SmartSky Networks LLC v. Gogo Business Aviation LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00672
• Patent #: 9,954,600
• Filed: February 28, 2025
• Petitioner(s): SmartSky Networks LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Gogo Business Aviation LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Servicing cell selection in air to ground communication systems
• Brief Description: The ’600 patent discloses a system for selecting serving cells in an air-to-ground (ATG) communication network to optimize performance. The system addresses resource scarcity by using directional antennas to measure signal quality (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio or SNR) of multiple ground stations, calculating link capacity estimates based on these measurements, and using a decision matrix to select the optimal serving cell for communication with an aircraft.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-4, 6, 13-15, 17, and 19 by Chapelle

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Chapelle (Patent 9,306,657).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Chapelle addresses the identical problem of ATG handoff using the same methodology as the ’600 patent. Chapelle was asserted to teach an airborne system with an antenna controller that measures signal quality (S/I ratio, which Petitioner contended is interchangeable with the claimed SNR) for multiple candidate base transceiver stations (BTSs) to determine when to initiate a handoff to a BTS providing a "higher quality communications link." Petitioner contended that calculating a "forward-link user capacity estimate" as claimed is functionally equivalent to Chapelle's process of evaluating link quality. The claimed "matrix" was argued to be an inherent feature of any computer-based system that stores and compares measured parameters from multiple sources to make a decision.
  • Key Aspects: The core of this argument rested on the assertion that Chapelle's disclosure of selecting a BTS based on the "best S/I ratio" to achieve a "higher quality" link inherently teaches all steps of creating and using a "forward-link user capacity matrix" to select a serving cell.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 17-19 over Chapelle in view of Jalali

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Chapelle (Patent 9,306,657) and Jalali (Application # 2014/0200045).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Chapelle teaches the foundational ATG handoff system based on signal measurements. Jalali was argued to supplement Chapelle by explicitly teaching the use of signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SINR) measurements, a well-known alternative to SNR, to select an "optimal beam" for "improved performance." Jalali also taught averaging or filtering measured values to account for variations. Petitioner argued that combining these teachings renders the claims obvious, as Jalali’s methods for improving signal quality measurements are directly applicable to Chapelle’s system.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Chapelle and Jalali as they both address optimizing ATG communication handoffs. A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Jalali's teachings on SINR measurement and averaging into Chapelle's system to improve the reliability and performance of handoff decisions, a predictable and desirable outcome.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued there was a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known signal measurement technique (SINR from Jalali) to a known system (ATG handoff from Chapelle) to achieve the predictable result of improved link selection.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 5 and 16 over Chapelle and Jalali in view of Nelson

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Chapelle (Patent 9,306,657), Jalali (Application # 2014/0200045), and Nelson (Patent 7,177,939).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 5 and 16, which add the limitation of transmitting the capacity matrix over an "out-of-band communication channel." Petitioner asserted that Chapelle and Jalali collectively teach the creation and use of the capacity matrix. Nelson was introduced for its explicit disclosure that it was well-known to use out-of-band protocols for data communications in an aircraft communication system.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, having designed the system taught by Chapelle and Jalali, would be motivated by Nelson to transmit the capacity matrix data out-of-band. This would be a simple and advantageous design choice to avoid consuming bandwidth on the primary data channels, thereby improving overall system performance and efficiency.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would have been highly expected, as using a separate control channel for signaling or metadata is a conventional and predictable technique in telecommunications to preserve the capacity of the main data link.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted a fourth ground that claims 1-19 are obvious over Chapelle, Jalali, and Nelson, further in view of Mcguffin (European Patent No. 2,207,275). Mcguffin was introduced to provide an explicit teaching of using tables or data structures (i.e., a matrix) to store and compare signal strength values for making handoff decisions, in the event the matrix was not considered inherently disclosed by the other references.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that the Board should not discretionarily deny institution.
• Under §325(d) (Advanced Bionics): Petitioner asserted that the prior art references and combinations presented in the petition are new and were never considered during the original prosecution of the ’600 patent. It was argued that the examiner allowed the claims based on a material error by failing to consider equivalent terminology for the term "matrix."
• Under §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued that the parallel district court litigation is in its early stages with minimal investment of resources and a trial date set beyond the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Petitioner contended that these factors, combined with the strong merits of the petition, weigh heavily in favor of institution and against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of Patent 9,954,600 as unpatentable.