PTAB invalidates targeted advertising patents, preserving billions in Google ad revenue

By Steve Brachmann & Gene Quinn
November 13, 2017

“Google Stand” by Sam Greenhalgh. Licensed under CC BY 2.0.

It is no secret that the fortunes of Mountain View, CA-based tech conglomerate Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL) are largely based upon the advertising revenues accrued through its subsidiary Google and its incredibly popular search engine. The company’s most recent earnings report for the third quarter of 2017 shows that, of the company’s $22.5 billion in revenues for the quarter, $19.8 billion came from Google advertising revenues. That’s nearly 90 percent of Google’s entire revenues for the third quarter; the rest comes from Google’s other revenues ($2.4 billion) and Alphabet’s Other Bets ($197 million). The name of the corporation may be Alphabet but that entity is nothing without Google and its advertising revenues.

This third quarter revenue trend for Google is no anomaly. The first nine months of 2017 saw the tech giant take in $64.2 billion in revenues. $57 billion worth of those revenues were generated from Google’s advertising operations. If advertising is incredibly valuable to Google, it appears that Google is also very valuable to the world of advertising according to analysis of a 2016 Internet advertising report published this April by the Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB). The IAB concluded that Internet advertising revenues in the United States through 2016 reached $75.2 billion for the year, an increase of 21.8 percent over 2015’s totals. Using IAB’s advertising revenue totals released in a quarterly update in June 2016, Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, provided analysis of IAB revenue numbers and corporate earnings reports in a blog post which showed that 90 percent of Internet advertising revenue growth went to Google and fellow American tech giant Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) Google itself took 52 percent of digital ad growth based on those numbers. These were similar to numbers released by Kint in response to the IAB’s 2016 full year report.

Google’s advertising revenues are generated through properties like AdSense and DoubleClick Ad Exchange through which advertisers purchase ad inventory and most customers pay Google on a cost-per-click basis; others pay on a cost-per-impression basis. Part of what makes these services so valuable is that they have mechanisms for targeting audiences based on the massive compendium of data which Google has on all Internet users through its search engine. Google openly admits that AdSense targets audiences in multiple ways including contextual targeting based on keyword analysis, placement targeting for specific location placement on publisher web pages, personalized advertising meant to engage viewers based on demographic and interest data, as well as language targeting based on appropriate language on publisher web pages. AdSense also offers device targeting so that advertisers can “show your ads to the right people across all devices, based on their specific location, time of day, and device type.” Similarly, buyers on the DoubleClick Ad Exchange can benefit from demand-side platforms buying over multiple exchanges “using sophisticated targeting capabilities and optimization algorithms.

Google’s ability to target audiences with its advertising tools, then, is of crucial importance to the entire company. It’s just too bad that Google and Alphabet do not own the patent covering the technology which is earning them about $20 billion each quarter. Some wonder whether this could explain why Google has been so actively engaged in very public efforts on Capitol Hill and in the Courts to weaken the U.S. patent system.

In September 2012, Memphis, TN-based B.E. Technology, L.L.C., filed a suit alleging claims of patent infringement against Google in the Western District of Tennessee, asserting claims from two patents owned by the company. Those patents are:

  • U.S. Patent No. 6628314, titled Computer Interface Method and Apparatus with Targeted Advertising. Issued to B.E. Tech in September 2003 and listing Martin David Hoyle as the inventor, this patent covers the system of upgrading software for an application providing advertising over the Internet.
  • U.S. Patent No. 6771290, titled Computer Interface Method and Apparatus with Portable Network Organization System and Targeted Advertising. Another Hoyle patent issued in August 2004 to B.E. Tech, it covers a toolbar application developed by B.E. Tech providing a user with a graphical user interface (GUI) to interact with the data system providing an advertising platform.

To this day, B.E. Tech’s intellectual property covering the sector of Internet advertising continues to be foundational, and this is a fact confirmed by Google’s own search engine. A screenshot of Google search results conducted on November 7th using the term ‘targeted advertising patent’ (without quotes) shows that the most cited document on the topic is another Hoyle patent assigned to B.E. Tech. U.S. Patent No. 6141010, same title as the ‘314 patent and issued in October 2000, which claims an apparatus for use by a computer to provide a computer’s user with access to information resources via a browser in a way that benefits both the end user and advertisers by providing advertisers with a system for obtaining demographic data from end users to develop accurate profiles for targeting. Google’s search engine shows that the ‘010 patent has been cited a total of 804 times through November 7th. According to Google Patents’ entry on the ‘010 patent, the patent has been referenced as a forward citation in 1,032 U.S. patents and patent applications.

In December 2013, Judge Jon Phipps McCalla entered a motion to stay the proceedings between B.E. Tech and Google pending resolution of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Samsung, Facebook and others at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). According to statistics collected from Lex Machina, a total of 14 post grant challenges were brought against both the ‘290 and ‘314 patents. These 14 challenges matured into nine instituted trials. In each of those trials, final decisions were issued that found all challenged claims unpatentable. It is worth noting that the institution rate was 100% with several challenges being joined together to consolidate for purpose of administrative trial at the PTAB.

“Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one. Throughout Google’s evolution as a privately held company, we have managed Google differently. We have also emphasized an atmosphere of creativity and challenge, which has helped us provide unbiased, accurate and free access to information for those who rely on us around the world.”

These words serve as the introductory language to Google’s S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from April 2004, the same month the company had its stock publicly listed for its initial public offering (IPO). The S-1 filing notes that, with respect to intellectual property rights claims, “we may have to pay damages or stop using technology found to be in violation of a third party’s rights.” At that time, Google was engaged in a patent infringement suit filed by Overture for patents covering bid-for-placement and pay-for-performance patents, which were allegedly infringed by Google’s AdWords program. Google settled that suit in August 2004 by offering Yahoo, Overture’s parent company, 2.7 million shares of Google stock valued at about $328 million.

Of course, that settlement came at a time when a company like Google couldn’t rely on the PTAB to render more than 90 percent of challenged patents as defective at the time of the Overture deal, or that story may have ended differently. In B.E. Tech’s case, it had to defend its property rights at an Article I tribunal run by an agency, which has admitted that panels are stacked in order to achieve policy objectives of the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Interestingly, the same trio of administrative patent judges (APJs) sat on the panel on each IPR proceeding involving B.E. Tech’s patents: Sally Medley, Lynne Pettigrew and Kalyan Deshpande. An article from Intellectual Property on PTAB judges, reprinted by Ropes & Gray with permission, notes that all three of these judges were in the top 10 in terms of highest cancellation rates on some or all claims. Both Medley and Deshpande had a 100 percent cancellation rate on some or all claims, and Pettigrew had a 97 percent cancellation rate. The only PTAB trials where all three of these judges sat on the same panel were the trials adjudicating the validity of B.E. Tech’s patents. Whether it was the luck of the draw, or intentional, it would be difficult – if not impossible – for B.E. Tech to have drawn a worse panel of judges.

Two judges assigned to the same set of cases having a 100 percent cancellation rate and a third judge assigned to the same set of cases having a 97 percent cancellation rate is why patent owners feel the PTAB has a clear agenda and cannot be trusted as a fair arbiter. While some in the industry say it is not helpful to characterize individuals, or judges, as pro-patent versus anti-patent, judges having a 100 percent cancellation rate defies explanation when dealing with a property right that has already been thoroughly examined and is supposed to be statutorily presumed valid, with all burdens favoring the patent owner. Call it what you will, anti-patent or not, between 100 percent cancellation rates and stacking PTAB panels to place the thumb on the scales of justice, the agency does not comport with any objective sense of what American jurisprudence is supposed to be. It makes the system look and feel rigged – and rigged against the patent owner who is put at great disadvantage to defend a property right of Constitutional magnitude.

The B.E. Tech IPRs also raise a very troubling and deeply disturbing question that must be asked. The USPTO has already admitted that Director Michelle Lee stacked PTAB panels to ensure outcomes were to her liking. How pervasive was this practice, and did the selecting of APJs to make up panels become influenced by the Director in cases other than those where panels were stacked? In other words, was B.E. Tech just assigned the worst imaginable panel a patent owner could receive through a random selection process, or were APJs selected for these cases in order to guarantee claims would be lost by the patent owner for some other reason?

While it may seem crazy to even repeat what seem to largely be conspiracy theories swirling through the community, there are no doubt many patent owners that feel that Google received different justice citing to the fact that Michelle Lee was a former Google executive. Whether that is the case or not, there is no doubt that the PTAB has needlessly brought these questions onto itself through a series of nearly incomprehensible decisions and scandals. Stacking panels is but one scandal, not having a judicial ethics policy, which allowed one PTAB judge who formerly represented Apple to decide 25 IPRs filed by Apple is another scandal. Not accepting timely submitted evidence and grossly misreading the statute and rules seems almost mundane at this point.

All of this may soon change after the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC on November 27th. The case will decide whether the PTAB acts in violation of the U.S. Constitution by extinguishing private property rights in a non-Article III forum without a jury. Whether the Supreme Court decides that the PTAB acts in violation of the Constitution, many patent owners hope the Supreme Court will at a minimum acknowledge that the PTAB works consistently to the detriment of patent owners in favor of efficient infringers.

The Author

Steve Brachmann

Steve Brachmann is a writer located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He has become a regular contributor to IPWatchdog.com, writing about technology, innovation and is the primary author of the Companies We Follow series. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients.

Steve Brachmann

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and founder of IPWatchdog.com. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and an attorney with Widerman Malek. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 12 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Night Writer November 13, 2017 4:28 pm

    Great article. Pretty scary that Google has so much power.

    (The statistic that is being used to try to counter this type of information is that 80 percent of IPRs are filed against patents that are in litigation.)

  2. Curious November 13, 2017 7:43 pm

    Just another day at the PTAB …

    APJ-1 “hey … did you see that Google is getting sued on this patent”
    APJ-2 “not to worry … that patent is invalid”
    APJ-1 “wow — did you look at the prior art already?”
    APJ-2 “what do mean, ‘look at the prior art already’?”
    APJ-1 “I mean the prior art against that patent must be pretty good”
    APJ-2 “No — I didn’t look at the prior art. Who cares about the prior art? I’ll just find a way to invalidate it. Its not too hard — just make sh*t up. The Federal Circuit buys most of what were selling anyway”
    APJ-1 “I knew there was a reason the boss likes you more than me”

  3. Chuck Lantz November 14, 2017 6:23 am

    “Don’t be evil” has morphed into “Don’t get caught being evil.”

  4. Tim November 14, 2017 9:06 am

    Sickening! After Google was able to get the huge adwords infringement trial tossed a few years ago: Vringo vs IP Internet. Andrew Lang worked for Lycos when he invented the adwords program. He later went to work for Vringo. In the lawsuit in Judge Jackson’s Norfolk Ct, Google, AOL, Target and Gannett were found guilty by a 12 person jury: 12-0 on all 14 charges. A huge settlement, with future royalties. “However” Google took the case to the Federal Appeals Ct. 2 judges of 3, Mayer and Wallace, tossed the case, as judge Chen (formerly head of USPTO) and only judge with a computer engineering background “highly dissented”. Vringo took the case with Atty David Buies to the Supreme Ct, which wouldn’t bother to see the case. Vringo, now Symbol: FH is now at $1.19, even after a 10/1 reverse split. A corrupted system, with Google Cash. Google has since doubled. And Obama put Google heads throughout our government.

  5. Paul F. Morgan November 14, 2017 9:13 am

    What support for these alleged due process machinations, and what distinctions over the cited prior art, were presented to the Fed. Cir. in appeals of these IPRs [filed in response to these belated suits on these old patents] and why were those appeals not successful?

  6. Chris Gallagher November 14, 2017 11:59 am

    This well-researched, documented post deserves national distribution and attention. Alphabet’s notorious disdain for IP protection has been shielded too long by its pervasive political influence. Google’s users query it 3.5 billion times every day. While responding Google accumulates user data to sell to advertisers. There is nothing unlawful about this storage and sales business model. Admittedly it is cheap, useful, and convenient. It is also close to creepy and heavily reliant on user trust. Accordingly
    Google should use its political clout to build that trust not strain its boundaries. As Eric Schmidt reportedly has quipped,”The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.” (See Franklin Foer’s “World Without Mind” p. 52) ) Google has been too close too often. And BTW, Paul F. Morgan’s attempt (at 5) to launch an “if true” counter-argument IMHO is not helpful.            

  7. MD Hoyle November 14, 2017 1:13 pm

    Paul F. Morgan: There was nothing prior to these patents because the technology did not exist. These Patents had the ability to react, using a client-side database that later could be transferred to the server side (Bandwidth Issues 1990s) It wasn’t until 2003 that Google even attempted targeted advertising. By that time the patents were 5 years old.

    In the IPR, the petitioners used a variety of dis-similar technologies that no one in their right mind would ever combine together. in fact, it was impossible. The expert witness for Facebook acknowledged, under oath, that his report was written by the attorneys and he had not even read it! In spite of this, the judges of the PTAB accepted all this as gospel and canceled the patents. So much for due process!

  8. Anon November 14, 2017 3:19 pm

    Mr. Morgan is rather notorious for his devotion to the IPR-support-no-matter-what group.

    His post then is no surprise.

  9. Paul F. Morgan November 14, 2017 3:32 pm

    Google has a huge lobbying budget for Congress [perhaps now even larger than pharmas?], but if some of you cannot understand the difference between attacking that and making (or publicly re-publishing) unsupported allegations of the decisions of named judges being bought you are begging for sanctions or libel suits.

  10. Paul F. Morgan November 14, 2017 5:58 pm

    Anon, since you and so many other commentators here are such constant false prophets, especially about IPRs and their numerous constitutionality challenges, I am glad to be able to provide a pro bono public service for the mislead, and honest advice about features of IPRs that could actually be improved.

  11. Anon November 14, 2017 7:18 pm

    Interesting Mr. Morgan, that you claim that I am a “false prophet” when that is your role. For all of your whining about others “begging for sanctions or libel suits,” you tend to falsely accuse me awfully quickly. You will want to be careful, standing amongst all those shards of your former glass house.

    Feel free to do more than snipe from the sidelines and engage on the merits of any legal discussion (Constitutional in nature or otherwise).

    Until you actually do so – kindly be a bit more honest in your characterizations. That type of “Accuse Others” nonsense has a far shorter leash on this forum.

  12. Paul F. Morgan November 16, 2017 10:31 am

    Re: “The expert witness for Facebook acknowledged, under oath, that his report was written by the attorneys and he had not even read it! In spite of this, the judges of the PTAB accepted all this as gospel..”
    If that was decisive, please explain why this was not effectively presented to the Fed. Cir. as a due process violation?

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website