PTAB

IPR2025-00648

TankLogix LLC v. SitePro Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Remote Control of Fluid-Handling Devices
Brief Description: The ’909 patent discloses a system for remotely monitoring and controlling fluid-handling devices, such as those used in oil wells or petroleum pumping stations. The system features a central command server that sends high-level commands to geographically distributed on-site controllers, which then translate these commands into operative protocols for local device controllers to execute.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Cardamone (Application # 2015/0308244).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cardamone discloses every element of the challenged claims. Cardamone teaches a remote monitoring system for a deep-well pump, including a remote "data server" (134) that functions as the claimed command-center server and an on-site "control and communication computer" (126) that functions as the site master controller. Petitioner contended that Cardamone’s server communicates with the on-site computer via standard network links (e.g., internet, cellular), while the on-site computer communicates with the local pump drive unit via a different set of protocols (e.g., DeviceNet, RS485, Modbus). This necessary conversion between different communication protocols inherently discloses the claimed step of "translating" commands. Cardamone also allegedly teaches receiving sensor data and sending it to a remote data store (claim 2) and providing a web-server interface for user access (claim 3).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Almadi (Patent 8,667,091).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Almadi, which describes an integrated system for data acquisition and control in automated industrial processes like oil and gas fields, anticipates the claims. Almadi’s "integrated node" (100) was mapped to the command-center server, and its "remote subsystems" (120) were mapped to the site master controllers. Critically, Almadi explicitly discloses a "protocol translator or translation server" (102) designed to translate communications between a remote host and various remote subsystems that may use a plurality of different messaging protocols (e.g., Modbus over IP, Serial Modbus, HART). Petitioner argued this directly teaches the key "translating" limitation. Almadi further discloses that its system can report alarms (claim 5), execute responsive instructions (claim 6), and operate in oil and gas environments (claim 14).

Prior Art Relied Upon: Abdallah (Application # 2008/0316048).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Abdallah’s disclosure of a well-site data communication system anticipates the claims. Abdallah’s "central communication gateway" (202) was equated to the command-center server, and its local "sensor nodes" at the well site were equated to the site master controllers. Petitioner highlighted that Abdallah’s gateway is explicitly "configured as a protocol translator to change the received information from the first communication protocol to the second communication protocol." Abdallah discloses using protocols like serial Modbus to send commands with specific node IDs, which Petitioner contended satisfies the limitations of claim 9. The system’s use of analog sensors and outputs was argued to disclose the digital-to-analog converter functionality recited in claim 10.

§325(d) / Advanced Bionics Factors: Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that none of the cited prior art references (Cardamone, Almadi, Abdallah) were before the examiner during the original prosecution of the ’909 patent. Petitioner contended the references are not cumulative of the prosecution art because they explicitly teach the "translating" and "sending" limitations that the applicant relied upon to secure allowance of the claims.
§314(a) / Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of institution. The co-pending district court litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment, and no trial date has been set. The court's median time-to-trial statistics suggest a trial date (approximately September 2027) well after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR (approximately September 2026). Furthermore, Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court if the IPR is instituted, mitigating concerns of overlapping issues.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 and 14-21 of Patent 8,649,909 as unpatentable.