CASE COLLARD
`(303) 352-1116
`collard.case@dorsey.com
`
`June 18, 2020
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Lisa A. Chiarini
`Reed Smith LLP
`506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300
`Princeton, NJ 08540-7839
`Email: lchiarini@reedsmith.com
`
`
`
`Re: US Patent Number 10,467,585
`
`Dear Ms. Chiarini
`
`We are writing in response to your February 28, 2020 e-mail in which you indicated that
`Provi cannot infringe any valid claim of U.S. Patent 10,467,585 and provided references to other
`third-party beverage distribution systems. Nothing in your response undermines our
`infringement or validity positions.
`
`Provi’s Infringement of the ‘585 Patent:
`
`Below we provide a claim chart mapping Provi’s product to independent claim 14 of the
`‘585 patent to address your assertion that the patent’s claims cannot be interpreted to cover
`Provi’s platform. As shown in the claim chart using information captured from
`https://www.provi.com/solutions/buyers, Provi’s platform appears to include the claimed
`elements of the ‘585 patent. The claim chart does not show alternative or additional positions
`regarding Provi’s infringement of the ‘585 patent.
`
`U.S. Patent 10,467,585 Claim Language
`A non-transitory computer-readable
`medium having stored therein computer
`program instructions for automatically
`generating beverage product sub-orders
`based on associated metadata, the
`computer program instructions
`comprising:
`
`Provi System
`
`Provi advertises a computer system for
`generating beverage product orders.
`
`1400 Wewatta Street | Suite 400 | Denver, CO | 80202‐5549 | T 303.629.3400 | F 303.629.3450 | dorsey.com 
`
`PROVI-1005 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Lisa A. Chiarini
`June 18, 2020
`Page 2
`
`program instructions to receive from a
`merchant device a beverage product
`order from a single geographic location
`comprising a plurality of beverage
`products, each beverage product of the
`plurality of beverage products having
`associated metadata;
`
`program instructions to identify a
`distributor offering the selected beverage
`for each of the beverage products in the
`plurality of beverage products based, at
`least in part on the associated metadata,
`wherein each of the plurality of beverage
`products is offered by a single distributor;
`
`program instructions to generate one or
`more sub-orders, wherein each sub-order
`includes the selected beverage products
`offered by the respective distributor,
`corresponds to one identified distributor;
`
`Provi advertises that buyers may add multiple
`products to an order. Buyers may be bars,
`restaurants, or retailers with a single geographic
`location.
`
`Provi advertises identifying distributors for the
`beverage products in a user’s cart, since each
`beverage is only offered by a single distributor.
`
`Provi advertises grouping items by distributor
`offerings, creating sub-orders to the respective
`distributors.
`
`PROVI-1005 - Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Lisa A. Chiarini
`June 18, 2020
`Page 3
`
`
`
`program instructions to transmit each sub-
`order to the corresponding identified
`distributor: and
`
`
`
`Provi platform includes transmitting the sub-
`orders to identified distributors.
`
`
`
`
`Provi platform includes providing order
`confirmation to a buyer.
`
`program instructions to output to the
`merchant device a confirmation of the
`beverage product order placement for the
`single geographic location.
`
`
`
`
`Validity of the ‘585 Patent:
`
`Below we address each of the beverage distribution systems referenced in your
`response. None of the referenced systems are relevant to whether Provi infringes the ‘585
`patent. Issued patents are presumed valid and, as described above, Provi infringes the issued
`claims of the ‘585 patent. The information cited for the referenced systems does not disclose
`the features of the claims of the ‘585 patent. Briefly below, we have identified at least some of
`the deficiencies with the cited materials with respect to validity of the ‘585 patent. In short, none
`of the referenced systems, alone or in combination, can be used to invalidate the claims of the
`‘585 patent. Any references that qualify as prior art to the ‘585 patent simply do not disclose the
`claim elements of the patent and are, at most, general background information related to the
`industry.
`
`In your letter, you provided a case summary regarding the eSkye system that briefly
`makes a cursory mention of “press releases, promotional and marketing materials, and articles”
`discussing the eSkye platform. This case summary does not provide sufficient detail to disclose
`the claimed features. For example, with respect to claim 14, there is no indication in the case
`summary that the eSkye platform includes “program instructions for automatically generating
`beverage product sub-orders based on associated metadata” or “program instructions to identify
`a distributor offering the selected beverage for each of the beverage products in the plurality of
`beverage products base, at least in part on the associated metadata.” As such, the patent office
`would still have issued the ‘585 patent, even if this case summary were before the office.
`
`PROVI-1005 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Lisa A. Chiarini
`June 18, 2020
`Page 4
`
` Also included in your response was a March 2014 article discussing the release of the
`SevenFifty platform. The article broadly discusses features of the SevenFifty platform. While
`the article discusses that buyer can “view portfolios of distributors and wholesalers” and “place
`orders,” again, as with the case summary, this article does not provide sufficient detail to
`disclose or suggest key features of the claims of the ‘585 patent. For example, there is no
`suggestion that a customer using the platform can create one order for multiple distributors and,
`accordingly, the article does not disclose or suggest “program instructions for automatically
`generating beverage product sub-orders based on associated metadata.” Further, an article
`published by SevenFifty on November 15, 2019 entitled “Meet SevenFifty’s Brand New Ordering
`System” touts the addition of “comprehensive ordering of all products from every distributor” and
`“one-click checkout for multiple orders,” indicating that these features were not part of the
`platform disclosed in the March 2014 article.
`
`Finally, you included a May 2000 article discussing a merger between BevAccess.com
`and Beverage Media Group Platform. The article briefly discusses “proprietary e-commerce
`technology” that “provides wholesaler buyers and sellers with fast, easy, centralized ordering,
`detailed information, and highly targeting advertising.” Again, the article does not provide
`technical information about the platform and does not disclose or suggest that features of claim
`14 (or any other claims) of the Dust Bowl patent.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For at least the reasons outlined in this letter, Provi infringes the ‘585 patent and the ‘585
`patent is valid. Dust Bowl remains open to reasonable business discussions but, should Provi
`fail to engage in good faith discussion regarding the dispute, Dust Bowl will consider all
`available legal options for protecting its valid patent.
`
`Please respond to these issues by July 10, 2020. We hope to engage Provi in productive
`discussions for resolution of this matter. Please contact me with any questions.
`
`Best regards,
`
`DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
`
`Case Collard
`
`CC:amd
`
`PROVI-1005 - Page 4
`
`