PTAB

IPR2026-00080

Meta Platforms Inc v. Weple IP Holdings LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MOBILE DEVICE STREAMING MEDIA APPLICATION
  • Brief Description: The ’591 patent discloses a system for coordinating and distributing programmed media streams. The system is based on a server that receives media messages associated with expiration information, selects subsets of those messages for inclusion in one or more feeds, and provides the feeds to a mobile application for presentation to a user.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-30 are obvious over Fosnacht in view of Kirkpatrick.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fosnacht (Application # 2009/0271283), Kirkpatrick (Patent 8,826,145).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fosnacht taught a web-based media distribution platform where a server receives media messages from user computing devices, stores them, and associates them with expiration information (i.e., start and end dates for availability). Fosnacht’s server also selected subsets of these messages into different "feeds" (e.g., "Featured," "Most Viewed," "Newest") and provided them to users via a web browser. Petitioner contended this mapped to the core limitations of the independent claims. Kirkpatrick was added to address the potential construction of "mobile application" as a native (non-browser) application. Kirkpatrick taught a framework for integrating web content into a native app to provide an optimized user experience on a mobile device.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Fosnacht’s web service with Kirkpatrick’s native application framework to gain the well-known benefits of native apps, including better performance, deeper integration with device features, and a display optimized for smaller screens. Petitioner noted this was a strong and obvious market trend at the time.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying conventional and well-understood programming techniques to a known problem.

Ground 2: Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23 are obvious over Fosnacht in view of Kirkpatrick and Sharma.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fosnacht, Kirkpatrick, and Sharma (Application # 2007/0156520).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims requiring that interaction with an "advertisement prompt" initiates the presentation of additional advertising content or a webpage. While Fosnacht disclosed banner ads alongside its media feeds, Petitioner introduced Sharma to explicitly teach the common and well-understood functionality where clicking an online advertisement directs a user to a separate "landing page" associated with the advertiser. Sharma disclosed that this landing page could contain additional content and advertisements.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Sharma's teachings with the Fosnacht/Kirkpatrick system to implement a standard, revenue-generating advertising model. Providing a click-through to a landing page was a fundamental aspect of online advertising, and it represented a natural and obvious way to monetize the Fosnacht platform.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued success was reasonably expected because implementing clickable banner ads that link to landing pages was a conventional and widespread technique in web development.

Ground 3: Claims 9, 19, and 29 are obvious over Fosnacht in view of Kirkpatrick and Clancy.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fosnacht, Kirkpatrick, and Clancy (Patent 9,767,461).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims reciting the ability to "enable purchase of the scheduled airtime." Fosnacht taught associating media items with a "scheduled airtime" (i.e., start and end dates for availability) and suggested users might pay to post content. Petitioner used Clancy to explicitly teach a system for purchasing a specific duration of time for online content placement, including an interface to select start/end dates, check a price, and make a payment.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Clancy's payment-for-airtime model into the Fosnacht/Kirkpatrick system to create a direct revenue stream. This would allow users or publishers to pay for premium placement of their media during specific, desirable time periods, which Petitioner described as an obvious business enhancement for a media distribution platform.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable, as it involved integrating a known online business model (paying for content placement) into a media distribution system using conventional techniques.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • The petition contended that while no explicit claim constructions were necessary, the term "mobile application" was a central element. Petitioner’s arguments were structured to account for both a broad interpretation (which could include a web browser, as taught by Fosnacht) and a potential narrow interpretation (a "native" application). The inclusion of the Kirkpatrick reference in all grounds was intended to render the claims obvious even under this potential narrow, native-app construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The reasoning provided was that the ’591 patent was newly issued, and no prior validity rulings existed from any court or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Furthermore, the co-pending district court litigation was in a very early stage, with no trial date set and no claim construction orders issued.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’591 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.