Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
March 3, 2020, Decided
Dyk, Circuit Judge.
Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber") appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board"). The Board declined to find certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,647 ("the '647 patent") unpatentable as obvious. We reverse the Board's determination of non-obviousness as to the independent claims, vacate the Board's determination as to the dependent claims, and remand for further proceedings.
X One, Inc., ("X One") owns the '647 patent, which is directed to exchanging GPS data between two devices. The patent's background section characterizes the prior art as limited to "one way location sharing"—that is, the sharing [*2] of a location of a first device to a second device, but not from the second device back to the first device. '647 patent, col. 1, l. 32. The patent, by contrast, is said to provide for two-way location sharing. The specification explains that the claimed invention allows "mutual tracking and optional position mapping displays of members of groups and instant buddies." '647 patent, col. 2, ll. 36-38. In particular, the patent discloses a "Buddy Watch application" and a "Mapit" method with which a user can track and map other users, and also share the user's location with other users.
The '647 patent has three independent claims: claims 1, 22, and 28. Claim 1 recites:
A method of tracking proximity of position associated with a first wireless device relative to a position of a second wireless device, wherein one of the first wireless device and the second wireless device is associated with a provider of a desired service and the other of the first wireless device and the second wireless device is associated with a requestor of the desired service, the method comprising:
causing receipt of information on the first wireless device representing the position of the second wireless device and a map associated with the position [*3] associated with the first wireless device and the position of second wireless device; request from the requestor for the desired service; andRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6604 *; 799 Fed. Appx. 868; 2020 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 10105; 2020 WL 1027690
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. X ONE, INC., Appellee
Notice: THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [*1] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-01264.
X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31622 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 6, 2017)
Disposition: REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED.
wireless, launching, map, user, taxi, invoked, display, update, terminal, desired, customer, specification, limitations, portable, reserved, patent, mobile telephone, discloses, provider, minutes, independent claim, prior art, transmitted, requestor, selecting, invocation, sharing, teach, team
Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Substantial Evidence, Claims & Specifications, Specifications, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, Fact & Law Issues, Construction Preferences