Tableau Software, LLC et al. v. iCharts LLC

Petition

Petition summary

Invalidity analysis

Prosecution analysis

Examiner search

- Case Number: [IPR2024-01387](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387)
- Patent #: [8,271,892](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8271892)
- Filed: September 26, 2024
- Petitioner(s): [Tableau Software, LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/tableau-software-llc)
- Patent Owner(s): [iCharts LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/icharts-llc)
- Challenged Claims: 1-16

- Title: System and Method for Generating Interactive Charts
- Brief Description: The [’892](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8271892) patent relates to a system for generating interactive charts through a user interface. The disclosed invention allows a user to create a chart, then publish or embed it as a "self-contained and independent electronic document" that retains interactivity even when opened in a separate program, absent the original generation interface.

#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Becerra - Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-9 are obvious over Becerra.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Application # 2003/0169295](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) to Becerra Jr. ([Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) teaches all limitations of independent claim 1. [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) described a system for creating interactive "control panels," which can contain charts, from spreadsheet data. Petitioner asserted [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) discloses a data module (the underlying spreadsheet), a chart template module (a "pre-created component library" of graphics), a generation module (a "canvas layout tool" for creating the control panel), and a sharing module that exports the control panel as a self-contained, executable Flash file that remains interactive independent of the creation tool. Petitioner further contended that the exported Flash file meets the limitation of a "self-contained and independent electronic document" that retains interactivity when published.
  - **Key Aspects:** This ground asserted that a single prior art reference, which was not considered during prosecution, teaches all elements of the core claims.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Becerra in view of Couckuyt - Claims 3, 10-11, and 13-16 are obvious over Becerra in view of Couckuyt.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005); [U.S. Patent No. 6,906,717](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1006) to Couckuyt et al. ([Couckuyt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1006)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner contended that while [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) discloses the core system, it does not explicitly teach a drag-and-drop interface where data is moved from a data pane to a chart pane. [Couckuyt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1006) allegedly supplied this missing element by disclosing a drag-and-drop user interface (DDUI) where a user drags data fields from a list and drops them into "drop zones" on a chart pane, which automatically populates the chart. This combination allegedly teaches the "data pane and a chart pane" and drag-and-drop functionality recited in claims 3 and 10.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Couckuyt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1006)’s DDUI with [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005)’s system to improve usability. Petitioner argued this would be a predictable design choice to provide a more intuitive method for assigning data to chart components, a known problem with a known solution.
  - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have an expectation of success because implementing a well-known drag-and-drop technique into [Becerra's](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) system would not present unreasonable technical hurdles. Both systems were designed to generate charts from data, and the functionality was common in standard programming libraries.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over QlikView Manuals - Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 are obvious over the QlikView Manuals.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [QlikView Reference Manual v8.50](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008) (June 2008) and [QlikView Server Reference Manual v8.50](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1009) (June 2008) (collectively, the [QlikView Manuals](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted the [QlikView Manuals](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008) describe a commercial client-server system for creating and sharing interactive charts that meets all limitations of claim 1. The manuals allegedly disclose loading data from files and databases (data module), creating and storing chart themes called "templates" (chart template module), using a "Chart Wizard" for chart creation (generation module), and using an "Objects Client Page Generator" to publish charts as interactive webpages or embed them in Excel files (sharing module). Petitioner argued these published charts are self-contained and remain interactive.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine the teachings of the two manuals because they describe different components of the same integrated product suite (QlikView version 8.50), are intended for use together, and explicitly cross-reference one another.
  - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination merely reflects the intended use of an existing, integrated commercial product.

- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of the primary references with secondary art. These included combining [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) and [Couckuyt](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1006) with [Keys](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1034) ([Application # 2001/0050681](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1034)) to teach remote template storage; combining [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) with [Moyer](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1010) ([Application # 2008/0028037](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1010)) to teach a "copy-to-my-account" feature; and combining [Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) with [Jou](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1007) ([Application # 2003/0071814](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1007)) to add interactive features like zoom and drill-down. Similar combinations were also asserted based on the [QlikView Manuals](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008).

- **Priority Date Challenge:** Petitioner argued the [’892](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8271892) patent is not entitled to the filing date of its provisional application (July 2, 2008). The petition contended that the critical limitation requiring the chart to be a "self-contained and independent electronic document" was new matter added in the non-provisional application filed on September 5, 2008. This later effective filing date is crucial, as it would make the [QlikView Manuals](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008), published by July 8, 2008, valid prior art.
- **"Printed Publication" Status of [QlikView Manuals](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008):** Petitioner contended the [QlikView Manuals](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008) qualify as "printed publications" under §102. The argument was that QlikView was a well-known business intelligence product and that the manuals for version 8.50 were made publicly accessible for download on the QlikTech corporate website by July 8, 2008, before the asserted effective priority date of the [’892](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8271892) patent.

- Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d) and the *Advanced Bionics* framework. The petition asserted that the primary references ([Becerra](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1005) and the [QlikView Manuals](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2024-01387/doc/1008)) are new, non-cumulative art that disclose the very elements the patentee relied on to overcome prior art during prosecution, and thus were not previously before the Office. Petitioner also argued against denial in view of parallel district court litigation, committing under the *Sotera Wireless* framework not to pursue in court any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the IPR, should the petition be instituted.

- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent [8,271,892](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8271892) as unpatentable.

Tableau targets interactive chart patent: Becerra & QlikView cited for obviousness of all 16 claims, hinging on a critical priority date dispute.

IPR2024-01387

Tableau Software, LLC v. iCharts LLC