AT&T Services Inc v. RightQuestion LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00362
• Patent #: 11,005,989
• Filed: February 10, 2025
• Petitioner(s): AT&T Services Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and Nokia of America Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): RightQuestion, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-28

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Validating Automatic Number Identification Data
• Brief Description: The ’989 patent relates to techniques for ascertaining the identity of a device initiating a communication to detect potential spoofing of caller ID. The system receives a device information value and a score indicating a phone number's validity, then performs a security determination based on that data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-28 are obvious over Har in view of Miller.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Har (Application # 2012/0144198) and Miller (Application # 2012/0201381).
• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Har, the primary reference, discloses a call authentication system that teaches nearly all aspects of the challenged claims. Har’s system uses an authentication server to authenticate a mobile device caller by receiving an encrypted and digitally signed authentication request. This request serves as the claimed "value generated based at least in part on information associated with the calling device." Petitioner asserted that Har performs a two-part security determination by verifying the digital signature and comparing other information in the request with data stored on the server. Critically, Har also expressly teaches conveying a message indicating success or failure of the authentication to the callee, which was the element Petitioner contended led to the patent’s allowance.

  • The petition argued that Har does not explicitly use the term "score" for its security determination. To supply this element, Petitioner introduced Miller, which discloses a system for verifying a device by calculating a "score" based on a wide range of device-specific information called "minutia" (e.g., hardware identifiers, software versions, user biometrics). Petitioner contended that Miller’s score calculation fits directly into the second part of Har’s security check—validating the "other information" in the authentication request. Thus, the combined system receives both a value (Har's encrypted request) and a score (from Miller's teachings) to perform a security determination and convey the result, as claimed.

  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Har and Miller to improve the security and robustness of Har’s authentication system. Har teaches a general two-factor authentication but lacks detail on how to verify the content of the authentication request against stored data. Miller provides a detailed, robust method for this verification by using a score based on device minutia, directly addressing Har's goal of preventing spoofing and ensuring message integrity. Miller itself promotes "increased security" by using unique device identifiers. The combination also offers efficiency, as Har’s digital signature check could serve as a "quick fail" before engaging Miller’s more resource-intensive scoring process.

  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both Har and Miller describe systems with compatible architectures, including authentication servers and mobile smart devices that use bi-directional data channels for authentication. Implementing Miller's scoring logic within Har’s existing framework was presented as a routine software modification that would be well within the skill of a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner proposed that most claim terms be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
• For the term "processor(s) configured to ... perform a security determination," Petitioner noted that it asserts this term is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) in co-pending litigation. For the purposes of this inter partes review (IPR), however, Petitioner asserted that the term should be construed to encompass a processor that performs an algorithm for validation or authentication using information related to the communication.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not issue a discretionary denial under Fintiv. The core arguments were:
  • The petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability, particularly because Har explicitly teaches the "conveying" element that was the basis for allowance, which weighs against denial under the Director's Interim Guidance.
  • The co-pending district court litigation is in its early stages, with minimal investment by the parties, a trial date set for late 2025, and a Markman hearing not scheduled until April 2025.
  • Petitioner stipulated to not raising the same combination of references in the district court litigation, which would prevent overlap between the proceedings.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-28 of the ’989 patent as unpatentable.