Google has won an appeal in the Patrick Zuili vs. Google, LLC case. Google had filed petitions with the USPTO office seeking a covered business method patent review of several patents. The USPTO Trial and Appeal Review Board reviewed them, and found that Google’s patents were not infringing upon Mr. Zuili’s patent. The patents are related to how someone identifies invalid or illegitimate impressions and clicks on PPC ads.
More specifically, the patents, collectively, teach a method and system that relate to identifying invalid or illegitimate “impressions” and “clicks” for online “pay-per-click” and “pay-per-impression” advertisers. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board had issued three final written decisions where it found the patents eligible for CBM review pursuant to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, and the asserted claims directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Google had filed petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board, seeking covered business method patent review of claims 1–3, 6, 10, 14–15, 18–19, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,667 (“the ’667 patent”), claims 1-3, 5–6, 10–11, 14–15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,326,763 (“the ’763 patent”), and claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057 (“the ’057 patent”).
Mr. Zuili had presented various theories that the integrity of the PTAB proceedings had been tainted. The court, in this decision, reviewed the claims and found that his claims are “insufficiently supported”.
For example, Mr. Zuili had claimed that the USPTO’s Director “stacked the judges” on the CBM panel, not in favor or Mr. Zuili. He also claimed that the PTAB erred in relying on certain testimony submitted to support Google because “the declarants were not reliable due to “inherent conflicts of interest””. At the same time, Mr. Zuili admitted that he couldn’t prove his allegations. The court, in this decision, rejected Mr. Zuili’s unsupported accusations.
The court also considered other arguments and found them “unpersuasive”. So, in this ruling they upheld the written decisions of the USPTO Trial and Appeal board. You can read the final decision here.
