Google LLC v. TJTM Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00586
• Patent #: 8,958,853
• Filed: March 5, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): TJTM Technologies, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-9

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Mobile Device Inactive Mode and Inactive Mode Verification
• Brief Description: The ’853 patent describes a mobile device application for reducing distracted driving. The application places the device in an "inactive mode" to suppress communication notifications and can automatically notify senders that the user is unavailable, with a feature to communicate with a "certification server" to verify periods of non-use.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cazanas and Frye - Claims 1-7 are obvious over Cazanas in view of Frye.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cazanas (Patent 8,275,351) and Frye (Application # 2012/0282906).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cazanas discloses the core elements of independent claim 1. Cazanas teaches a mobile device with a “Do Not Disturb” Application (DNDA) that, in response to pairing with a vehicle, automatically enters an inactive mode and transmits a pre-selected away message upon receiving a communication. Petitioner contended that Frye supplies the remaining limitations, specifically teaching the suppression of sound, visual, or vibration cues and providing a user interface for selecting the conditions (like pairing) that trigger the inactive mode. For dependent claims, Petitioner asserted that Cazanas discloses responding to SMS messages (claim 4) and Frye teaches disabling all communication cues (claim 2) and providing notification upon mode completion (claim 3).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Frye’s functionality with Cazanas’ DNDA to achieve the well-known goal of enhancing driver safety. Incorporating Frye’s explicit suppression of notification cues into Cazanas’ system would more effectively reduce distractions. Adding Frye’s user-selectable triggers to Cazanas would be an obvious design choice to provide users with flexibility and control over the application's activation, a common feature in mobile applications.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known software features, as it involved standard mobile device programming to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Cazanas, Frye, and Zhou - Claims 8 and 9 are obvious over Cazanas and Frye in view of Zhou.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cazanas (Patent 8,275,351), Frye (Application # 2012/0282906), and Zhou (Application # 2011/0294520).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon Ground 1 to address the "certification server" limitations of claims 8 and 9. Petitioner argued that while Cazanas and Frye teach mobile devices communicating usage data to a server, Zhou explicitly discloses the claimed purpose of such a server. Zhou teaches a "driving safety data server" that receives data from a mobile device regarding its use while driving. This data is used to generate a safety score that can be shared with a third party, such as an insurance company, to obtain premium discounts. This directly corresponds to the ’853 patent’s disclosure of a certification server used to verify non-operational periods for insurance discounts.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zhou's certification server with the inactive mode system of Cazanas and Frye to provide a verifiable record of safe driving behavior. This combination would serve the explicit commercial incentive disclosed in both Zhou and the ’853 patent—allowing drivers to prove their non-use of a mobile device to qualify for insurance discounts. Frye further motivates sending notifications upon entering/exiting a state to deter device use.
  • Expectation of Success: Implementing a system to send notifications of device status changes (e.g., entering/exiting inactive mode) to a remote server was a simple, well-understood, and predictable programming task at the time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.
• Petitioner noted that in a prior IPR involving the ’853 patent (IPR2019-00434), the Board construed "inactive mode" to "at least encompass a mode in which user notifications relating to incoming communications are suppressed." Petitioner adopted this construction for its arguments.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the current petition relies on prior art (Cazanas and Frye) that was never considered during prosecution or in the prior IPR petition (IPR2019-00434). Petitioner asserted that Cazanas specifically remedies the deficiency the Board identified in the prior IPR by expressly teaching that the act of pairing a mobile device with a vehicle is a sufficient trigger for its "do-not-disturb" mode.
• Fintiv Arguments: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv because the parallel district court litigation was dismissed on §101 grounds prior to any significant investment of resources. The case is on appeal, and any potential trial is projected for September 2028, well after a final written decision in this IPR would issue.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’853 patent as unpatentable.