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
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and WEC Energy Group have settled the IPR concerning patent 10,596,517 and seek to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Apex Beam’s U.S. Patent 10,568,113 covering LTE beam‑failure recovery. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over Xia, Jover, 3GPP‑LTE and Yi references under §103 and requests institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel ExpeditionaryvsDLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises filed a joint motion in a PGR to terminate the proceeding and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that left its 3D NAND flash patent claims unchallenged. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored reply evidence. A reversal could affect the enforceability of claims 8 and 10 of U.S. Patent 10,937,806.
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.