PTAB

PGR2022-00045

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. Wepay Global Payments LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Display Screen Portion with Animated Graphical User Interface
  • Brief Description: The ’702 patent claims an ornamental design for an animated graphical user interface (GUI) on a display screen. The design consists of a transitional sequence between two images: the first image shows a "Three Square Arrangement" (three solid squares positioned like corners of a larger square), and the second image shows the text "$0.00".

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: The sole claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Reddy.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Reddy (Application # 2018/0260806).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Reddy, which discloses a system for QR code-based mobile payments, shows an animated GUI that is substantially the same as the claimed design. Reddy’s figures depict a mobile device GUI that first displays a screen for scanning a QR code (FIG. 9), which includes a three-square arrangement visually identical to that in the ’702 patent. Subsequently, the GUI displays a payment amount screen (FIG. 12) showing "$0.00", also substantially the same as in the ’702 patent. Petitioner contended that this sequence of images creates the same overall visual impression as the patent’s first embodiment. Reddy also teaches an optional intermediate step of viewing QR details, which Petitioner argued anticipates the patent’s second embodiment.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that under the ordinary observer test for design patents, any minor differences in the relative size or spacing of the elements between Reddy and the ’702 patent are immaterial and do not prevent a finding of anticipation.

Ground 2: The sole claim is anticipated under § 102 by GrabPay.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: GrabPay (a YouTube video demonstrating the GrabPay payment application, published March 20, 2020).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the GrabPay video discloses a payment transaction on a mobile device that displays an animated GUI substantially the same as the patent's second embodiment. The video shows an initial screen with a QR code that includes the same Three Square Arrangement as the ’702 patent. This is followed by an intermediate image showing a checkmark and the word "Success", and then a final image showing "$0.00". Petitioner argued this sequence is visually indistinguishable from the claimed design, which includes an unclaimed intermediate image between the two claimed images.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner argued that GrabPay qualifies as a printed publication and was otherwise available to the public before the patent's filing date. The argument emphasized that an ordinary observer would find the overall visual appearance of the GrabPay GUI and the claimed design to be substantially the same.

Ground 3: The sole claim is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the Digital Debit Video in view of the Digital Debit Patent.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Digital Debit Video (a YouTube video, published November 20, 2017) and the Digital Debit Patent (Patent D.857,054).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Digital Debit Video constitutes a primary reference because it discloses a design "basically the same" as the claimed design. The video shows an animated GUI for a financial transaction displaying a QR code with the Three Square Arrangement, followed by an image showing "USD 0.00". The only significant difference from the claimed design is the use of the text "USD" instead of the "$" symbol.
    • Motivation to Combine: The Digital Debit Patent, which relates to the same "Digital Debit" application and shares the same inventor as the ’702 patent, discloses a nearly identical GUI but uses the conventional "$0.00" format. Petitioner argued that the two references are so closely related that the appearance of the "$0.00" in the Digital Debit Patent would suggest its application to the Digital Debit Video. A designer of ordinary skill would be motivated to substitute the common "$" symbol for "USD" for clarity, convention, and interchangeability, as both represent U.S. dollars.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution would be a simple, predictable design choice with a high expectation of success, resulting in the design claimed in the ’702 patent.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that the claim is obvious over Reddy by itself, arguing that any minor differences in the spacing of the squares are de minimis. Alternatively, Petitioner argued the claim is obvious over Reddy in view of SGQR (a YouTube video), contending a designer would be motivated to substitute SGQR's QR code into Reddy's interface to increase the amount of data stored.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Broken Lines Form No Part of the Claim: Petitioner contended that the claim should be construed to include only the elements shown in solid lines: the animated sequence of the "Three Square Arrangement" followed by "$0.00". All elements in broken lines, including the display screen, device housing, and other text, represent unclaimed environmental subject matter.
  • Embodiments are Patentably Indistinct: Petitioner argued that the patent's two embodiments are obvious variants of one another, as the only difference is an intermediate image (FIG. 4) that is shown entirely in broken lines and is therefore unclaimed. Thus, any prior art that invalidates one embodiment necessarily invalidates the other.
  • Position and Size are Not Limitations: Citing the Patent Owner’s own infringement contentions from parallel district court litigation, Petitioner argued that the claim should be construed broadly. Patent Owner has accused GUIs with widely varying sizes, placements, and configurations of the claimed elements. Petitioner asserted the Patent Owner should be held to this broad interpretation, under which the relative position and size of the Three Square Arrangement and the "$0.00" are not limitations of the claimed design, making the prior art even more directly applicable.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner presented arguments that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both §325(d) and §314(a) (Fintiv factors).
  • §325(d): Petitioner argued denial is improper because the primary prior art references (Reddy, SGQR, GrabPay, and the Digital Debit Video) were never presented to or considered by the examiner during the original prosecution. The patent received only a cursory examination and a first action allowance.
  • §314(a) / Fintiv: Petitioner argued the Fintiv factors favor institution because the parallel district court litigation against Samsung was in a nascent stage. No trial date had been set, no significant discovery had occurred, and no invalidity contentions had been served, meaning there was minimal investment by the court and parties and little overlap in developed issues.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of post-grant review and cancellation of the sole claim of the ’702 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.