PTAB

IPR2025-00809

Walmart Inc v. Security Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Targeted Advertising Method
  • Brief Description: The ’402 patent discloses a method for targeted advertising where "quality levels" are calculated for users based on their online activities, such as searches and purchases. These quality levels are used to determine which advertisements to display to a user, with advertisers bidding for the right to show ads based on these scores.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are obvious over Grannan, Chung, and Yang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grannan (Application # 2007/0244750), Chung (Patent 7,809,740), and Yang ("Segmenting Customer Transactions Using a Pattern-Based Clustering Approach," a 2003 paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Grannan, the primary reference, discloses a targeted advertising system that tracks user behavior to determine a "product interest correlation score" ("PIC score"), which corresponds to the claimed "first quality level." Grannan's system uses these scores, which are based on user searches and purchases, to select and send targeted ads. To the extent Grannan does not explicitly disclose certain features, Petitioner asserted Chung teaches generating a "mapped score" based on a user's conversion propensity, which improves upon Grannan’s PIC score by providing a more refined quality level. For claim limitations requiring user identification via clustering (e.g., 1[c]), Petitioner relied on Yang, which teaches using pattern-based clustering of web transactions to differentiate individual users on a shared device.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Grannan with Chung to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of Grannan's targeted advertising system. Incorporating Chung's conversion propensity assessment into Grannan's PIC score calculation was presented as a predictable improvement. A POSITA would then be motivated to add Yang’s known clustering technique to solve the common problem of identifying individual users on shared household devices, thereby ensuring the user profile data fed into the Grannan/Chung system was accurate.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references, as it involved applying a known technique (Chung's conversion assessment) to improve a similar system (Grannan) and using another known technique (Yang's clustering) to solve a known problem (shared user devices).

Ground 2: Claims 1-19 are obvious over Grannan, Chung, and Ramaiyer

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Grannan (Application # 2007/0244750), Chung (Patent 7,809,740), and Ramaiyer (Application # 2012/0109956).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground mirrored Ground 1 for all claim limitations except for those related to clustering (1[c], 10[d], and 19[c]). For these specific limitations, Petitioner substituted Ramaiyer for Yang. Ramaiyer discloses a "profile prediction system" that uses a clustering algorithm based on user behavior (e.g., clicking and browsing) to identify one of multiple user profiles on a single computer. Petitioner argued Ramaiyer provides an alternative, well-known solution for the same problem addressed by Yang.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 1: to improve the Grannan/Chung system by solving the known problem of distinguishing between multiple users on a shared device. Ramaiyer, like Yang, provides a direct solution for this issue. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these references to improve the overall accuracy of the targeted advertising system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success would be expected because the combination involved applying Ramaiyer's known clustering solution to address a recognized problem in the field of targeted advertising, requiring only a straightforward software modification to the Grannan system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner stated that for the purposes of the IPR, the challenged claims should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning. This position was adopted from the Patent Owner's purported licensee's position in related district court litigation. Petitioner argued that because the asserted prior art discloses the preferred embodiments of the ’402 patent, the Board need not construe the outer bounds of the claims.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is not warranted. It noted the filing of a concurrent Motion for Joinder with an already-instituted inter partes review, IPR2024-01420, involving the same patent. Petitioner asserted that if joinder is granted, it would assume an "understudy role," which would not negatively impact the Board's finite resources.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’402 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.