PTAB

IPR2026-00048

Google LLC v. Headwater Research LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless Network Offloading and Selection
  • Brief Description: The ’757 patent discloses systems for a wireless end-user device to manage offloading from a cellular network. The technology involves identifying available wireless networks, selecting one based on a prioritized list, and characterizing its performance by conducting an "upload and/or download sequence" to determine if the device should switch to the new network.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Wynn - Claims 1-6, 9, and 10 are obvious over Wynn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wynn (Application # 2009/0028082).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wynn discloses every element of the independent and dependent claims. Wynn teaches a "digital device" (a wireless end-user device) that scans for and identifies available wireless networks (e.g., Wi-Fi networks) while connected to a different current network (e.g., a cellular network). The device contains a "prioritized network selection engine" (software) that selects a network from a prioritized list. To evaluate the selected network, Wynn’s device measures performance metrics like bandwidth and latency by communicating with a server, which Petitioner asserted constitutes the claimed "upload and/or download sequence." Based on this performance characterization, the device determines whether to switch communication to the selected network.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Wynn’s disclosure of testing bandwidth by "sending a block of data over the wireless network to a server and timing the response" directly teaches the core concept that the Patent Owner relied on for patentability during prosecution: characterizing network performance via a conducted data sequence. Dependent claims were argued to be met by Wynn's disclosure of Wi-Fi radios (claim 9) and the device using a cellular network while its Wi-Fi radio identifies available networks (claim 10).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wynn in view of Karaoguz - Claims 7 and 8 are obvious over Wynn in view of Karaoguz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wynn (Application # 2009/0028082), Karaoguz (Application # 2010/0048172).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Wynn as the base system for network selection. Claims 7 and 8 add the limitation of providing the user with a "notification including an incentive offer" that is a "network-performance incentive" to encourage switching networks. Petitioner asserted that Karaoguz explicitly teaches this feature. Karaoguz discloses a system where a service provider provides incentives—such as a "quality incentive" or "bandwidth priority incentive"—to encourage a user to switch to an alternative communication network, particularly when the primary network is congested. These incentives are communicated to the user via a notification.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Karaoguz's incentive notifications with Wynn's network selection system for predictable benefits. The primary motivation would be for a network operator to manage network traffic and alleviate congestion by encouraging users to offload to other networks (e.g., from cellular to Wi-Fi), a problem addressed by both references. Modifying Wynn’s system, which already includes targeted advertising, to add another type of user notification would have been a simple and logical step.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involves applying a known user-incentive strategy (from Karaoguz) to a known network-selection framework (from Wynn) to achieve the predictable result of improved network load management.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Wynn in view of Deshpande - Claims 7 and 8 are obvious over Wynn in view of Deshpande.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wynn (Application # 2009/0028082), Deshpande (Application # 2003/0003933).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: As an alternative to Ground 2, this ground asserted that Deshpande provides the missing elements of claims 7 and 8. Deshpande discloses a mobile client that can identify when an alternative network provider is offering a "better deal," defined to include performance advantages like "more bandwidth." This information is presented to the user, who can then choose to switch to the new provider. Petitioner contended that offering "more bandwidth" is a clear example of a "network-performance incentive."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Deshpande’s "better deal" notifications with Wynn's network selection functionality to enhance the system. The motivation would be to improve the user experience by providing more intelligent network switching options based on tangible performance benefits, not just static preferences. This would predictably result in a more robust and user-centric network selection tool.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the proposed modification merely integrates a known type of user notification about network performance into a standard network scanning and selection process. The technologies were well-understood, and their combination was a straightforward design choice to improve functionality.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-10 of Patent 10,237,757 as unpatentable.