Google LLC v. Pointwise Ventures LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01102
• Patent #: 8,471,812
• Filed: June 6, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Pointwise Ventures LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Pointing and Identification Device
• Brief Description: The ’812 patent describes a method for identifying an object using a pointing and identification device. The device captures a digital image of a user-designated object, communicates the image to a remote location for analysis, and receives back a list of likely pointed-to objects from which the user can make a selection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Oami, Darrell, and Du - Claims 1-12 are obvious over Oami alone or in combination with Darrell and/or Du.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Oami (a 2005 article on an MPEG-7 application for camera phones), Darrell (Application # 2005/0162523), and Du (Application # 2005/0198095).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Oami, a paper describing a "Mobile Multimedia Library" (MML), discloses all core features of the challenged claims. Oami's system used a camera-equipped mobile phone (the "pointing and identification device") with a keypad (the "actuation means") to capture an image of an object. The image was then automatically transmitted via internet connection to a remote MML server, which analyzed the image to identify "candidate categories." These candidates were returned to the user's phone as a list of thumbnail images for selection. Petitioner contended this process meets the limitations of automatically identifying and returning a list of likely objects.
  • Motivation to Combine:
    • Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Oami with Darrell to add an aiming reticle. Darrell taught using a reticle to help users precisely frame an object. A POSITA would add this to Oami's system to improve accuracy by allowing a user to target a specific object within a cluttered image, thereby narrowing the server's search and yielding more relevant results.
    • Alternatively, a POSITA would combine Oami with Du to handle ambiguity. Du taught "polling" a user to select the correct item when an image contained conflicting identifying data. A POSITA would incorporate this polling method into Oami's system to allow the user to clarify their intent when multiple objects were detected, improving the system's focus and the relevance of the returned candidate list.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the references are complementary technologies addressing the same problem of object recognition. The proposed modifications would have involved only simple software changes.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Du and Darrell - Claims 1-12 are obvious over Du in view of Darrell.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Du (Application # 2005/0198095) and Darrell (Application # 2005/0162523).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Du taught the fundamental claimed method. Du disclosed using a camera on a mobile phone to capture an image of a desired item (e.g., a product with a barcode and text), communicating the image to a server, and extracting identifying data. Crucially, when "conflicting identifying data" was found, Du taught that the user may be "polled to determine the correct data," which Petitioner mapped to the claim limitation of returning a list of likely pointed-to objects for user selection.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Du with Darrell for two primary reasons. First, a POSITA would incorporate Darrell's reticle into Du's system to help users precisely aim the camera at the specific identifying data they wished to capture (e.g., the barcode instead of surrounding text), thereby reducing "conflicting" data and improving system performance. Second, a POSITA would use Darrell's teaching of displaying candidate images in a "thumbnail mosaic" as a user-friendly, graphical way to implement Du's "polling" step, allowing the user to easily select their intended object from the presented options.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining these references. Both relate to object recognition via camera phones, and Du itself noted its invention could be implemented using standard image recognition programs. Augmenting Du's polling feature with Darrell's graphical thumbnail display was a predictable improvement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the term "at least one actuation means" from claim 1 should be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112(6) as a means-plus-function limitation.
  • Function: "actuation by the user when the user points the pointing and identification device at the object."
  • Corresponding Structure: A "button or its equivalent," such as the "mouse button 112" or "laser button" disclosed in the ’812 patent specification. This construction is central to mapping the keypads of Oami and Du to this limitation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner briefly argued that discretionary denial would be improper. Although not fully developed in the provided excerpt, the citation to Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. and the extensive list of co-pending district court litigations involving the ’812 patent suggest the argument is based on the Fintiv factors, likely contending that the IPR proceeding would be an efficient and effective resolution of the invalidity dispute.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’812 patent as unpatentable.