Billjco, LLC v. Apple Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 C OLLINSON MERRILL , Saul Ewing Arnstein
& Lehr LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellant. Also
represented by J OSEPH K UO, BRIAN M ICHALEK, ELIZABETH
A. T HOMPSON, Chicago, IL; BRIAN L ANDRY , Boston, MA.
F AN ZHANG, Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC, ar-
gued for appellee. Also represented by D OUGLAS
HALLWARD-D RIEMEIER; J AMES RICHARD BATCHELDER ,
CHRISTOPHER M. B ONNY , J AMES L AWRENCE D AVIS , J R., East
Palo Alto, CA; BRIAN L EBOW , CASSANDRA B. ROTH , New
Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 1 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 2
York, NY; L ARISSA S. BIFANO, DLA Piper US LLP, Boston,
MA.
______________________
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and T ARANTO, 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: 2 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 2 of 8 --

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
Ribaudo2 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: 3 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 3 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 4
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).
D ISCUSSION
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: 4 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 4 of 8 --

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: 5 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 5 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 6
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. O BVIOUSNESS
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: 6 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 6 of 8 --

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. O BJECTIVE I NDICIA OF N ON-O BVIOUSNESS
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: 7 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 7 of 8 --

BILLJCO, LLC v. APPLE INC. 8
COSTS
Costs against BillJCo.
Case: 23-2417 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 03/26/2025

-- 8 of 8 --