PTAB

PGR2021-00096

IRonSource Ltd v. Digital Turbine Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Instant Installation of Apps
  • Brief Description: The ’951 patent discloses a system for installing a software application on a mobile device without interrupting the user's current activity. When a user selects a link to install a new application, the system determines if a pre-existing "installation client" is available on the device to handle a background download and installation; if not, the system redirects the user to a conventional app store.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter - Claims 1-18 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.

  • Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept under the Alice two-step framework.
    • Abstract Idea (Alice Step 1): The claims were asserted to be directed to the abstract idea of improving user experience by downloading and installing software as a background task. Petitioner contended this is merely an implementation of multitasking, a fundamental and long-standing computer operation, used to achieve the business goal of improving ad conversion rates. The focus of the invention, as stated in the patent, is on user convenience rather than a technological improvement to the computer itself.
    • Lack of Inventive Concept (Alice Step 2): Petitioner argued the claims add no inventive concept to the abstract idea. The claims recite only generic hardware (processor, memory, network interface) arranged in a conventional manner. The functional steps—identifying a link selection, determining if an installer is available, invoking it for a background install, and redirecting to an app store as a fallback—were all described as conventional, routine, and predictable activities. The combination of these well-understood steps in a logical order does not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.

Ground 2: Anticipation by Pasha - Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-18 are anticipated by Pasha.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasha (Patent 10,353,686).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Pasha, which was not cited during prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Pasha teaches a "direct application install" feature that allows a third-party application to be downloaded and installed in the background while the user continues to interact with the host application in the foreground. Pasha’s "App Manager" and "Installer" components were argued to be the claimed "installation client." Crucially, Pasha also explicitly discloses that if its App Manager and Installer are unavailable, "the ordinary app store for the operating system may be used as a fallback," directly teaching the conditional redirection claimed in the ’951 patent. The petition provided a detailed, element-by-element mapping of Pasha’s disclosure to the independent and dependent claims.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Pasha and Yamada - Claims 2 and 13 are obvious over Pasha in view of Yamada.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Pasha (Patent 10,353,686), Yamada (Application # 2010/0095294).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 2 and 13, which require closing the installation client after installation is complete. While Pasha discloses the core background installation system, it does not explicitly state that the installer is closed. Petitioner argued Yamada remedies this by disclosing a "master installer" that is explicitly "closed" upon completion of all installation commands.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Pasha's system with Yamada's teaching for predictable reasons. Closing an application after its task is complete was a well-known and obvious design choice to conserve limited resources on mobile devices, such as processing power, memory, and battery life. Yamada's teaching to close the installer to enhance security would provide an additional, specific motivation to modify Pasha's system in this manner.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining the teachings involved applying a known software management principle (closing an idle process) to an existing installation framework.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 2, 4-6, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 are obvious over Pasha alone, arguing that the dependent claim features represent obvious design choices. Petitioner also asserted an alternative obviousness ground for claims 6 and 14 over Pasha in view of Molinet (Application # 2016/0142859) for its teachings on "deep links."

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the patentee acted as their own lexicographer for several key terms, and that these express definitions from the specification are controlling.
    • “installation client”: Defined in the patent as "an application running on the device and having the role of downloading and installing software applications on the device... [running] in the background for at least part of the time that it is active."
    • “installation file”: Defined as "a file that after download to the device enables installation of the app on the device."
    • “automatically download”: Defined as meaning "the installation file is downloaded by the installation client. without closing the current app or moving the current app into background operation."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of a Post-Grant Review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’951 patent as unpatentable on all asserted grounds.