Google got booted down the stairs at the CAFC on their PTAB patent loss appeal of a Simpleair, INC patent.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
GOOGLE INC.,
Appellant
v.
SIMPLEAIR, INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2016-1901
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-
00180.
______________________
Decided: March 28, 2017
______________________
JON WRIGHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC,
Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
by BRIAN LEE, MICHAEL V. MESSINGER, JOSEPH E.
MUTSCHELKNAUS.
JONAS BRAN JACOBSON, Dovel & Luner, LLP, Santa
Monica, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by
JOHN JEFFREY EICHMANN, GREGORY S. DOVEL.
______________________
GOOGLE 2 INC. v. SIMPLEAIR, INC.
Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
Google Inc. (“Google”) appeals the decision of the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), following an inter
partes review (“IPR”), upholding the patentability of U.S.
Patent No. 8,601,154 (“the ’154 patent”), owned by SimpleAir,
Inc. (“SimpleAir”). The PTAB’s decision turned on
whether a certain prior art reference cited by Google, in
combination with other art, rendered the ’154 patent’s
claims obvious and therefore unpatentable. Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) claim construction
standard, the PTAB concluded that Google’s
cited prior art reference did not teach a crucial claim
limitation. Without that limitation, Google’s obviousness
challenge failed, and the PTAB did not reach the additional
pertinent questions of whether the proposed combination
of references rendered the claims obvious. Google
timely appealed to this court.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim of the ’154 patent,
reads, in relevant part:
1. A method to transmit data from an information
source via a central broadcast server to remote
computing devices, the method comprising:
(a) generating data at the information
source, wherein the information source is
associated with an online service relating
to the generated data;
(b) identifying one or more users that have
subscribed to receive a notification relating
to the generated data;
(c) transmitting the generated data to a
central broadcast server configured to process
the generated data . . . transmit the
processed data to receivers communicaGOOGLE
INC. v. SIMPLEAIR, INC. 3
tively coupled with remote computing devices
associated with subscribed users,
wherein the central broadcast server:
(i) comprises one or more servers
associated with a parser to parse
the generated data received from
the information source;
(ii) is communicatively coupled to
at least one information gateway
. . . ; and
(iii) is communicatively coupled to
at least one transmission gateway
. . . .
‘154 patent, claim 1.
The disputed term at issue on appeal is the “central
broadcast server.” The PTAB construed the term central
broadcast server, as a matter of the BRI standard, to
mean “one or more servers that are configured to receive
data from a plurality of information sources and process
the data prior to its transmission to one or more selected
remote computing device.”
Google asserts on appeal that the PTAB erred in its
BRI claim construction. According to Google, the correct
BRI construction for central broadcast server should not
be limited to receipt of data from a plurality of information
sources but, instead, should only require receipt
from one, or more, information sources. Under its preferred
claim construction, wherein a central broadcast
server need only be configured to receive from a single
information source, Google’s cited prior art reference
would seem to teach a central broadcast server. Therefore,
if Google’s claim construction view prevails, the case
would require remand for further consideration of
Google’s obviousness challenge.
GOOGLE 4 INC. v. SIMPLEAIR, INC.
SimpleAir argues that Google waived its opportunity
to assert its current claim construction because it failed to
articulate the same before the PTAB and, instead, actually
agreed with the PTAB’s BRI interpretation of central
broadcast server.
For the reasons set forth below, we agree with SimpleAir
that Google waived the claim construction argument
it now makes. Therefore, we sustain the PTAB’s
BRI construction. As it did before the PTAB, Google also
maintains that its cited prior art reference teaches a
central broadcast server even under the PTAB’s BRI of
“central broadcast server,” i.e., “configured to receive data
from a plurality of information sources.” Google argues
that the PTAB rejected its arguments because it misapplied
its own claim construction, wrongfully importing
additional, unstated limitations. For the reasons below,
we disagree. Consequently, the PTAB’s conclusion that
Google fails to identify in the prior art a central broadcast
server must stand. Google’s obviousness challenge fails,
and we affirm the PTAB’s decision upholding the patentability
of the ’154 patent claims.
