Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 03/26/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BILLJCO, LLC, Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., Appellee ______________________

2023-2417 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022- 00427. ______________________

Decided: March 26, 2025 ______________________

COURTLAND COLLINSON MERRILL, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellant. Also represented by JOSEPH KUO, BRIAN MICHALEK, ELIZABETH A. THOMPSON, Chicago, IL; BRIAN LANDRY, Boston, MA.

FAN ZHANG, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, ar- gued for appellee. Also represented by DOUGLAS HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER; JAMES RICHARD BATCHELDER, CHRISTOPHER M. BONNY, JAMES LAWRENCE DAVIS, JR., East Palo Alto, CA; BRIAN LEBOW, CASSANDRA B. ROTH, New Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 03/26/2025

2 BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC.

York, NY; LARISSA S. BIFANO, DLA Piper US LLP, Boston, MA. ______________________

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. REYNA, Circuit Judge. BillJCo, LLC appeals from the final written decision of the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board that claims 1–3, 9, 11–13, and 19–20 of the ’011 patent are unpatentable as obvious. We affirm. BACKGROUND BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo”) owns U.S. Patent No. 10,292,011 (the “’011 patent”), which relates to providing peer-to-peer location based services for mobile data pro- cessing systems (“MS”). ’011 patent, 1:36–44. The patent explains that the prior art needed methods for providing “features and functionality” based on a mobile device’s lo- cation, even if the device was not equipped for being lo- cated. Id. at 3:65–67. The patent sought to address this need. The patent describes an exemplary embodiment where content is delivered from a local MS to nearby MSs for either alerts, in response to entering or leaving an area, or other conditions related to nearby MSs. Id. at 12:29–32. Claims 1–3, 9, 11–13, and 19–20 (the “challenged claims”) of the ’011 patent are at issue on appeal. Claim 1, which is representative and dispositive of the remaining claims, is directed to “[a] system including one or more sending data processing systems.” ’011 patent, Cl. 1 (448:10–13). Relevant to this appeal, the sending data pro- cessing system of claim 1 performs the following limitation: periodically beaconing outbound a broadcast unidirectional wireless data record for physically locating in a re- gion of the sending data processing system Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 03/26/2025

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 3

one or more receiving user carried mobile data processing systems . . . including: application context identifier data identifying location based content for presenting by a location based application of the receiving user carried mobile data processing system to a user interface of the receiving user carried mobile data pro- cessing system[.] ’011 patent, Cl. 1 (448:19–38) (emphasis added). Apple Inc. (“Apple”) petitioned for an inter partes re- view (“IPR”) of the challenged claims. 1 The Board granted institution and issued a final written decision in Apple’s favor. See Apple Inc. v. BillJCo LLC, No. IPR2022-00427, 2023 WL 5166729 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2023) (“Final Deci- sion”). During the review, the parties disputed the mean- ing of “periodic beaconing.” Id. at *4. The Board did not, however, address, nor did the parties raise, any arguments concerning the meaning of “application context identifier data identifying location based content.” See, e.g., id. The Board ultimately construed the patent claims according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Id. Apple argued the challenged claims were obvious over Ribaudo 2 in combination with Lorincz. 3 Ribaudo discloses a method for mobile devices to detect and interact with

1 Apple initially petitioned for IPR with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. and Aruba Networks, LLC, who later requested to be terminated from the proceedings, which the Board granted. Final Decision, 2023 WL 5166729, at *1. 2 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0030824 (“Ribaudo”). 3 Konrad Lorincz & Matt Welsh, Mote Track: A Ro- bust, Decentralized Approach to RF-Based Location Track- ing (2005) (“Lorincz”), at J.A. 2592–2608. Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 03/26/2025

4 BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC.

other mobile devices in proximity through communication services. For example, Ribaudo describes a device that de- tects nearby mobile devices and sends them business pro- file information. Lorincz discloses a tracking system that determines a mobile node’s location based on radio signal strength data received from multiple beacon nodes. The Board determined that the challenged claims were unpatentable in view of Ribaudo and Lorincz. Final Deci- sion, 2023 WL 5166729, at *18. The Board determined that Ribaudo disclosed every disputed claim element. Id. at *6– 14. The Board further determined that Lorincz expressly disclosed periodic beaconing. Id. at *11. It also agreed with Apple that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ribaudo with Lorincz’s periodic beaconing to con- serve power. Id. at *10. The Board rejected BillJCo’s as- sertion of objective indicia of non-obviousness. Id. at *18. BillJCo timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). DISCUSSION BillJCo raises two principal issues on appeal: that the Board erred in claim construction, and that the Board’s de- terminations relative to obviousness and objective indicia of non-obviousness are unsupported by substantial evi- dence. We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and its factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gart- side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000). I. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BillJCo asserts that the Board erroneously construed the term “location based content.” 4 Appellant Br. 21.

4 Although BillJCo asserts the Board erred in con- struing the entire phrase concerning “application context Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 03/26/2025

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 5

BillJCo specifically argues the Board erred in concluding that content shared due to device proximity qualifies as “lo- cation based content” under the term’s plain and ordinary meaning. 5 Id.; Final Decision, 2023 WL 5166729, at *12. We disagree. Claim construction is a question of law that can involve factual underpinnings. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 333 (2015). We review de novo the Board’s claim constructions that are based solely on intrinsic evidence, while we review subsidiary fac- tual findings involving extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020). BillJCo argues the intrinsic record requires that loca- tion based content must include information about the lo- cation of the sending system. Appellant Br. 22. We reject this argument. Claim 1 mentions location based content only three times with respect to: (1) data identifying the content for presentation, (2) presenting the content, and (3) the origin of the content being remote to both the sending and receiving systems. ’011 patent, Cl. 1 (448:33–34, 62– 65). We see no requirement that the location based content must include the location of the sending system. Moreover,

identifier data identifying location based content,” its ar- guments solely focus on the following three-word term: “lo- cation based content.” We therefore similarly confine our analysis to that specific term. 5 BillJCo conflates the Board’s discussion of Rib- audo’s business user profiles with its conclusion on the “lo- cation based content” limitation. Appellant Br. 22; Final Decision, 2023 WL 5166729, at *12. The Board did not equate “location based content” with general user profile information. Final Decision, 2023 WL 5166729, at *12. Instead, it found that sharing information based on a user’s proximity to a sender’s location satisfied that claim re- quirement. Id. Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 03/26/2025

6 BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC.

dependent claim 10 identifies several types of information that can be a part of the location based content, none of which require disclosing the sending system’s location. Id. at Cl. 10 (449:24–32). The patent specification also supports the Board’s de- termination that content shared due to device proximity qualifies as “location based content.” Final Decision, 2023 WL 5166729, at *12. First, the specification discloses de- livering content based on user proximity such as when a user enters a geofenced area. ’011 patent, 12:29–32. Sec- ond, the specification discusses proximity as an indication of user location. See, e.g., id. at 6:56–58 (“Locating func- tionality may include in-range proximity detection for de- tecting the presence of the MS.”), 14:7–8 (“[W]ireless proximity is used for governing automatic location deter- mination[.]”). Accordingly, the Board did not err in deter- mining that content shared based on user proximity—i.e., proximity-based content—is “location based content.” 6 II. OBVIOUSNESS BillJCo argues that the Board erred in its determina- tion that Ribaudo and Lorincz together disclose the as- serted claims, and that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references. We dis- agree. We first reject BillJCo’s obviousness arguments that are largely premised on claim construction positions that the Board properly rejected. See, e.g., Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43 F.4th 1374, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (concluding appellant’s patentability arguments that were based on properly rejected claim constructions “nec- essarily fail[ed]”); Appellant Br. 38; see supra Discussion Section I. Second, the Board credited, among other things,

6 Because the Board did not err in construing “loca- tion based content,” we need not reach Apple’s correspond- ing waiver argument. Appellee Br. 20. Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 03/26/2025

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 7

Apple’s expert testimony that a skilled artisan would use Lorincz’s periodic beaconing to provide accurate location data with minimal power. Final Decision, 2023 WL 5166729, at *10. We have previously held that such in- creased energy efficiency may establish a sufficient moti- vation to combine. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Substantial evi- dence therefore supports the Board’s obviousness findings. III. OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS Finally, BillJCo argues that the Board erred in its anal- ysis of objective indicia of non-obviousness. The Board found that BillJCo’s sole evidence of copying—unsolicited communications to Apple regarding its then-pending pa- tent applications—failed to show Apple altered its product designs to incorporate BillJCo’s patented technology. Fi- nal Decision, 2023 WL 5166729, at *16 (citing Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 941 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The Board next reasoned that Apple’s promotion of the claimed features in the accused products is not evidence of commercial success, such as “economic data or sales fig- ures.” Id. The Board also found that BillJCo’s licensing evidence failed to show the ’011 patent’s significance among over thirty licensed patents. Id. We have noted that “the mere existence” of licenses, alone, does not estab- lish secondary considerations sufficient to overcome an ob- viousness finding. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Based on the forgoing, we conclude that the Board’s non-obviousness de- termination is supported by substantial evidence. CONCLUSION We have considered BillJCo’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision that claims 1–3, 9, 11–13, and 19–20 of the ’011 patent are unpatentable as obvious. AFFIRMED Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 03/26/2025

8 BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC.

COSTS Costs against BillJCo.