PTAB

IPR2025-00360

AT&T Services Inc v. RightQuestion LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Validating Automatic Number Identification Data
  • Brief Description: The ’009 patent discloses techniques for verifying the identity of a device initiating a communication to combat spoofing. The system involves a verification service provider that enrolls a device, generates and stores a unique "device fingerprint" based on its configuration, and later compares this stored fingerprint against information from a communicating device to make a security determination.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Miller - Claims 1-23 are obvious over Miller

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Miller (Application # 2012/0201381)

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Miller, filed prior to the ’009 patent’s priority date, discloses the same architecture and functionality claimed in the patent. Miller teaches a system for verifying a device's identity where a verification service provider (which Miller calls a “dynamic key crypto provider” or “DKCP”) enrolls a device (“computer 18”). This enrollment includes generating and storing a unique device identifier based on a wide range of hardware, firmware, and software attributes, which Miller explicitly refers to as a “computer fingerprint” or “computer minutia.” Petitioner contended that Miller’s “computer minutia” (comprising details like device manufacturer, OS version, installed applications, and contact phone numbers) is the same as the ’009 patent’s claimed “device fingerprint.”

    During a subsequent communication, Miller’s DKCP obtains information from the device, performs a security determination by comparing the obtained information against the stored fingerprint, and then selects an action. This comparison process in Miller involves direct matching or a “scoring” process to determine authenticity. Based on this determination, Miller’s system selects an action from a range of responses, including denying the service request (“blocking the communication”), allowing the action (“permitting the communication”), or challenging the user for additional information, such as a PIN or password (“requesting additional authentication”). Petitioner asserted these teachings map directly onto the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 17. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Miller discloses the recited features, such as using a "backchannel" for communication (claim 2), conveying an "assurance" based on the verification score (claim 3), and using specific data like PINs or geolocation for authentication (claims 6 and 7).

    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that Miller not only teaches the core concepts but uses strikingly similar terminology, including the term “computer fingerprint,” which was the key feature added by the applicant during prosecution to overcome a prior art rejection of the ’009 patent.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution under Fintiv. The petition asserted it presents compelling evidence of unpatentability, which under the USPTO’s Interim Guidance weighs against denial. Furthermore, a holistic review of the Fintiv factors favored institution because the co-pending district court litigation is in its early stages, with minimal investment and a trial date set for October 2025, well after an IPR Final Written Decision would be due. Petitioner also stipulated to not raising any grounds in the litigation that include the same primary reference (Miller), thus avoiding overlap of issues.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-23 of the ’009 patent as unpatentable.