PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`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. 6,871,325
`Issue date: March 22, 2005
`
`Title: Information Management and Synchronous Communications System
`with Menu Generation
`
`CBM: Unassigned
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321
`AND § 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 1
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written Description
`A.
`and Definiteness Requirement of § 112 ............................................... 5
`The Challenged Claims Fail to Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`under § 101 ........................................................................................... 8
`REQUIRED DISCLOSURES ...................................................................... 10
`A. Mandatory Notices ............................................................................. 10
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ........................ 10
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ...................................... 12
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ................ 17
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .............................. 19
`
`B.
`
`Filing Date Requirements ................................................................... 20
`Compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ............................................. 21
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Certificate of Service on Patent Owner (37 C.F.R. §
`42.205(a)) .............................................................................................. 21
`
`The Filing Fee (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b) and 42.203(a)) .............. 21
`
`C. Additional Disclosures ....................................................................... 22
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable (37
`1.
`C.F.R. § 42.208(c)) ............................................................................. 22
`
`2.
`
`Eligibility Based on Time of Filing (37 C.F.R. § 42.303) ........ 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 2
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Power of Attorney (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)) .................................... 22
`
`A Legible Copy of Every Exhibit in the Exhibit List (37
`C.F.R. § 42.63) .................................................................................... 22
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ..................................................................... 23
`A.
`Eligibility Based on Infringement Suit (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a)) ........ 23
`B.
`Eligibility Based on Lack of Estoppel (37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b)) ........ 24
`C.
`The ‘325 Patent Is a CBM Patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a)) ................ 25
`Claims 1-15 Meet the Definition of a CBM ................................. 26
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1-15 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)) ............. 38
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.304(b)(3)) ................................. 38
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ................................................ 38
`1.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`V.
`
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 112 ............... 40
`The Challenged Claims Do Not Satisfy the Written Description
`A.
`Requirement. ...................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 3
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ‘325 Patent Does Not Provide a Written Description
`Sufficient to Describe the Later Presented Continuation
`Claims Directed to a “Synchronous Communications
`System” When Only Use of a Local Database is
`Described In the Original Specification ........................................ 42
`
`Claims 8-9 Fail to Satisfy the Written Description
`Requirement ......................................................................................... 48
`
`B.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Indefinite for Mixing Apparatus
`and Method Elements ......................................................................... 52
`Claims 11-15 Are Indefinite ............................................................... 56
`C.
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER § 101 ............... 58
`A.
`Section 101 Analysis .......................................................................... 58
`B.
`The Challenged Claims Impermissibly Claim An Abstract Idea ....... 61
`C.
`The Challenged Claims Also Fail
`the “Machine or
`Transformation Test” ......................................................................... 71
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under Mayo ............................. 75
`D.
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 4
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`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, 77
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-271, 2010 WL 4952758 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2010) ............ 3, 4, 51
`
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 38
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 47
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .......................................................... 41
`
`Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc.,
`73 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 56
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................59, 63, 65, 67, 71
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) (“Bilski II”) ................................. 8, 58, 59, 60, 71, 74, 75
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 51
`
`CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................58, 59, 60, 66, 70
`
`Compression Tech. Solutions LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`2013 WL 2368039 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013) ........................................ 58, 59, 74
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 5
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`CyberSource Corp. v Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................... 60, 63, 64, 66, 70, 72, 73, 74
`
`Datamize, L.L.C. v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 57
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 59, 66, 72, 73
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ........................................................................................ 8, 60
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................................... 8, 73
`
`Halliburton Energy Svcs., Inc. v. M-I, LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 56
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 41
`
`ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
`558 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 42
`
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC,
`No. CBM2012-00007 (BJM) (Ex. 1036) ............................................................ 34
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................... 5, 52, 53, 54
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 53, 54, 55
`
`LizardTech v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1731 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................ 47
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 6
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`Mayo Collaboration Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................... 8, 58, 59, 60, 66, 70, 75, 76
`
`Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co.,
`5 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 56
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 48
`
`Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC,
`641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 59
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., No. CBM2012-0001 ................................ 26, 60
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 61, 65
`
`In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp.,
`498 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.,
`156 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 41, 47
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 76, 77
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc.,
`6:12-cv-00375, Dkt. No. 38, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 2012) (Ex.
`1065) ................................................................................................................... 67
`
`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) ................................................................................................................... 67
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 42, 47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 7
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`In re Zletz,
`893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 38
`
`RULES AND STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18 ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119 ........................................................................................................ 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 41
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 .............................................................................................. 1, 22, 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`RULES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15 ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63 ............................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.206 ................................................................................................... 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ................................................................................................... 38
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 .............................................................................................. 25 31
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ...........................................................................17, 21, 23, 25, 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 8
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 ................................................................................................ 25, 31
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (March 8, 2011) ................................................ 26, 28, 29, 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) ........... 50
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2163 ........................................................................................... 40, 41, 47
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2173.05 .............................................................................................. 5, 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-viii-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 9
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MASTER LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1001* U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`FANDANGO 1002* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
`FANDANGO 1003* Ameranth August 15, 2011 Press Release
`FANDANGO 1004 Ameranth July 2, 2012 Press Release
`FANDANGO 1005* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`FANDANGO 1006 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)
`FANDANGO 1007 Menusoft, ECF No. 331
`FANDANGO 1008 Eventbrite Complaint
`FANDANGO 1009*
`‘077 Notice of Allowability Examiner’s Amendment
`FANDANGO 1010*
`‘077 Aug. 21, 2009 Reply & Amendment
`FANDANGO 1011 Certificate of Service
`FANDANGO 1012 Powers of Attorney
`FANDANGO 1013 Kayak Complaint
`FANDANGO 1014 Hotels.com Complaint
`FANDANGO 1015 Orbitz Complaint
`FANDANGO 1016 Hotel Tonight Complaint
`FANDANGO 1017 Travelocity Complaint
`FANDANGO 1018 Expedia Complaint
`FANDANGO 1019 Hotwire Complaint
`FANDANGO 1020 Wanderspot First Amended Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ix-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 10
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1021 Micros First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1022 Fandango Complaint
`FANDANGO 1023 StubHub Complaint
`FANDANGO 1024 Ticketmaster and Live Nation Complaint
`FANDANGO 1025 OpenTable’s Second Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1026 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48734 - 48753
`FANDANGO 1027 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48680 - 48732
`FANDANGO 1028 SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 36 (P.T.A.B. January 9,
`2013)
`FANDANGO 1029 Matal, J., A Guide to the Legislative History of the
`America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. Bar. J.
`No. 4
`FANDANGO 1030 77 Fed. Reg. 157, pp. 48756 - 48773
`FANDANGO 1031* U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
`FANDANGO 1032 U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`FANDANGO 1033* U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`FANDANGO 1034 Petitioners’ Address List
`FANDANGO 1035
`‘850 Office Action of May 22, 2001 at 2-3
`Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, No.
`FANDANGO 1036
`CBM2012-00007 (BJM), Paper 16 at 18 (P.T.A.B.
`Jan. 31, 2013)
`FANDANGO 1037 Menusoft ECF No. 235
`FANDANGO 1038 Opentable First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1039* Papa John’s II Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-x-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 11
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1040* Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
`FANDANGO 1041 Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
`FANDANGO 1042 Larson Declaration (including Exhibits A-B)
`FANDANGO 1043 157 Cong. Rec. S1360-1394
`FANDANGO 1044 Apple Complaint
`FANDANGO 1045 Domino’s Third Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1046* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Fandango
`FANDANGO 1047* Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to StubHub
`FANDANGO 1048 Ameranth’s Infringement Contentions to Micros
`Systems
`FANDANGO 1049 Agilysys Complaint
`FANDANGO 1050 Best Western Complaint
`FANDANGO 1051* Grubhub First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1052 Hilton First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1053 Hyatt First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1054 Marriott Complaint
`FANDANGO 1055 Mobo Systems Complaint
`FANDANGO 1056 Ordr.in Complaint
`FANDANGO 1057* Pizza Hut Complaint
`FANDANGO 1058* Seamless First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1059 Starbucks Complaint
`FANDANGO 1060 Starwood First Amended Complaint
`FANDANGO 1061 Usablenet First Amended Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-xi-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 12
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`DESCRIPTION (BOLDED IF USED)
`EXHIBIT NO.
`FANDANGO 1062 NOT USED
`FANDANGO 1063 SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper No. 70 (P.T.A.B. June 11,
`2013)
`FANDANGO 1064 Vacation Exch. LLC v. Wyndham Exch. & Rentals,
`Inc., No. 2:12-cv-04229, Dkt. No. 27 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
`18, 2012)
`FANDANGO 1065 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 1014, Page 13
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`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. 6,871,325 (the “‘325 Patent”). In particular, Petitioners
`
`request a cancellation of Claims 1-15 of the ‘325 Patent (“Challenged Claims”) as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112.
`
`The ‘325 Patent was originally filed on November 1, 2001 as U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/015,729 (“‘729 Application”). The ‘729 Application is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850 (“‘850 Patent”). A certificate of
`
`correction issued on April 17, 2007.
`
`Ameranth has filed 40 different patent infringement actions alleging
`
`infringement of the ‘325 Patent by no less than four different and distinct
`
`industries.1 The claimed subject matter of the ‘325 Patent is directed to activities
`
`
`1 See Exhibit 1041, Litigation Report on U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325; 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 14
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`in the hospitality industry, e.g., restaurant ordering, reservations and wait-list
`
`management, and is financial in nature. Claims 1-10 are directed to information
`
`management and synchronous communications systems for generating and
`
`transmitting menus for restaurant and other applications in the hospitality industry.
`
`Claims 11-15 are directed
`
`to
`
`information management and synchronous
`
`communications systems for use with wireless handheld computing devices and
`
`the internet based on hospitality applications and data in in the hospitality industry,
`
`e.g., restaurant ordering, reservations and wait-list management. See, e.g., Exhibit
`
`1032, ‘325 Patent, Claim 4 (“customer ordering via internet”); Claim 6 (“customer
`
`ordering via wireless device”). 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, Ameranth’s July 2, 2012 Press Release at 2. Therefore, the ‘325
`
`
`(4) “restaurant point of sale, and/or reservations, and/or online/mobile ordering
`
`companies.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 15
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`Patent covers a “financial product or service” as a covered business method patent
`
`under AIA Section 18.
`
`While Ameranth currently asserts the ‘325 Patent against Petitioners, this is
`
`not the first time Ameranth has litigated the ‘325 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 ‘850,2 ‘325, 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,
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent. No. 6,384,850 (“’850 Patent”) is the parent application to the
`
`‘325 Patent. Petitioners are contemporaneously filing a covered business method
`
`review petition on the ‘850 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 1014, Page 16
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`and 10 of the ‘325 Patent, and claims 1 and 3 of the ‘733 Patent). While only
`
`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 1-15 of the ‘325 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 ‘325 Patent is not a patent for technological inventions. Therefore, the ‘325
`
`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 1-15 of the ‘325
`
`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 1014, Page 17
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Fail to Satisfy the Written
`Description and Definiteness Requirements of § 112
`
`Claims 1-15 of the ‘325 Patent fail to satisfy requirements under 35 USC
`
`§ 112, including the written description and definiteness requirements, and are
`
`therefore invalid.
`
`First, Claims 1-15 are indefinite because they recite systems including a
`
`method step. For example, independent Claim 1 of the ‘325 Patent is directed to
`
`an “information and synchronous communications system,” but also recites a
`
`method step: “said parameters being selected from the modifier and submodifier
`
`menus.” As yet another example, Claim 13 is directed to a system but recites a
`
`method step in which “application 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, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 18
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`indefinite, as are their dependent claims, which comprise all of the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`As a second independent ground, all of the Challenged Claims are invalid
`
`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 1032, ‘325 Patent at 7:17-26 (stating that
`
`the steps taken in building a menu includes “Download the menu database to the
`
`handheld device.”); ‘325 Patent at 11:9-14 (“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-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 19
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`in
`
`synchronization between handheld devices,
`
`internet
`
`and desktop
`
`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 the third and fourth grounds for unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
`
`Claims 1-10 also invalid based on the written description requirement and
`
`definiteness requirement. 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.
`
`Finally, as a fifth independent ground, Claims 11-15 are indefinite under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 due to the phrase “any other communication protocol.” This claim
`
`term lacks a meaningfully precise claim scope, and the specification is silent as to
`
`the identity or nature of any communications protocol. Neither the prosecution
`
`history of the ‘325 Patent nor its parent offer any definition or other objective basis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 20
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`to determine the bounds of the “any other communications protocol” language.
`
`Therefore, Claims 11-15 are invalid.
`
`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).
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Apple, Exhibit 1014, Page 21
`
`

`

`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,871,325
`
`
`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 Challenged Claims are merely
`
`directed to a computerized system for facilitating “efficient generation of
`
`computerized menus” using a general purpose computer. Exhibit 1032, ‘325
`
`Patent at Abstract. In claiming “an information management and synchronous
`
`communications system for generating and transmitting menus,” the claims are
`
`directed to nothing more than a general purpose computer using general purpose
`
`programming, and the specification states that the system employs “typical”
`
`computer elements. Exhibit 1032, ‘325 Patent at 5:39-61. Furthermore, the
`
`specification fails to disclose any algorithms for the synchronous communications
`
`of menus. In essence, the ‘325 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 the claims recite a computer “operating
`
`system,” “central processing unit,” “data storage device,” and “wireless handheld
`
`computing device,” t