PTAB

IPR2025-01486

Apple Inc v. HBCU Messaging US LP

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Messaging Service in a Wireless Communications Network
  • Brief Description: The ’127 patent discloses a method for a sender's wireless device to provide a messaging service. The method involves determining whether a recipient's device is a subscriber to a service for receiving messages via a packet-switched bearer, and then selecting a transmission mode (e.g., packet-switched or cellular SMS) based on that determination.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Horvath-Tsampalis - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Horvath in view of Tsampalis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Horvath (Application # 2007/0254681) and Tsampalis (Application # 2004/0203956).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Horvath and Tsampalis teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Horvath discloses a dual-mode messaging system where a wireless device can send messages over either a packet data network (e.g., an 802.11 WLAN) or a traditional circuit services network. Horvath's system selects the network based on the sender's registration status with a packet-based service (like an IMS network) primarily to reduce load on the circuit-switched network. However, Horvath’s system risks sending messages in formats a recipient cannot handle.

    Tsampalis addresses this precise problem by teaching a method for a sender's device to determine a recipient's messaging capabilities before sending a message. In Tsampalis, the sender device sends a request to a remote server to retrieve the recipient's messaging format capabilities (e.g., ability to receive SMS, MMS, etc.) and receives a response. Based on this information, the sender device selects a compatible message format and transmission mode.

    The proposed combination applies Tsampalis's recipient-capability check to Horvath's dual-network system. The sender’s device would first determine if the recipient is a subscriber to a packet-based messaging service (like MMS or IM) by sending a request to a server, as taught by Tsampalis. This request and its response would be sent over Horvath's packet data network (WLAN), which is independent of the cellular core network. If the response indicates the recipient can receive packet-based messages (a "first transmission mode"), the device sends the message as an IP packet over the WLAN. If the recipient is not a subscriber, the device selects a "second transmission mode," sending the message as a standard SMS via a cellular base station, as taught by Horvath for unregistered users. This combination meets all limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. Petitioner further contended that the dependent claims are obvious as they recite conventional features, such as displaying presence information or handling attachments, which are also taught by the combination or were well-known in the art.

    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Horvath and Tsampalis for several compelling and predictable reasons:

      • To solve a known problem in Horvath’s system by preventing message delivery failures that occur when sending messages in formats the recipient cannot support, a solution explicitly taught by Tsampalis.
      • To improve user experience by ensuring message compatibility, allowing senders to reliably use richer messaging formats like MMS and IM when available, rather than defaulting to the lowest common denominator (SMS).
      • To advance Horvath's primary goal of network optimization. By avoiding failed deliveries, the combination reduces re-transmission attempts and unnecessary network traffic, further reducing the burden on both packet and circuit-switched networks.
      • To apply a known technique (recipient capability checking) to a known system (dual-mode messaging) to achieve the predictable result of more reliable and efficient messaging.

    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination. The component technologies—including multi-modal messaging (SMS, MMS, IM), packet-switched networks (WLAN), and circuit-switched cellular networks—were well-understood, mature, and logically compatible at the time of the invention. Integrating Tsampalis's server query for recipient capabilities into Horvath's existing network-selection logic would have been a straightforward implementation using conventional software on standard mobile devices.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’127 patent as unpatentable.