UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`Ocean Tomo, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent Ratings, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`______________________
`
`Patent No. 9,075,849
`Filing Date: July 22, 2014
`Issue Date: July 7, 2015
`Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROBABILISTICALLY QUANTIFYING
`AND VISUALIZING RELEVANCE BETWEEN TWO OR MORE
`CITATIONALLY OR CONTEXTUALLY RELATED DATA OBJECTS
`_______________________
`
`Case CBM: Unassigned
`_______________________
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,075,849 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND § 18 OF THE
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`

`
`Covered Business Method Patent Review
`U.S. Patent No. 9,075,849
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`
`Act (“AIA”)1 and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., the undersigned hereby
`
`requests transitional covered business method post-grant review of claims 1–20 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,075,849 (the “’849 Patent,” attached as Petition Exhibit 1001),
`
`which issued to Jonathan A. Barney on July 7, 2015 and is assigned to
`
`PatentRatings, LLC according to the records of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office.2
`
`Electronic payments in the amount of $12,000 for the Covered Business
`
`Method Patent Review fee specified by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1) and $18,000 for
`
`the Covered Business Method Patent Review Post-Institution fee specified by
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(2) are being paid at the time of the filing this petition (for a
`
`total payment of $30,000). The Office is hereby authorized to charge any further
`
`fees required by this petition, or to credit any overpayments or refunds, to Deposit
`
`Account No. 22-0259.
`
`
`1 Section 18 of the AIA has not been codified, but it appears in 125 Stat. at 329–31.
`2 See assignment recorded at Reel/Frame No. 034043 / 0389.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the Petitioner and the Patent Owner ................. 1
`
`Recent Changes to the Law of Patent Eligibility ...................... 2
`
`The ’849 Patent ........................................................................ 3
`C.
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .......................................................... 5
`
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ..................... 5
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Claims 1–20 Are Directed to a Covered Business Method ....... 5
`
`Claims 1-20 Are Not a “Technological Invention”
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) (2012)) ................................................ 8
`
`Petitioner Has Standing under AIA 18(a) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.302 ................................................................................. 11
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ...................... 17
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................... 18
`
`G. Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel (37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(3)) ............................................................................. 18
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ......................... 18
`H.
`III. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUEST FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ................................................................. 19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ................................. 19
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge ............................................ 19
`
`Claim Construction ................................................................ 19
`C.
`IV. CLAIMS 1-20 ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 ................................................................................................ 21
`
`A.
`
`The Legal Standard for Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 ...................................................................................... 21
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`V.
`
`The ’849 Patent Claims Are Directed to Abstract Ideas ......... 27
`B.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 40
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................ passim
`Altvater v. Freeman,
`319 U.S. 359 (1943) ......................................................................................... 12
`American Express Co. v. Metasearch Sys., LLC,
`Paper 70 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2015) .............................................................. 25, 26
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`569 U.S. __,133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) .................................................................... 2
`Bascom Research, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 3-12-cv-06293, 2015 WL 149480 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015, Order) ............. 23
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................... passim
`BRCA1— & BRCA2—Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig.,
`774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................... 23
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 23, 24, 35
`CRS Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc.,
`No. CBM2012-00005, Paper 66 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2014) ................................ 23
`Cummins, Inc. v. Tas Distributing Co., Inc.,
`700 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................... 12
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 28, 36
`Data Distribution Techs. v. Brer Affiliates,
`Case No. 12-4878 (JBS/KMW), 2014 WL 4162765 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014) .... 36
`DDR Holdings LLC v. HotelsCom LP,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 10, 11
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ......................................................................................... 21
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ......................................................................................... 21
`DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC,
`33 F. Supp. 3d 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ...................................................... 28, 36, 38
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................... 36
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`56 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................... 23
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.,
`333 U.S. 127 (1948) ......................................................................................... 22
`Google, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC,
`No. CBM2014-00006, Paper 11 at 11 (P.T.A.B. April 8, 2014)..................... 7, 23
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................... 21, 28, 29, 30
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, Bilski, 561 U.S.
`593 ................................................................................................................... 39
`In re Comiskey,
`554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................... 28
`In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`No. 2014-1301, at *16 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015) ................................................. 19
`In re Richman,
`563 F.2d 1026 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ........................................................................ 37
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ......................................................................... 19
`Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00800, 2015 WL 3452469 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2015) ................... 11
`Le Roy v. Tatham,
`55 U.S. 156 (1853) ........................................................................................... 22
`Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co.,
`312 U.S. 270 (1941) ......................................................................................... 13
`Mayo Collaborative Series v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
`569 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................... passim
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`549 U.S. 118 (2007) .............................................................................. 12, 13, 15
`Ocean Tomo LLC v. Jonathan Barney and Patent Ratings LLC,
`No. 12-cv-8450 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ....................................................................... 18
`OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
`1012-1696, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2015) ................. 34
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .............................................................................. 29, 30, 37
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC,
`576 Fed. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 23, 28
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc.,
`No. CBM2013-00024, Paper 4 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2014) ........................... 23, 26
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp.,
`No. CBM2012-0001, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013),
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`aff’d Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015)
` ...................................................................................................................... 6, 23
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................ 23, 24, 39
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
` No. 13 C 4417, 2015 WL 394273 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2015, Order) ................... 23
`Versata Dev. Group v. SAP America, Inc.,
`No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015) ...................................................... passim
`
`Statutes
`
`125 Stat. at 329 ...................................................................................................... ii
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................. passim
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ................................................................................................... 40
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a). ................................................................................................ 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................ 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(1) .......................................................................................... ii
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b)(2) .......................................................................................... ii
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .......................................................................................... 19
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 .......................................................................................... 5, 8, 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) ............................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302 ............................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ..................................................................................... 11, 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 17
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`Other Authorities
`
`America Invents Act § 18 ...................................................................................... ii
`America Invents Act § 18(a)(1)(B) ...................................................................... 11
`America Invents Act § 18(d)(1) ............................................................................. 5
`America Invents Act § 18(d)(2) ............................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petition Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,075,849 (the “’849 Patent”)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1002:
`
`License Agreement among Patent Ratings, Jonathan
`A. Barney, and Ocean Tomo, LLC and amendments
`thereto
`
`Petition Exhibit 1003:
`
`Declaration of Dr. Patrick Thomas
`
`Petition Exhibit 1004:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1005:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1006:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1007:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1008:
`
`Ocean Tomo Complaint in Ocean Tomo, LLC v.
`Jonathan Barney and Patent Ratings LLC, Case
`No. 12 C 8450 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`Amended Counterclaim of Jonathan Barney and
`PatentRatings, LLC in Ocean Tomo LLC v. Jonathan
`Barney and Patent Ratings LLC, 12 C 8450 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`Defendants and Counter-Plaintiff PatentRatings,
`LLC’s Second Set of Interrogatories, served in Ocean
`Tomo LLC v. Jonathan Barney and Patent Ratings
`LLC, 12 C 8450 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`Plaintiff-Counter Defendant’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Invalidity under 35 USC § 101 filed in
`Ocean Tomo LLC v. Jonathan Barney and Patent
`Ratings LLC, 12 C 8450 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the
`America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 Fed. Cir. B. J.
`539
`
`Petition Exhibit 1009:
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1360–94 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1010:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1011:
`
`Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Safeway, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
`00800, 2015 WL 3452469 (E.D. Tex. May 29, 2015).
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157
`(Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1012:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1013:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1014:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1015:
`
`Bascom Research, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3-12-
`cv-06293, 2015 WL 149480 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015,
`Order)
`
`Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz
`USA, LLC, No. 13 C 4417, 2015 WL 394273 (N.D.
`Ill. Jan. 29, 2015, Order)
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 2014-
`1301, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Jul. 8, 2015)
`
`Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc.,
`No. 2014-1194, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2015)
`(“Versata”)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1016:
`
`Original Prosecution History of the ’849 Patent
`
`Petition Exhibit 1017:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1018:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1019:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1020:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1021:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1022:
`
`Transitional Program for Covered Business Method
`Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method
`Patent and Technological Invention, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48734 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group,
`No. CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9,
`2013) (aff’d Versata Development Group v. SAP
`America, Inc., No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 9, 2015))
`(“SAP”)
`
`Google, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, No. CBM2014-
`00006, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014)
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc.,
`No. CBM2013-00024, Paper 47 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16,
`2014)
`
`CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline
`Technologies, Inc., No. CBM2012-00005, Paper 66
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2014)
`
`Data Distribution Techs. v. Brer Affiliates, No. 12-
`4878 (JBS/KMW), 2014 WL 4162765 (D.N.J. Aug.
`19, 2014)
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition Exhibit 1023:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1024:
`
`Petition Exhibit 1025:
`
`
`
`OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., No. 1012-1696,
`2015 WL 3622181 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 11, 2015)
`
`Plaintiff-Counter Defendant’s Memorandum in
`Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of
`Invalidity under 35 USC § 101 filed in Ocean Tomo
`LLC v. Jonathan Barney and Patent Ratings LLC, 12
`C 8450 (N.D. Ill.)
`
`American Express Co. v. Metasearch Sys., LLC,
`No. CBM2014-00001, Paper 70 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13,
`2015)
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`We challenge claims 1–20 of the ’849 Patent as unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to abstract unpatentable subject
`
`matter.3
`
`A. Background of the Petitioner and the Patent Owner
`Petitioner Ocean Tomo, LLC (“OT”), patent owner Patent Ratings, LLC
`
`(“PR”), and the inventor of the ’849 Patent, Jonathan Barney (“Barney”), are
`
`familiar with each other. OT provides, among other things, financial products and
`
`services related to expert testimony, valuation, investments, risk management and
`
`transactions throughout the United States and overseas. Barney created PR, a
`
`company that owns and develops computer-generated metrics that can be used to
`
`help determine the quality and relevance of issued United States patents. Barney
`
`has been issued a number of patents by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (the “USPTO”) that are used to assess the quality and relative value of
`
`patent portfolios.
`
`In approximately 2004, OT and PR entered into an agreement (the “License
`
`Agreement”)4 pursuant to which, among other things, PR licensed to OT the right
`
`
`3 Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s holding in Versata Development Group v. SAP
`America, Inc., No. 2014-1194, slip op. at 45 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015), § 18 of the
`AIA permits a petitioner to challenge claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a petition
`for Covered Business Method Review. Ex. 1015.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`to use PR’s patented technology in order to determine the quality and relevance of
`
`patents for certain of OT’s clients.
`
`Since 2007, however, the parties’ business relationship has been plagued by
`
`a number of disputes, including the three separate lawsuits which have essentially
`
`been consolidated into a single action before the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Northern District of Illinois. PR’s patented technology is the foundation of the
`
`parties’ business relationship, and this is reflected in the claims asserted by the
`
`parties in that action. Many of the claims specifically invoke the License
`
`Agreement under which PR licensed its patented technology to OT, including the
`
`various amendments thereto and a related promissory note and security agreement.
`
`At its core, this relationship revolves around PR’s various patents.
`
`B. Recent Changes to the Law of Patent Eligibility
`A series of recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court have substantially
`
`altered the landscape regarding patents implemented on generic computers and
`
`raised the bar for patent eligibility. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`__ U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ; Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
`
`Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. __,133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013); Mayo Collaborative Series v.
`
`Prometheus Labs, Inc., 569 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012); and Bilski v. Kappos,
`
`561 U.S. 593 (2010). These decisions render the claimed subject matter of the
`
`4 A copy of the License Agreement and the amendments thereto is attached hereto
`as Exhibit 1002.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`’849 Patent ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Each of the
`
`claims in the ’849 Patent is directed to the use of fundamental mathematical and
`
`statistical tools, such as regression analysis, which are applied to preexisting data
`
`collected by a general-purpose computer to determine relationships between the
`
`collected and analyzed data. The claims do nothing more than describe the
`
`implementation of an abstract idea (i.e., the application of a statistical tool to
`
`collected data) on a generic computer. Multivariate regression analysis and probit
`
`and logit regression models described in the ’849 Patent have long been used as
`
`basic tools in the study of relationships between data.
`
`Under Alice, claims directed to such abstract ideas are unpatentable unless
`
`they further include elements that individually or collectively transform the idea
`
`into something that in practice would be significantly more than a patent on the
`
`abstraction itself. 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
`
`C. The ’849 Patent
`The claims of the ’849 Patent do not transform the abstract idea. Instead, the
`
`claims simply claim the use of well-known statistical algorithms applied to data
`
`collected by a general computer. For example, claim 1 of the ’849 Patent requires
`
`1) a computerized search engine for identifying and ranking relevant documents
`
`from a corpus of citationally related documents; 2) accessing identification
`
`information identifying one or more output documents corresponding to related
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`input documents and a first numerical score; and 3) calculating a second numerical
`
`score that is statistically correlated to the probability that a direct correlation exists
`
`between the input documents and output documents.
`
`In essence, the ’849 Patent is directed to the use of a statistical tool (i.e.,
`
`multivariate regression analysis, probit and logit analysis) to determine the degree
`
`to which documents are related. This is the essence of bibliometrics and statistical
`
`modeling.
`
`The ’849 Patent is related to a series of patents owned by PR that each relate
`
`to the same subject matter: essentially, using a general-purpose computer to run
`
`well-known statistical tools such as regression analysis to determine the
`
`relationship between citationally related patent documents. These other patents
`
`include U.S. Patent Nos. 7,716,226
`
`(the “’226 Patent”), 8,504,560
`
`(the
`
`“’560 Patent”), 8,131,701 (the “’701 Patent”) and 8,818,996 (the “’996 Patent”).
`
`These patents, as well as five additional patents owned by PR, are the subject of
`
`the License Agreement between OT and PR (collectively, the patents owned by PR
`
`are referred to herein as the “PR Patents”). In addition, and in support of OT’s
`
`affirmative defense that the PR Patents are invalid and thereby unenforceable, each
`
`of these patents is also the subject of a summary judgment motion for invalidity
`
`based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 filed in January 2015 and pending before the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. By virtue of the language of the
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`License Agreement that subjects all divisional patents, continuations and related
`
`patents to the terms of the License Agreement, the ’849 Patent is now a licensed
`
`patent under the License Agreement. It is also included as patented technology
`
`that is subject to the License Agreement as well as to the declaratory judgment
`
`action filed by OT. Upon its issuance the ’849 Patent is not, however, subject to
`
`the summary judgment motion, as it was not in existence when that motion was
`
`filed and is therefore not addressed in the motion pending before the district court.
`
`It is, however, subject to the terms of the Transitional Post-Grant Relief process
`
`under the AIA.
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`A. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable
`As further detailed below, claims 1–20 of the ’849 Patent are invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, it is “more likely
`
`than not that at least one of the claims of the ’849 Patent is unpatentable.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`
`B. Claims 1–20 Are Directed to a Covered Business Method
`The AIA defines a covered business method (“CBM”) patent as “a
`
`patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data
`
`processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management
`
`of a financial product or service….” America Invents Act § 18(d)(1); see also
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301.
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`The USPTO noted that the AIA’s legislative history demonstrates that
`
`“financial product or service” should be “interpreted broadly,” encompassing
`
`patents “claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial
`
`activity or complementary to a financial activity.” Ex. 1017 (Definitions of
`
`Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention), at 48735. Indeed,
`
`as noted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”), “[t]he
`
`term financial is an adjective that simply means relating to monetary matters.”
`
`Ex. 1018, SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., No. CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 at
`
`23 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) (aff’d Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 2014-
`
`1194 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015)). As explained by Senator Schumer during the
`
`March 2011 debates on the AIA, the language “practice, administration, or
`
`management” is intended to cover “any ancillary activities related to a financial
`
`product or service.” Ex. 1008 at 636. Similarly, “[t]he phrase ‘method or
`
`corresponding apparatus’ is intended to encompass, but not limited to, any type of
`
`claim contained in a patent, including, method claims, system claims, apparatus
`
`claims … and set of instructions on storage media claims.” Ex. 1008 at 638. The
`
`proper inquiry is simply “whether the [challenged] patent claims activities that are
`
`financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or complementary to a
`
`financial activity.” Ex. 1019, Google, Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, No. CBM2014-
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`00006, Paper 11 at 11 (P.T.A.B. April 8, 2014) (holding that a claim directed to
`
`managing wireless networks satisfied the requirements to institute CBM review).
`
`The ’849 Patent specifically claims methods and apparatuses to “identify
`
`and rank relevant documents from a corpus of citationally-related documents.”
`
`Ex. 1001 (’849 Patent), claims 1, 8 and 15. These activities are clearly
`
`“complementary to a financial activity” and therefore clearly fall within the
`
`definition of a CBM patent. Indeed, the specification of the ’849 Patent clearly
`
`indicates the financial nature of the information created using the claimed methods:
`
`Quantitative patent data, such as statistical ratings, maintenance value
`calculations, relevance analysis,
`litigation risk profiling, event
`probability analysis, decision tree analysis, and the like (collectively,
`“patent informatics”), is considered particularly valuable information.
`Such information can be used to help guide future R&D efforts,
`optimize patent filing and maintenance strategies, and provide
`objective guidelines and benchmarks that can help facilitate and
`encourage amicable settlements of patent infringement lawsuits and
`other patent-related disputes.
` Additional applications
`include
`providing objective benchmarks and guidelines for royalty sharing
`and patent pooling arrangements, balance of-12-payment calculations
`for patent portfolio cross-licensing,
`internal
`royalty
`transfer
`calculations
`for
`tax-treatment purposes, and estimated value
`assessments to support a variety of financial and investment decisions.
`
`For example, financial advisors and investors may seek to use patent
`informatics for purposes of comparative value analysis and/or for
`constructing better measures of the underlying “fundamental value” of
`private or publicly traded companies or for purposes of evaluating
`possible strategic acquisitions or as a guide
`to
`investment.
`Economists may seek to use such information for purposes of
`identifying and quantifying new or growing sectors of the economy
`and/or for economic forecasting and planning purposes. Various
`regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, may
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`seek to use such information as an efficient screen for identifying
`potential audit
`targets
`in
`transactions
`involving, for example,
`charitable patent donations and royalty-based tax transfer pricing.
`Insurance carriers may seek to use such information to better identify
`and quantify relative risks within one or more technology sectors
`and/or for purposes of determining appropriate policy risk premiums
`and coverage levels for particular patents or portfolios of patents.
`See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,018,714, incorporated herein by reference.
`
`(Ex. 1001, 8:29–63.)
`
`Both the system and method claims qualify as a covered business “method”
`
`patent subject to review. Congress intended system patents to qualify as covered
`
`business method patents. As Senator Schumer commented during the passage of
`
`the AIA, a “patent qualifies as a covered business method patent regardless of the
`
`type or structure of claims contained in the patent. Clever drafting of patent
`
`applications should not allow a patent holder to avoid PTO review under this
`
`amendment. Any other result would elevate form over substance.” Ex. 1009 at
`
`S1364. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Alice confirmed the position taken by
`
`Senator Schumer. The Alice opinion stated that claims directed to generic
`
`computer hardware that carry out a method and “add nothing of substance to the
`
`underlying abstract idea” are to stand or fall with the associated method claims.
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360.
`
`C. Claims 1-20 Are Not a “Technological Invention” (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.301(b) (2012))
`
`The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition
`
`of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(2). To determine whether a patent is a
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`technological invention, “the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis:
`
`whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is
`
`novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a
`
`technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The “presence of a general purpose
`
`computer” with “no specific, unconventional software, computer equipment, tools
`
`or processing capabilities” is insufficient to constitute a technical invention under
`
`the AIA. Ex. 1015, Versata, slip op. at 38 (internal quotation omitted).
`
`The ’849 Patent does not recite a single novel technological feature. For
`
`example, claim 15 recites only one arguably technological feature: “a computing
`
`device configured with specific computer-executable instructions.” Claim 1 is
`
`directed to a computerized search engine and recites three arguably technological
`
`features: “an input interface”; “a computer-accessible index stored in a computer-
`
`readable storage device”; and “a computer processor configured to execute
`
`instructions stored in a computer-readable storage device.” Claim 9 has similar
`
`arguably technological features. However, each of these “technological features”
`
`is nothing more than basic generic components claimed at a high level of
`
`generality to carry out the steps of the method. The claims of the ’849 Patent are
`
`directed to an abstract idea (the use of indirect citation links to generate a score to
`
`estimate the probability that two documents have a direct citation link) performed
`
`on a generic computer, doing exactly the things computers conventionally do, and
`
`
`CHICAGO/#2723755.7
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`in a conventional way. Ex. 1003, ¶ 90. The use of citation networks to identify
`
`related documents is a well-established “building block” in bibliometrics.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 89. Ranking entities according to a given characteristic (in this case,
`
`using a second numerical score to rank documents according to the probability of
`
`having a direct citation link) is also a fundamental practice in statistics and data
`
`analysis. Ex. 1003, ¶ 89.
`
`Congress has found that the “technological invention” exception does not
`
`“exclude patents that use known technology to accomplish a business process or
`
`method of conducting business—whether or not that process or method appears to
`
`be novel.” Ex. 1009 at S1364. Reciting known technology such as a computer-
`
`readable storage device, an input interface and a computer-accessible index does
`
`not make a patent a technological invention. The technology must be crucial to the
`
`inventive concept and solve a technical problem.
`
`In contrast, in DDR Holding