Tableau Software, LLC v. iCharts LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2024-01388
• Patent #: 9,712,595
• Filed: September 26, 2024
• Petitioner(s): TABLEAU SOFTWARE, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): ICHARTS LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Creating Interactive Charts
• Brief Description: The ’595 patent describes systems and methods for generating interactive charts using a user interface on a first website. The generated interactive chart is then transmitted to a second website for display and user interaction, without executing the instructions that generated the original UI.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Rostoker in view of Clark - Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are obvious over Rostoker in view of Clark.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rostoker (Application # 2008/0127052) and Clark (Application # 2006/0112123).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rostoker teaches a system for creating and publishing interactive, chart-based applications ("xApps") from a central, web-based modeling environment (a "first website"). Rostoker's system allows users to select chart templates, map data, and generate applications. Petitioner asserted that Clark remedies any potential deficiency in Rostoker by explicitly teaching the publishing of interactive charts to a separate "second website," such as a company's intranet or enterprise portal, to enhance collaboration.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rostoker and Clark to enable the business applications created in Rostoker's powerful modeling environment to be deployed on an internal enterprise portal, as taught by Clark. This would serve the predictable goal of making sophisticated, custom analytics available to business users within a secure corporate network.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach publishing content for execution in a Flash runtime. Integrating Clark's well-known content-publishing technique into Rostoker’s system would be a predictable combination, as Rostoker already disclosed a "Publish" function to deploy its applications.

Ground 2: Obviousness over QlikView Manuals - Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are obvious over the QlikView Manuals.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: QlikView Reference Manual v8.50 (June 2008) and QlikView Server Reference Manual v8.50 (June 2008) (collectively, "QlikView Manuals").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted the QlikView Manuals collectively describe a well-known client-server system for creating interactive charts on a first website (the developer UI) and transmitting them for display on a second, independent website (the end-user client). The manuals allegedly show chart creation using a wizard, selection of chart templates, and loading of chart data. The system then transmits the self-contained interactive chart (e.g., as a Java applet or via AJAX) over a network interface to an end-user client, where it remains fully interactive without the original generation UI.
  • Motivation to Combine: The two manuals describe a single, integrated product suite (QlikView 8.50) and cross-reference one another. Therefore, a POSITA would have inherently read and applied their teachings together to understand how the QlikView product functioned.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was not just expected but certain, as the combination describes the actual, documented operation of a widely used commercial business intelligence product that existed before the patent's priority date.

Ground 3: Obviousness over QlikView Manuals in view of Couckuyt - Claims 3, 9, and 15 are obvious over the QlikView Manuals in view of Couckuyt.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: QlikView Manuals and Couckuyt (Patent 6,906,717).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the QlikView Manuals' disclosure and adds Couckuyt to explicitly teach the "drag-and-drop" functionality recited in claims 3, 9, and 15. While the QlikView Manuals teach creating charts via wizard dialog boxes, Couckuyt discloses a "drag-and-drop user interface (DDUI)" where a user drags data fields from a "data pane" and drops them into "drop zones" on a "chart pane" to intuitively generate a chart.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Couckuyt with the QlikView system to improve its user interface. Replacing QlikView's cumbersome, multi-step dialog boxes with Couckuyt’s more intuitive and efficient drag-and-drop mechanism for populating charts was a well-known method for improving usability in data visualization tools.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be highly predictable. The concept of using separate panes for data and charts was a basic UI building block, and drag-and-drop functionality was ubiquitous. Integrating this known feature into the QlikView system would be a routine design modification.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds based on Rostoker alone; Rostoker in view of Jou (Application # 2003/0071814) for additional interactive features like drill-down and zoom; and various other combinations of Rostoker, Clark, Jou, and Couckuyt to address all challenged claims.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date: A central argument was that the ’595 patent is not entitled to its earliest provisional filing date of July 2, 2008. Petitioner asserted that substantial new matter—including the core claim limitations of transmitting an interactive chart to a second website for display without the first website's UI—was added in a continuation-in-part application filed on February 17, 2009. Petitioner argued this later date is the effective priority date, which renders the 2008 QlikView Manuals and other references valid prior art.
• Public Availability of QlikView Manuals: Petitioner contended the QlikView Manuals qualify as "printed publications" available to the public before the February 17, 2009 priority date. Evidence included expert declarations, U.S. Copyright Office registration records showing a July 8, 2008 publication date, and archived website captures demonstrating that the manuals were downloadable by the public as part of the widely distributed QlikView 8.50 software package.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §325(d), asserting that the primary prior art references (Rostoker and the QlikView Manuals) are new, non-cumulative art that was never substantively considered by the USPTO during prosecution. To address potential Fintiv concerns related to parallel district court litigation, Petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in court any invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the petition.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’595 patent as unpatentable.