Oral Hearing Presentation
`of Patent Owner
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`Versata Exh. 2017
`Callidus v. Versata
`CBM2013-00054
`
`
`of Patent Owner
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`Versata Exh. 2017
`Callidus v. Versata
`CBM2013-00054
`
`
`
`Express Lexicography
`
`“commission
`engine”
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`
`“In accordance with one embodiment of the invention “In accordance with one embodiment of the invention
`
`DMSS is built on top of a commission engine configured to DMSS is built on top of a commission engine configured to
`
`model and calculate commission for the sales force. A model and calculate commission for the sales force. A
`
`commission engine takes two inputs, a commission commission engine takes two inputs, a commission
`
`model and a set of transactions, and generates ledger model and a set of transactions, and generates ledger
`
`items (that correspond to payments) as output. Each items (that correspond to payments) as output. Each
`
`transaction represents a physical sales transaction, such as transaction represents a physical sales transaction, such as
`
`distributor selling a life insurance policy. The commission distributor selling a life insurance policy. The commission
`
`model represents two critical pieces of data: the sales team model represents two critical pieces of data: the sales team
`
`hierarchy and the commission schedules. The sales team hierarchy and the commission schedules. The sales team
`
`hierarchy comprises a hierarchy of all sales people that will hierarchy comprises a hierarchy of all sales people that will
`
`be responsible for a transaction. The commission be responsible for a transaction. The commission
`
`schedules define formula for translating transactions into schedules define formula for translating transactions into
`
`ledger items. Commission schedules may be modeled ledger items. Commission schedules may be modeled
`
`through quota, bonus, and plan objects. ”through quota, bonus, and plan objects. ”
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), pp. 17-19.
`‘304 Patent, Exh. 1001, 7:1-17
`2
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “commission engine”
`32. A system for managing relationships between a
`appointment data object associated with said
`first party and a second party comprising:
`at least one distributor is in compliance with a
`set of industry regulations;
`an interface for obtaining a plurality of business
`rules defining relationships between a product
`said plurality of modules comprising, a selling
`provider and at least one distributor;
`agreements module configured to enable
`said product provider to define and create a
`a database source comprising a plurality of data
`selling agreement with said at least one
`objects representative of said at least one
`distributor; and
`distributor, at least one selling agreement and
`at least one license or appointment associated
`said plurality of modules comprising, a payment
`with said at least one distributor;
`module configured to determine said
`commission amount to said at least one
`a commission engine configured to determine
`distributor.
`a commission amount associated with said at
`least one distributor by evaluating said at least
`one selling agreement data object;
`a plurality of modules comprising, a distributor
`administration module for managing said
`plurality of data objects;
`said plurality of modules comprising, a licensing
`and appointment module configured to
`determine if said at least one license or
`
`
`“an engine that takes two inputs, “an engine that takes two inputs,
`
`a commission model and a set of a commission model and a set of
`
`transactions, and generates transactions, and generates
`
`ledger items (that correspond to ledger items (that correspond to
`
`payments) as output”payments) as output”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), pp. 17-19.
`‘304 Patent, Exh. 1001, 7:1-17
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`3
`
`
`
`Express Lexicography
`
`
`“The engines and modules of DMSS may, for example, be“The engines and modules of DMSS may, for example, be
`
`configured to perform at least the following functions:configured to perform at least the following functions:
`
`…M
`…M
`
`
`odel[] agreements or contracts between the financialodel[] agreements or contracts between the financial
`
`services company or provider and the distributors whoservices company or provider and the distributors who
`
`sell the products. These agreements are termed ‘Sellingsell the products. These agreements are termed ‘Selling
`
`A selling agreement defines aA selling agreement defines a
`
`Agreements’.Agreements’.
`
`hierarchy of sales people that can sell productshierarchy of sales people that can sell products
`
`under that contract, it defines what products can beunder that contract, it defines what products can be
`
`sold in that agreement, it defines what commissionsold in that agreement, it defines what commission
`
`schedules can be used in that agreement, and itschedules can be used in that agreement, and it
`
`defines which sales people participate in whichdefines which sales people participate in which
`
`commission schedule. The DMSS may utilize thecommission schedule. The DMSS may utilize the
`
`terms defined in selling agreements to calculateterms defined in selling agreements to calculate
`
`compensations for all distributors.”compensations for all distributors.”
`
`“selling
`agreement”
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), pp. 20-24.
`‘304 Patent, Exh. 1001, 6:27-56
`4
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “selling agreement”
`32. A system for managing relationships between a
`said plurality of modules comprising, a selling
`first party and a second party comprising:
`agreements module configured to enable
`said product provider to define and create a
`selling agreement with said at least one
`distributor; and
`said plurality of modules comprising, a payment
`module configured to determine said
`commission amount to said at least one
`distributor.
`
`“a representation of an agreement or “a representation of an agreement or
`
`contract between parties that defines contract between parties that defines
`
`a hierarchy of sales people that can a hierarchy of sales people that can
`
`sell products under that contract, sell products under that contract,
`
`defines what products can be sold in defines what products can be sold in
`
`that agreement, defines what that agreement, defines what
`
`commission schedules can be used commission schedules can be used
`
`in that agreement, and defines which in that agreement, and defines which
`
`sales people participate in which sales people participate in which
`
`commission schedule”commission schedule”
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), pp. 17-19.
`‘304 Patent, Exh. 1001, 7:1-17
`5
`
` database source comprising a plurality of data
`objects representative of said at least one
`distributor, at least one selling agreement
`and at least one license or appointment
`associated with said at least one distributor;
`a commission engine configured to determine a
`commission amount associated with said at
`least one distributor by evaluating said at least
`one selling agreement data object;
`a plurality of modules comprising, a distributor
`administration module for managing said
`plurality of data objects;
`said plurality of modules comprising, a licensing
`and appointment module configured to
`determine if said at least one license or
`appointment data object associated with said at
`least one distributor is in compliance with a set
`of industry regulations;
`
`…a
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Abstract Ideas are Unlike Alice
`
`“[A]n invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply “[A]n invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
`
`because it involves an abstract concept…”because it involves an abstract concept…”
`
`Instead, the Court established the inquiry as the determination Instead, the Court established the inquiry as the determination
`
`of whether the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea.of whether the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea.
`Alice’s categories of abstract ideas:
`•
`“fundamental economic practices”
`•
`“a principle, in the abstract…a fundamental
`truth; an original cause; [or] a motive”
`“an idea of itself”
`“mathematical relationship or formula”
`
`•
`•
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`6
`
`Alice Corporation Pty., Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355-56 (2014);
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), pp. 26-34.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Has Not Satisfied Its Statutory Burden
`
`
`Evidentiary Standards. – In a post-grant review instituted under this Evidentiary Standards. – In a post-grant review instituted under this
`
`chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`35 USC § 326(e).
`
`“[I]n these proceedings, there is no record
`evidence to support the proposition that either of
`the abstract ideas alleged by Petitioner, namely
`‘determining compensation for a validated
`distributor’ or [‘]validating a distributor to begin
`selling products,’ is a fundamental economic
`practice.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), p. 32.
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`7
`
`
`
`Fundamental Economic Practices
`
`Abstract Idea
`“hedging”
`
`Bilski
`
`Alice Corp.
`
`“intermediated
`settlement”
`
`Proofs
`Hedging is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in
`our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance
`class.“ … see, e.g., D. Chorafas, Introduction to Derivative
`Financial Instruments 75-94 (2008); C. Stickney, R. Weil, K.
`Schipper, & J. Francis, Financial Accounting: An Introduction to
`Concepts, Methods, and Uses 581-582 (13th ed.2010); S.
`Ross, R. Westerfield, & B. Jordan, Fundamentals of Corporate
`Finance 743-744 (8th ed.2008).
`Emery, Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of
`the United States, in 7 Studies in History, Economics and
`Public Law 283, 346-356 (1896).
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), pp. 30-34.
`Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
`8
`CBM2013-00054
`
`
`
`Section 325(a)(1) Bars Institution
`
`“A post-grant review may not be instituted
`under this chapter if, before the date on
`which the petition for such a review is filed,
`the petitioner or real party in interest filed
`a civil action challenging the validity of a
`claim of the patent.”
`
`35 USC § 325(a)(1); Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 32), pp. 52-53.
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`9
`
`
`
`Section 325(a)(1) Bars Institution
`
`…
`
`Reply at 14.
`
`…
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`Exhibit 2001 at 4.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Section 325(a)(1) Bars Institution
`
`Petitioner: “[N]othing in AIA § 18 incorporates
`Chapter 32 in its entirety for CBM review.”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper No. 34), p. 13.
`
`“The transitional proceeding implemented
`pursuant to this subsection shall be regarded
`as, and shall employ the standards and
`procedures of, a post-grant review under
`chapter 32 of title 35…”
`
`AIA § 18(a)(1).
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`11
`
`
`
`Section 325(a)(1) Bars Institution
`
`Petitioner: “Petitioner’s DJ complaint was
`filed (but never served)...”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper No. 34), p. 14.
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 2011.
`
`
`
`Oral Hearing Presentation
`of Patent Owner
`
`CBM2013-00054
`
`October 29, 2014
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
