PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC, HOTEL TONIGHT INC., HOTWIRE,
`INC., HOTELS.COM, L.P., KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., LIVE NATION
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC., MICROS SYSTEMS, INC., ORBITZ, LLC,
`OPENTABLE, INC., PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC.,
`TICKETMASTER, LLC, TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, WANDERSPOT LLC,
`PIZZA HUT, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA,
`INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, GRUBHUB, INC., SEAMLESS NORTH
`AMERICA, LLC, ORDR.IN, INC., MOBO SYSTEMS, INC., STARBUCKS
`CORPORATION, EVENTBRITE, INC., BEST WESTERN
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., HILTON RESORTS CORP., HILTON
`WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., HYATT
`CORPORATION, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., STARWOOD
`HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., AGILYSYS, INC.,
`USABLENET, INC., AND APPLE INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`Issue date: May 7, 2002
`
`Title: Information Management and Synchronous Communications System
`with Menu Generation
`
`CBM: Unassigned
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321
`AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 1
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written Description
`A.
`and Definiteness Requirements of § 112 ............................................. 5
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`under § 101 ........................................................................................... 7
`REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ...................................................................... 10
`A. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................. 10
`1.
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................... 10
`2.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................ 12
`3.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............. 16
`4.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .......................... 18
`Filing Date Requirements ................................................................... 20
`1.
`Compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...................................... 20
`2.
`Proof of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. §
`42.205(a)) ................................................................................. 20
`The Filing Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203(a)) ............ 21
`3.
`C. Additional Disclosures ....................................................................... 21
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37
`1.
`C.F.R. § 42.208(c)) .................................................................. 21
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing (37 C.F.R. § 42.303) ....... 22
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)) ............................... 22
`
`2.
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 2
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`4.
`
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List (37
`C.F.R. § 42.63) ......................................................................... 22
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 22
`A.
`Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a)) ........ 22
`B.
`Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b)) ........ 24
`C.
`The ‘850 Patent Is a CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ................ 24
`1.
`Claims 1-16 Meet the Definition of a CBM ............................ 25
`2.
`Claims 1-16 Are Not Directed to a “Technological
`Invention” ................................................................................. 30
`IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................................. 37
`Claims
`for Which Review
`is Requested
`(37 C.F.R.
`A.
`§ 42.304(b)(1)) ................................................................................... 37
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(2)) ............. 37
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ................................. 38
`1.
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ......................................... 38
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 112 ............... 40
`Claims 1-16 Are Indefinite for Mixing Apparatus and Method
`A.
`Elements ............................................................................................. 40
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Written Description
`Requirement. ...................................................................................... 44
`
`B.
`C.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 3
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`The ‘850 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description
`Sufficient
`to
`Describe
`the
`“Synchronous
`Communications System” Claimed in Claims 12-16
`When Only Use of a Local Database is Described in the
`Original Specification .............................................................. 46
`Claims 1-11 Fail to Satisfy the Written Description and
`Definiteness Requirements ...................................................... 52
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 101 ............... 56
`A.
`Section 101 Analysis .......................................................................... 56
`B.
`The Challenged Claims Impermissibly Claim an Abstract Idea ........ 59
`C.
`The Challenged Claims Fail the “Machine or Transformation
`Test” ................................................................................................... 69
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under Mayo ............................. 73
`D.
`The Challenged Claims Are Distinguishable From Ultramercial ..... 75
`E.
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 4
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`No. 2011-1486, 2013 WL 4749919 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013) ........................ 8, 76
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 38, 39
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 51
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 45
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................57, 61, 63, 64, 68
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (“Bilski II”) .............................................................passim
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 55
`
`CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................56, 57, 58, 64, 68
`
`Compression Tech. Solutions LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`2013 WL 2368039 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) ........................................ 56, 57, 72
`
`CyberSource Corp. v Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................passim
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 57, 63, 70, 71
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ........................................................................................ 8, 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 5
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................................... 7, 71
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 46
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 46
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................... 5, 40, 41, 42, 43
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 42, 43
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM) (Ex. 1036) ............................................................ 34
`
`LizardTech v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1731 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................ 51
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 46
`
`Mayo Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................passim
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 41
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 57
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
`No. CBM2012-0001 ............................................................................... 25, 26, 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 6
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 59, 63
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 40
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 46, 51
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 75
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc.,
`6:12-cv-00375, Dkt. No. 38, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012) (Ex.
`1065) ................................................................................................................... 65
`
`Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. & Rentals, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012) (Ex.
`1064) ................................................................................................................... 65
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 46, 51
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 38
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .............................................................................................. 1, 22, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 7
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`35 U.S.C. § 365 ........................................................................................................ 45
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.15 ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.206 ................................................................................................... 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ....................................................................................... 25, 30, 31
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...........................................................................16, 20, 22, 24, 37
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................................................................................... 10, 12, 16, 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.203 ................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.205 ................................................................................................... 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208 ................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ............................................................................................. 23, 24
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.303 ................................................................................................... 22
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 8
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (March 8, 2011) ................................................ 26, 28, 30, 32
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 ................................................................................................ 25, 32
`
`Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act Part
`II .......................................................................................................................... 26
`
`MICROSOFT® PRESS COMPUTER DICTIONARY 479 (4th ed. 1999) ........... 54
`
`MPEP § 2163 ......................................................................................... 45, 46, 50-51
`
`MPEP § 2173.05 .................................................................................................. 5, 41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 9
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO1001* U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`FANDANGO1002* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`FANDANGO1003* Ameranth August 15, 2011 Press Release
`
`FANDANGO1004 Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release
`
`FANDANGO1005 Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`
`FANDANGO1006
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., et al., No. 2:07-
`CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758, at 1-2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20,
`2010)
`
`FANDANGO1007 Menusoft, ECF No. 331
`
`FANDANGO1008 Eventbrite Complaint
`FANDANGO1009*
`FANDANGO1010*
`
`‘077 Aug. 21, 2009 Reply & Amendment
`
`‘077 Notice of Allowability Examiner’s Amendment
`
`FANDANGO1011 Certificate of Service
`
`FANDANGO1012 Powers of Attorney
`
`FANDANGO1013 Kayak Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1014 Hotels.com Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1015 Orbitz Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1016 Hotel Tonight Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1017 Travelocity Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 10
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO1018 Expedia Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1019 Hotwire Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1020 Wanderspot First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1021 Micros First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1022 Fandango Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1023 StubHub Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1024 Ticketmaster and Live Nation Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1025 OpenTable’s Second Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1026
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48734 - 48753
`
`FANDANGO1027
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48680 - 48732
`
`FANDANGO1028
`
`FANDANGO1029
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. January 9,
`2013)
`
`Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the
`America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar. J.
`No. 4
`
`FANDANGO1030
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48756 - 48773
`
`FANDANGO1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`FANDANGO1032* U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`FANDANGO1033* U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`
`FANDANGO1034 Petitioners’ Address List
`
`FANDANGO1035
`
`‘850 Office Action of May 22, 2001 at 2-3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 11
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`FANDANGO1036
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No.
`CBM2012-00007 (BJM), Paper 16 at 18 (P.T.A.B.
`Jan. 31, 2013)
`
`FANDANGO1037 Menusoft ECF No. 235
`
`FANDANGO1038 Opentable First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO1039* Papa John’s II Complaint
`FANDANGO1040* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`FANDANGO1041* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`
`FANDANGO1042 Larson Declaration (including Exhibits A-B)
`
`FANDANGO1043
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360-1394
`
`FANDANGO1044 Apple Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1045 Domino’s Third Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO1046* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Fandango, pp.
`**
`FANDANGO1047* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to StubHub, pp.
`**
`FANDANGO1048 Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Micros
`Systems, pp. **
`
`FANDANGO1049 Agilysys Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1050 Best Western Complaint
`FANDANGO1051* Grubhub First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1052 Hilton First Amended Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-xi-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 12
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO1053 Hyatt First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1054 Marriott Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1055 Mobo Systems Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1056 Ordr.in Complaint
`FANDANGO1057* Pizza Hut Complaint
`FANDANGO1058* Seamless First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1059 Starbucks Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1060 Starwood First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1061 Usablenet First Amended Complaint
`
`FANDANGO1062 NOT USED
`
`FANDANGO1063
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 70 (P.T.A.B. June 11,
`2013)
`
`FANDANGO1064
`
`Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. & Rentals,
`Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
`18, 2012)
`FANDANGO1065 Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., 6:12-cv-
`00375, Dkt. No. 38 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012)
`* Denotes exhibits not cited in and not filed with this petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-xii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 13
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`Ameranth, Inc. (“Ameranth”) has instituted patent infringement cases
`
`against Petitioners. Under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act, Petitioners request a Covered Business Method (CBM) post-grant
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (the “‘850 Patent”). In particular, Petitioners
`
`request a cancellation of Claims 1-16 of the ‘850 Patent (“Challenged Claims”) as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`
`On September 21, 1999, Ameranth filed U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/400,413, which eventually issued as the ‘850 Patent.
`
`The ‘850 Patent is directed to an information management and synchronous
`
`communications system for generating and transmitting menus in the hospitality
`
`industry, e.g., for restaurant ordering, reservations and wait-list management
`
`(Claims 1-11) and an information management and synchronous communications
`
`system for use with wireless handheld computing devices and the internet in
`
`processing hospitality applications and data in the hospitality industry, e.g., for
`
`restaurant ordering, reservations and wait-list management (Claims 12-16). The
`
`operations, functions and results of the claimed systems in Claims 1-16 are
`
`managing information and communication for activities that are financial in nature.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 14
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`See, e.g., Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent, Claim 2, 15:12-14 (“[a]n information
`
`management synchronous communications systems . . . wherein the second menu
`
`is a restaurant menu”); 1:6-8 (“[t]his invention relates to an information
`
`management and synchronous communications system and method for generation
`
`of computerized menus for restaurants . . . .”). For example, Ameranth states that
`
`hospitality
`
`information
`
`technology systems performing functions such as
`
`“online/mobile ordering, hotel/restaurant reservations, event ticketing, payment
`
`processing/mobile wallets on smart phones, frequency, voice integration and
`
`related functionality” require the use of Ameranth’s “patented inventions for
`
`synchronized operations.” Exhibit 1004 at 2.
`
`Ameranth has filed 40 different patent infringement actions alleging
`
`infringement of the ‘850 Patent by no less than four different and distinct
`
`industries.1 While Ameranth currently asserts the ‘850 Patent against Petitioners,
`
`
`
`1 See Exhibit 1005, Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 Exhibit
`
`1004, Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release (announcing actions against (1) “hotel
`
`chains;” (2) on-line “travel aggregators;” (3) on-line “ticketing companies;” and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 15
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`this is not the first time Ameranth has litigated the ‘850 Patent. On June 28, 2007,
`
`Ameranth sued Menusoft Systems Corporation and Cash Register Sales & Service
`
`of Houston, Inc. (collectively, “Menusoft”) in the Eastern District of Texas for
`
`alleged infringement of the ‘850, ‘325,2 and ‘7333 Patents (“Menusoft Action”).
`
`The Menusoft Action proceeded to a trial in which the jury found that all asserted
`
`claims were invalid for anticipation and obviousness. See Exhibit 1006, Ameranth,
`
`Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp., No. 2:07-CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Sept. 20, 2010) (finding invalidity of claims 1 and 4 of the ‘850 Patent, claims 6, 9,
`
`and 10 of the ‘325 Patent, and claims 1 and 3 of the ‘733 Patent). While only
`
`
`
`(4) “restaurant point of sale, and/or reservations, and/or online/mobile ordering
`
`companies.”).
`
`2 U.S. Patent. No. 6,871,325 (“’325 Patent”) is a continuation of the ‘850
`
`Patent. Petitioners are contemporaneously filing a covered business method
`
`review petition on the ‘325 Patent.
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 (“’733 Patent”) is a continuation-in-part of the
`
`‘850 Patent. Petitioners are contemporaneously filing a covered business method
`
`review petition on the ‘733 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 16
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`certain of the Challenged Claims were at issue in the Menusoft Action, and the
`
`invalidity verdict was ultimately vacated as a result of settlement,4 the jury
`
`correctly determined that the asserted claims were invalid.
`
`In addition, the claimed subject matter of Claims 1-16 of the ‘850 Patent as a
`
`whole fails to recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the
`
`prior art and fails to solve a technical problem using a technical solution. As such,
`
`the ‘850 Patent is not a patent for technological inventions. Therefore, the ‘850
`
`Patent is a covered business method patent under AIA Section 18 and is eligible
`
`for the CBM review.
`
`As shown by the facts and analysis in this Petition, Claims 1-16 of the ‘850
`
`Patent as a covered business method patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101 and 112 and must be canceled.
`
`
`
`4 The parties in the Menusoft Action reached a settlement wherein Menusoft
`
`agreed not to oppose vacatur of the invalidity determinations in the final judgment.
`
`Exhibit 1007, Menusoft Motion for Indicative Ruling, ECF No. 331.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 17
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written
`Description and Definiteness Requirements of § 112
`
`Claims 1-16 of the ‘850 Patent fail to satisfy the written description and
`
`definiteness requirements of § 112 and are therefore invalid.
`
`First, Claims 1-16 are indefinite because they recite systems including a
`
`method step. For example, independent Claim 1 in the ‘850 Patent is directed to an
`
`“information management and synchronous communications system,” but also
`
`recites a method step: “said parameters being selected from the modifier and
`
`submodifier menus.” Independent Claim 12 is also directed to an “information
`
`management and synchronous communications system” but recites a different
`
`method step: “applications and data are synchronized between the central
`
`database, at least one wireless handheld computing device, at least one Web server,
`
`and at least one Web page.”
`
`When, as here, “[a] single claim [] claims both an apparatus and the method
`
`steps of using the apparatus, [the claim] is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
`
`paragraph.” See IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(p)(II)). Because they claim a system
`
`that includes a method step, independent Claims 1 and 12 are indefinite, as are
`
`their dependent claims, which comprise all of the Challenged Claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 18
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`As a second independent ground, all of the Challenged Claims are invalid
`
`based on the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, because
`
`Ameranth claimed technology that Applicants did not invent and that is not
`
`disclosed in the specification. Ameranth asserts in concurrent litigation that the
`
`claimed synchronous communication system encompasses both
`
`(1)
`
`the
`
`synchronization of information stored in a central database with information stored
`
`in a database on a connected handheld device and (2) sending information stored in
`
`a central database through Internet communications without a local copy of “to-be-
`
`synchronized” data resident in a database or otherwise on the connected handheld
`
`device. The specification only arguably supports the former and, therefore, fails to
`
`provide the required written description for the latter type of communication in
`
`which there is no copy of the information in a database of or resident on a
`
`connected handheld device. See Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent at 7:4-12 (stating that
`
`the steps taken in building a menu include “Download the menu database to the
`
`handheld device.”); Exhibit 1031 ‘850 Patent at 10:63-11:3 (“In the preferred
`
`embodiment, the menu generation approach of the present invention uses Windows
`
`CE®,” which “provides the benefits of a familiar Windows 95/98/NT® look and
`
`feel [and] built-in synchronization between handheld devices, internet and desktop
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 19
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`infrastructure . . . .”). Because there is no support to establish that the Applicants
`
`were in possession of the full scope of the claimed subject matter as interpreted by
`
`Ameranth, the Challenged Claims fail to meet the written description requirement
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`As third and fourth grounds for unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`Claims 1-11 are also invalid based on the written description requirement and
`
`definiteness requirements. The claimed subject matter requiring transmission of a
`
`second menu to a web page is not adequately described in the specification. As
`
`such, the specification fails to convey with reasonable particularity that the
`
`patentee was in possession of the claimed subject matter. The claim language fails
`
`the definiteness requirement as well because the language is non-sensical: A “web
`
`page” is a document, not a device.
`
`B.
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject
`Matter under § 101
`
`The Challenged Claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are
`
`therefore invalid under § 101. Abstract ideas are not patentable. Gottschalk v.
`
`Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). To be patentable, a claim must do more than
`
`simply state the law of nature or abstract idea and add the words “apply it.” Mayo
`
`Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 20
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`When evaluating a claim under § 101, the key question is whether the claims do
`
`significantly more than simply describe the law of nature or abstract idea. Adding
`
`steps that merely reflect routine, conventional activity do not make ineligible
`
`subject matter eligible for a patent. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298. Furthermore, the
`
`“prohibition against patenting abstract
`
`ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by
`
`attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
`
`environment’ or adding ‘insignificant post-solution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos,
`
`130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (2010) (“Bilski II”) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
`
`175, 191-92 (1981)); see also Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire
`
`Software, Inc., No. 2011-1486, 2013 WL 4749919, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2013)
`
`(finding patent ineligible system claims that merely recited a corresponding
`
`method without other “meaningful limitations”).
`
`Indeed, Ameranth openly admits that the invention is merely directed to a
`
`computerized system for facilitating “efficient generation of computerized menus”
`
`using a general purpose computer. Exhibit 1031, ‘850 Patent at Abstract. In
`
`reciting “an information management and synchronous communications system for
`
`generating and transmitting menus,” Claims 1-11 of the ‘850 Patent (albeit
`
`concerning use for a financial product or service) are directed to nothing more than
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1013, Page 21
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,384,850
`
`a general purpose computer using general purpose programming, and the
`
`specification states that the system employs “typical” computer elements. Exhibit
`
`1031, ‘850 Patent at 5:33-54. Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose any
`
`algorithms for the synchronous communications of menus. In essence, the ‘850
`
`Patent simply computerizes the well-known concept of generating menus and
`
`facilitating orders from the menus, a concept that has been performed by humans
`
`“verbally” or by “pen and paper” for years before the patent application was filed.
`
`Although Claim 1 recites a computer “operating system,” “central processing
`
`unit,” “data storage device,”