TankLogix LLC v. SitePro Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00650
• Patent #: 10,488,871
• Filed: February 28, 2025
• Petitioner(s): TankLogix, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): SitePro, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 18-32, 34

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Remote Control of Fluid-Handling Devices
• Brief Description: The ’871 patent discloses a remote data collection and control system for fluid-handling devices, such as those at oil wells or petroleum pumping stations. The system uses a command center to manage separate user accounts and communicate with on-site controllers, which can operate even without a continuous network connection to the command center.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 18, 22-31, and 34 are anticipated 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 anticipates or, alternatively, renders obvious every limitation of independent claim 18. Kahn disclosed a remote monitoring and control system for a fluid delivery network that permits authorized users from different entities to view data and control designated devices. Petitioner asserted that Kahn’s "centralized data collection points" (servers) connecting to "sensor units" at various facilities for different entities correspond to the claimed method of storing records for a "plurality of accounts" associated with different fluid-handling facilities. Kahn’s system included sensors to measure fluid and actuators to manipulate flow, accessible via a network. Petitioner contended that Kahn’s disclosure of users logging into a system via a graphical user interface (GUI) to receive data and send commands to control actuators at specific locations mapped directly to the claimed user-interface and facility-interface modules. The multi-tiered access structure of claim 18 (e.g., first/second accounts for control, third/fourth accounts for viewing) was allegedly disclosed by Kahn’s teaching of different users and entities having varying levels of authorized access to control or visualize data. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Kahn’s server-based architecture met the "web server" limitation (claim 22) and its inherent use of modern programming languages like Java met the software "thread" limitations (claims 26-27).

Ground 2: Claims 18-21, 24, 26-29, 31-32, and 34 are obvious over Kahn in view of Gutierrez

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kahn (Patent 7,424,399) and Gutierrez (Patent 9,709,995).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gutierrez disclosed a general remote control system for chemical injection in hydrocarbon production environments, including multiple geographically dispersed sites with sensors and actuators. While Gutierrez provided the foundational system, it lacked the detailed multi-user, multi-facility account management structure of the ’871 patent. Petitioner asserted a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would look to Kahn to incorporate its specific, detailed user differentiation features into the system of Gutierrez. Gutierrez disclosed the core elements of claim 18, such as storing records for geographically distributed fluid-handling facilities (hydrocarbon production sites) with sensors and actuators controlled by a remote computing system. Kahn then supplied the teachings for the specific multi-account structure with differentiated access permissions (limitations 18.10-18.14), which Petitioner argued was a known and desirable feature for enhancing security and operational efficiency in any remote system with multiple facilities and users.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references because both described similar systems for remote monitoring and control of fluid handling facilities. A POSITA implementing the general oil and gas system of Gutierrez, which would naturally involve multiple operators, supervisors, and regulators, would be motivated to incorporate Kahn’s detailed disclosure on user-differentiated access to provide the necessary security, efficiency, and safety benefits that come from limiting user access to designated data and controls.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have an expectation of success because combining the systems would lead to the predictable result of users having predetermined levels of access to view or control systems in Gutierrez. The combination involved applying a known user-management technique (from Kahn) to a known type of remote control system (from Gutierrez).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and §314(a).
• §325(d) / Advanced Bionics: Institution was favored because the asserted prior art (Kahn and Gutierrez) was not before the examiner during prosecution and was not cumulative of the previously considered art.
• §314(a) / Fintiv: Petitioner argued the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. The co-pending district court litigation was in its earliest stages with minimal investment, and no trial date had been set. The estimated trial date (September 2027) was substantially after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR (approximately September 2026). Further, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR was instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court litigation.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 18-32 and 34 of the ’871 patent as unpatentable.