PTAB

IPR2026-00049

Google LLC v. Headwater Research LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Wireless End-User Device with Differentiated Network Access Status for Different Device Applications
  • Brief Description: The ’359 patent describes a wireless end-user device with both a wireless wide area network (WWAN) modem and a wireless local area network (WLAN) modem. The device applies a differential traffic control policy to manage internet access for various applications, differentiating access based on network conditions and application status to manage network capacity and performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Shell and Cole - Claim 26 is obvious over Shell in view of Cole.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shell (Application # 2004/0224668) and Cole (Application # 2008/0080458).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Shell and Cole taught all elements of the challenged claim. Shell disclosed a “connection manager” on a mobile device that automates and manages network connections for various applications. This manager applies logic to prioritize connection requests, for example, by giving a higher priority to a request from a currently active application over one running in the background. Cole disclosed a mobile device with a plurality of communication interfaces, including both a WWAN modem and a WLAN modem, and a connection manager that selects the appropriate network based on factors like power state and network load. The combination of Shell's application-aware prioritization logic with Cole's multi-modem (WWAN/WLAN) hardware and power-management policies met the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 26 depends. For claim 26 specifically, Petitioner asserted that Shell’s teaching of prioritizing applications based on user interaction (e.g., a user "activating a control in a user interface" to synchronize email) directly corresponded to the claim limitation of determining that an application is "active... based on a user interaction."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Shell's prioritization techniques with Cole's multi-modem and power management features to improve the overall efficiency, flexibility, and power consumption of the mobile device. Shell already recognized power consumption as a factor for connection management, and Cole provided a detailed implementation for managing power by selecting between power-intensive WWAN connections and other options. This combination would predictably result in a device that more efficiently allocates both network resources and battery power.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because integrating Cole's known power management and network selection techniques into Shell's connection manager framework would have required only routine programming skills. The combination amounted to using a known technique (power management) to improve a similar device (a smartphone with network management).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Shell, Cole, and Flack - Claim 26 is obvious over Shell and Cole in view of Flack.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shell (Application # 2004/0224668), Cole (Application # 2008/0080458), and Flack (Application # 2008/0159175).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground added Flack to the Shell/Cole combination to further support the obviousness of claim 26. Flack disclosed a system for selectively establishing network connectivity by monitoring communications activity and distinguishing between user-initiated applications and non-user-initiated background processes. Flack explicitly taught that if a client determines a communication activity "represents user actions," it may establish network connectivity for that application. Petitioner argued this directly taught the limitation of determining an application is active based on user interaction. Flack's system can block a background program from accessing a network connection that has already been established for a foreground, user-active program, reinforcing the core functionality claimed.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Flack’s explicit teachings on distinguishing user-initiated from background activity into the Shell/Cole combination. While Shell taught prioritization, Flack provided a more detailed rationale and technique for handling requests from background applications (e.g., piggybacking requests), which Shell mentioned but did not fully elaborate on. Combining Flack's logic would further Shell's goal of promoting cost efficiency and would prevent background tasks from overloading a connection or introducing latency for the active application, leading to a predictably improved system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Flack's blocking and user-activity-detection logic into the Shell/Cole device. Shell already disclosed blocking certain requests, and the addition of Flack’s more specific criteria for doing so would involve routine programming. The combination was merely the application of a known technique to a similar system to yield predictable results, such as enhanced network performance and battery life.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • While Petitioner asserted that no terms required construction to resolve the dispute, it noted that the term “differential traffic control policy,” used in the ’359 patent, was construed in a district court case involving a related patent.
  • The proposed construction was "a rule for controlling network traffic that distinguishes between two or more things." Petitioner's obviousness arguments relied on this plain and ordinary meaning, contending that Shell's prioritization of one application's network access over another constituted such a "rule."

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner noted that a prior IPR filed by a different party against the ’359 patent had been instituted by the Board but was later vacated for discretionary reasons. Petitioner emphasized that those reasons were "not applicable here," preemptively arguing that discretionary denial would be inappropriate in the present case.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claim 26 of the ’359 patent as unpatentable.