Short Summary
GetTattle petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AfterWords' ‘811 patent covering transaction‑specific surveys. The petition relies on two prior‑art publications, Douglas and Ganesh, asserting they anticipate all claimed elements. Claim constructions are provided to bolster the anticipation argument.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, GetTattle, Inc. challenges claims 1‑7, 10, 13, 16, and 18‑19 of AfterWords, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 10,430,811, which relates to generating context‑based survey questions tied to point‑of‑sale transactions. The challenger asserts that the claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by two earlier publications: U.S. Publication No. 2015/0193794 (Douglas) and U.S. Publication No. 2014/0337098 (Ganesh). Detailed claim constructions for terms such as “Point of Sale Interface,” “survey token,” and “Purchase Detail Identifier” are supplied to support the anticipation analysis. The petition seeks cancellation of the identified claims, arguing that the prior art discloses every limitation of the asserted inventions.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in GetTattle, Inc. vs AfterWords, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ResMed Corp.vsCleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its PAP device patent. The petitioner contends the Board misapplied General Plastic, contrary to recent Director guidance. The request emphasizes different prior art and the need for efficient review of related patents.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’736 patent, with the Board finding all 13 challenged claims unpatentable for lack of novelty and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.
Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP
Apple has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01493. The Board set a brief response window for the patent owner and barred new evidence. The Director will decide on the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron's request for Director Review of PTAB decisions in two Netlist IPRs, leaving the Board's rulings final.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO denied XiFi Networks’ request for Director Review, leaving Samsung’s institution of multiple Wi‑Fi patents intact.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.