PTAB

IPR2025-00696

Kahoot As v. InterSTellar Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: On-line Academic Competition
  • Brief Description: The ’825 patent discloses a web-based system for facilitating live, online academic competitions between individuals and teams. The system presents questions to contestants and displays a real-time scoreboard on contestant devices, which includes individual and team scores and a time mechanism to track progress.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 9, 14-18, and 22 are obvious over Feeney in view of Rogers.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Feeney (Patent 8,231,470) and Rogers (Patent 10,861,343).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Feeney discloses a comprehensive online contest system that meets most limitations of independent claim 1, including a server, a database for storing questions and profiles, and functionality for creating teams and displaying scores. Feeney teaches an online competition where players on devices compete, form teams (called "rings"), and view performance statistics on a user interface. However, Petitioner contended that Feeney's time-tracking feature only indicates the time remaining for an individual question. Rogers, which discloses an online testing platform, is used to supply the limitation of a "real time scoreboard with time clock" that displays a contestant's progress relative to the entire series of questions. Rogers explicitly teaches progress bars and timers that show progress toward completing a whole test, not just a single question.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Rogers with Feeney to improve Feeney’s gaming experience. Feeney’s system is described as being applicable to "any kind of game," and incorporating Rogers's overall progress and time-tracking features would enhance game types that involve a fixed time for an entire contest, such as a "speed round." This would provide players with more useful feedback on their overall pacing.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as both references relate to online testing/gaming interfaces. Integrating a known type of progress bar or timer (from Rogers) into a known online contest interface (Feeney) would involve predictable software development and result in the expected outcome of displaying overall progress.

Ground 2: Claims 9 and 22 are obvious over Feeney and Rogers in view of Downs.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Feeney (Patent 8,231,470), Rogers (Patent 10,861,343), and Downs (Patent 6,086,381).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the Feeney and Rogers combination to address limitations in claims 9 and 22 requiring a processor that enables an administrator to "choose questions from a database of questions submitted by other administrators or coaches." While Feeney taught that an administrator could create and save questions, Petitioner argued it did not explicitly disclose an administrator selecting from a database populated by others. Downs, an interactive learning system, was introduced to teach this feature. Downs describes a system where a teacher (an "administrator") at a remote location can create a competition using questions stored on a control unit that were prepared by employees at a central facility (i.e., "other administrators").
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add the functionality of Downs to the Feeney/Rogers system to increase efficiency. Allowing an administrator to select from a pre-populated database of questions created by others would minimize the need to create new questions for every contest and would allow for the reuse and repurposing of existing content, a known and desirable feature for such platforms.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been a predictable implementation, requiring only the addition of known database selection functionality to the existing administrator interface in Feeney.

Ground 3: Claims 11 and 24 are obvious over Feeney and Rogers in view of Siddique.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Feeney (Patent 8,231,470), Rogers (Patent 10,861,343), and Siddique (Application # 2010/0030578).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground adds Siddique to the base combination of Feeney and Rogers to address the limitations of claims 11 and 24, which require enabling a contestant to upload or select a photo "to be used as a background on a display to the questions presented." Feeney disclosed uploading a photo for a player's profile card but not as a background for the question area. Siddique, which relates to an online environment for visualizing apparel on a user model, explicitly teaches a user interface where a user can upload an image or select from default images to serve as a background.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Siddique's teachings to enhance the user experience and customizability of the Feeney/Rogers platform. Allowing users to personalize the interface background was a common and desirable feature in software applications and would have been a predictable way to improve the ornamental look of the user interface.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Feeney already taught the basic functionality of uploading a user photo. Extending this known capability to set a background image, as taught by Siddique, would involve routine software coding.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Panetta (Application # 2009/0104591) and Maurseth (Application # 2004/0004325) to further support limitations related to "academic competition" and dividing a team for intra-team competition.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the phrase "an individual contestant's progress with respect to [] the time frame for answering questions" in independent claims 1 and 14 must be construed to mean displaying progress for the entire series of questions in the competition.
  • This construction was asserted to be consistent with the claim language (plural "questions"), the specification, and remarks made during prosecution where the patentee distinguished prior art by arguing it only showed time for individual questions, whereas the invention showed time remaining for the "entire contest." This construction is central to Petitioner's reliance on Rogers to teach this specific limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The key arguments were that: (1) no trial date is scheduled in the parallel district court litigation; (2) discovery has not yet begun, meaning there has been minimal investment in the parallel proceeding; and (3) Petitioner stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the district court, thus avoiding duplicative efforts and promoting efficiency.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 9, 11, 14-18, 22, and 24 of the ’825 patent as unpatentable.