PTAB
IPR2026-00007
Nintendo Co Ltd v. Malikie Innovations Ltd
1. Case Identification
- Case #: IPR2026-00007
- Patent #: 9,542,571
- Filed: October 9, 2025
- Petitioner(s): Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of America Inc.
- Patent Owner(s): Malikie Innovations Ltd.
- Challenged Claims: 1-20
2. Patent Overview
- Title: System and Method of Owner Application Control of Electronic Devices
- Brief Description: The ’571 patent describes systems where administrators, such as corporate system administrators, can control electronic devices by using "owner control information." This information can include lists of permitted applications, controlling their installation and deletion, and managing their access to local memory.
3. Grounds for Unpatentability
Ground 1: Obviousness over Lambert, Frank, Gomberg, and Windows Guidelines Book - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Lambert in view of Frank, Gomberg, and the Windows Guidelines Book.
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Lambert (Application # 2002/0099952), Frank (Application # 2002/0095572), Gomberg (a 1998 USENIX paper), and Windows Guidelines Book (a 1995 Microsoft Corp. publication).
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Lambert, discloses a system for managing applications on a computer using administrator-defined rules to control whether software can be loaded and to what extent its processes are restricted. Frank teaches an administrator modifying security policies on a user device in real time, addressing the "receiving owner information" limitation. Gomberg is cited for its disclosure of presenting a user with a "list of software that can be installed at login," directly mapping to the "list of applications permitted for installation" limitation. Finally, the Windows Guidelines Book teaches using the Windows registry, specifically the password-protected HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE object, as a well-known method for creating a "protected data store" to prevent unauthorized alteration of configuration information.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references to create a more robust and user-friendly administrative system. Combining Lambert with Frank would streamline the process of inputting and testing security policies, reducing errors. Incorporating Gomberg’s list-based installation would help manage software licensing costs and make installation policies more user-friendly. A POSITA would have looked to the Windows Guidelines Book as a standard, conventional method for implementing Lambert's protected storage in a Windows environment, which Lambert explicitly mentions.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying known administrative tools (Frank, Gomberg) to a known security framework (Lambert) using conventional operating system features (Windows Guidelines Book).
Ground 2: Obviousness over Hayes in view of Sprigg - Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are obvious over Hayes in view of Sprigg.
Prior Art Relied Upon: Hayes (Application # 2001/0011341) and Sprigg (Patent 7,743,407).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hayes discloses a system for controlling application access where an administrator determines which applications a user can download from a server to a user station. The server builds and sends a "list of applications for which the user has access permission." This teaches the core limitations of receiving a permitted application list. However, Hayes does not explicitly teach associating granular "permissions" with each application to control access to local device resources. Sprigg remedies this by disclosing a system for wireless devices where applications each have an associated "permission list" that dictates whether the application can access specific device resources, such as memory.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA would combine Hayes and Sprigg to improve the security of the Hayes system. Both references relate to the analogous field of managing applications by administrators. A POSITA would be motivated to implement Sprigg's fine-grained, resource-level permission lists into Hayes's application-download framework to provide more robust control over what applications can do after being installed on a user's device.
- Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Sprigg's permission list concept within Hayes's server-client architecture, as it represented a logical extension of security policy enforcement.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 1-20 as obvious over Lambert alone (Ground 1); claims 1-8 and 10-20 as obvious over the Hayes/Sprigg combination further in view of Frank and Guedalia (Ground 4); and claims 9-20 as obvious over the Ground 4 combination further in view of Lambert (Ground 5).
4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is not warranted. The petition is the first filed against the ’571 patent, and its validity has not been previously adjudicated. Petitioner contended that the parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage. Furthermore, Petitioner stipulated that if an inter partes review (IPR) is instituted, it will not pursue in district court any invalidity grounds that were, or reasonably could have been, asserted in the IPR.
5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’571 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.