navigate to the linked webpage after a medium-duration tap; or display a preview of the linked webpage overlaid on the current page after a long-duration hold.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 21, 29-31, 42-44, 54, 62-65 are obvious over Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Blumenberg (Application # 2008/0259041), Bhumkar (Application # 2008/0235594), and Griffin (Application # 2011/0248948).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references teaches every element of the challenged claims. Blumenberg was asserted to be the primary reference, disclosing a portable electronic device with a touch screen that implements the core three-scenario system for hyperlink interaction based on touch duration: ignoring an "inadvertent" contact (less than a "selection threshold"), activating the link on a "quick tap" (duration between the selection and "activation" thresholds), and maintaining a preview or "snippet" of the target webpage for a longer hold (duration greater than the "activation" threshold).
  • Bhumkar was argued to supplement Blumenberg by teaching a webpage "preview" window that includes a menu or "toolbar" with options for interacting with the previewed content (e.g., sharing the link). Petitioner asserted this maps to the claimed menu functionality associated with the long-press gesture.
  • Griffin was argued to provide the remaining key features. It teaches using multiple, user-configurable touch duration thresholds to trigger different functions. It also explicitly teaches providing tactile feedback via one or more actuators in response to a user's contact reaching a predetermined threshold. This was mapped to the claims’ requirements for user-configurable durations and haptic feedback.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner presented several rationales for why a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references.
    • A POSITA would combine Blumenberg and Bhumkar to improve usability. Adding Bhumkar’s menu to Blumenberg’s preview is a predictable implementation of a well-known feature (menus) to provide users with common functionalities (e.g., copy, share) without navigating away from the original page, a known design goal for competing web browsers.
    • A POSITA would combine the resulting system with Griffin’s teachings on tactile feedback to provide a non-visual confirmation that a state change has occurred (i.e., the long-hold threshold has been surpassed). This was argued to be a common and desirable feature in mobile devices to improve user experience, especially where visual cues might be missed. Petitioner noted that Blumenberg itself incorporates by reference a separate application disclosing a "haptics mechanism," expressly suggesting the inclusion of such feedback.
    • A POSITA would further incorporate Griffin’s teachings to make the duration thresholds user-configurable. This was presented as a routine and predictable modification to increase usability and allow for user customization, a common design goal.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that combining these known elements would have yielded predictable results. Each reference addresses a specific, well-understood aspect of user interface design (duration-based input, interactive previews, haptic feedback, user settings). Integrating them would involve applying known techniques to achieve the expected and advantageous result of a more functional and user-friendly interface.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under either §325(d) or §314(a) would be inappropriate.
• Advanced Bionics (§325(d)): Petitioner asserted that although Blumenberg was incorporated by reference into the ’581 patent, the prosecution history indicates the Examiner never substantively considered it, nor the combination with Bhumkar and Griffin. Therefore, the petition raises new arguments and art that were not before the Examiner, strongly favoring institution.
• Fintiv (§314(a)): Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weigh heavily against denial. The parallel district court litigation is in its infancy, with no invalidity contentions served and discovery just beginning. Crucially, no trial date has been set, and the median time to trial in the relevant district (S.D. Cal.) is 40.2 months, placing any potential trial long after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision. Petitioner also stated its intent to file a motion to stay the litigation, further weighing against denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-3, 21, 29-31, 42-44, 54, 62-65 of the ’581 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.