TankLogix LLC v. SitePro Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00647
• Patent #: 9,898,014
• Filed: February 28, 2025
• Petitioner(s): TankLogix, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): SitePro, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-9 and 11-23

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Remote Control of Fluid-Handling Devices
• Brief Description: The ’014 patent describes a remote data collection and control system for fluid-handling devices, such as those in oil and gas fields. The system features a central command center that manages separate user accounts, allowing different users to access data or control equipment at designated facilities based on specific, tiered permissions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 4-18, and 21-23 are anticipated by or obvious over Kahn

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (Patent 7,424,399)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kahn discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Kahn teaches a hosted, web-based remote monitoring and control system for fluid delivery across geographically distributed facilities. Petitioner asserted that Kahn’s system includes a centralized datastore, a facility-interface module (Kahn’s “Sensor unit 110”), and a web-interface module for presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) to remote users. Critically, Petitioner contended that Kahn discloses the multi-account structure with differentiated access permissions that was added during prosecution to secure allowance of the ’014 patent. Kahn explicitly describes a first entity with an "authorized account A" to control a first set of fluid test data and a second entity with an "authorized account B" for a second set, while also allowing other entities (e.g., service providers, government organizations) to have view-only access, directly mapping to the four-account structure of claim 1.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that the very feature relied upon by the Examiner for allowance—a specific plurality of accounts with distinct control and view-only permissions for different facility groups—is expressly taught by Kahn.

Ground 2: Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-16, 18-21, and 23 are obvious over Gutierrez in view of Kahn

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Gutierrez (Patent 9,709,995) and Kahn (Patent 7,424,399)
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gutierrez discloses the foundational elements of the claimed invention, teaching a remote industrial monitoring and control system for geographically distributed oil and gas fluid handling facilities. Gutierrez describes a system with on-site controllers, sensors, actuators, and a remote computing system with a GUI for monitoring and control. However, while Gutierrez discloses a secure network that implies user-based access, it does not explicitly detail the granular, role-based account structure of claim 1. Petitioner asserted that Kahn supplies this missing element. Kahn’s detailed disclosure of differentiating user access—providing control permissions to some users for specific facilities while limiting others to view-only access—perfectly complements Gutierrez’s general framework.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Gutierrez and Kahn to improve the security, efficiency, and safety of the system. Implementing specific user differentiation, as taught by Kahn, into a general remote monitoring system like Gutierrez’s is a standard and well-known security practice for systems with multiple facilities and users. A POSITA would look to a reference like Kahn to find a known method for implementing such tiered access controls.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references. The combination involved applying a known user-access control method (from Kahn) to a conventional remote monitoring system (from Gutierrez), which would lead to the predictable result of a more secure and organized system without requiring any undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) Factors (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner argued institution is favored because neither Kahn nor Gutierrez was before the Examiner during the original prosecution. Further, the references are not cumulative to the prosecution art, as they explicitly teach the multi-account, permission-based access control structure that the applicant relied on to overcome prior art rejections.
• §314(a) Factors (Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, asserting that multiple factors favor institution.
  • The parallel district court litigation is in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, minimal investment by the parties, and no discovery exchanged. The median time-to-trial in the district is significantly later than the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the inter partes review (IPR).
  • Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court, thus avoiding significant overlap and conserving judicial resources.
  • The merits of the petition are compelling, which weighs against denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-9 and 11-23 of the ’014 patent as unpatentable.