`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`SHOPIFY, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent 9,639,876
`
`TITLE: METHOD AND COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR SERVING
`COMMERCE INFORMATION OF AN OUTSOURCE PROVIDER IN
`CONNECTION WITH HOST WEB PAGES OFFERING COMMERCIAL
`OPPORTUNITIES
`
`Issue Date May 2, 2017
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 (‘876 Patent)
`Declaration of Michael Shamos
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent No. 6,330,575 (Moore)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,016,504 (Arnold)
`Declaration of Nathaniel Borenstein
`“Selling Online with First Virtual,” by Pete Loshin (Published 1996)
`First Virtual Seller Programs Webpage (June 1997)
`First Virtual InfoHaus Guide Webpages (June 1997)
`First Virtual InfoHaus HelpMeister (June 1997)
`DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 773 F.3d 1245 (2014)
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`0013987, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,374, U.S. Patent No.
`6,993,572, April 16, 2010
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`0013988, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,375, U.S. Patent No.
`6,629,135, April 16, 2010
`Affidavit of Christopher Butler, Office Manager at the Internet Archive
`Definition of “commission” - The American Heritage Collegiate
`Dictionary 280 (Robert B. Costello et al. eds., 3rd ed. 1997)
`Definition of “commission” - Webster’s New World Basic Dictionary
`of American English 167-168 (Michael Agnes et al. eds., 1998)
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`MANDATORY NOTICES ..................................................................................................1
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................................1
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)).................................................................1
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ..............................................4
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ..........................................................4
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................................................................................4
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED ...................................................................................................................5
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)) .......................5
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ...................................5
`1.
`The Asserted References are Printed Publications and Available as Prior
`Art ................................................................................................................6
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative ..................................................6
`2.
`REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) AND
`42.104(b)(4) .........................................................................................................................7
`A.
`Background ..............................................................................................................7
`1.
`Field of Technology .....................................................................................7
`2.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................7
`3.
`The ’876 Patent ............................................................................................8
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)).......................................................9
`1.
`“merchants” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17) ......................................................9
`2.
`“host” (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16) ...............................................................9
`3.
`“commerce object” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19).....................10
`4.
`“commission” (Claims 4, 14) .....................................................................10
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 ...................10
`1.
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are anticipated by Loshin ...................10
`(a)
`Summary of Loshin........................................................................11
`(b)
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Loshin ...................................................14
`(c)
`Claim 2 is anticipated by Loshin ...................................................23
`(d)
`Claim 3 is anticipated by Loshin ...................................................25
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(d)
`
`Claim 4 is anticipated by Loshin ...................................................26
`(e)
`Claim 5 is anticipated by Loshin ...................................................27
`(f)
`Claim 7 is anticipated by Loshin ...................................................28
`(g)
`Claim 8 is anticipated by Loshin ...................................................31
`(h)
`Claim 11 is anticipated by Loshin .................................................32
`(i)
`Claim 12 is anticipated by Loshin .................................................32
`(j)
`Claim 13 is anticipated by Loshin .................................................32
`(k)
`Claim 16 is anticipated by Loshin .................................................33
`(l)
`(m) Claim 17 is anticipated by Loshin .................................................33
`(n)
`Claim 18 is anticipated by Loshin .................................................33
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are obvious in view of Loshin and the
`InfoHaus Documents .................................................................................33
`(a)
`Summary of the InfoHaus Documents ...........................................34
`(b)
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the InfoHaus
`Documents .....................................................................................36
`Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the InfoHaus
`Documents .....................................................................................42
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the InfoHaus
`Documents .....................................................................................43
`Claim 16 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the InfoHaus
`Documents .....................................................................................44
`Claim 17 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of the InfoHaus
`Documents .....................................................................................44
`Ground 3: The Challenged Claims are obvious in view of Loshin and
`Moore .........................................................................................................44
`(a)
`Summary of Moore ........................................................................45
`(b) Motivation to Combine Loshin and Moore ...................................46
`(c)
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ............47
`(d)
`Claim 2 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ............58
`(e)
`Claim 3 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ............59
`(f)
`Claim 4 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ............60
`(g)
`Claim 5 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ............62
`(h)
`Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ............63
`(i)
`Claim 8 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ............64
`(j)
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ..........65
`(k)
`Claim 12 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ..........65
`(l)
`Claim 13 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ..........65
`(m) Claim 14 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ..........66
`(n)
`Claim 15 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ..........66
`(o)
`Claim 17 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ..........66
`(p)
`Claim 18 is rendered obvious by Loshin in view of Moore ..........66
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................67
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`VI.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Booking.com B.V.,
`Civil Action No. 17-499(D. Del. 2017) ................................................................ 1
`DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (2014) ............................................................................................ 2
`DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
`954 F.Supp.2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .................................................................... 2
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com, LLC,
`Civil Action No. 17-498 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................... 1
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 17-501 (D. Del. 2018) ............................................................... 2
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. TicketNetwork, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 17-500 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................... 1
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Travel Holdings, Inc., and Tourico Holidays,
`Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 17-502 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................... 2
`Priceline Group Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-00482 ..................................................................................................... 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .............................................................................................. 2, 3, 4, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 .......................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a) .................................................................................... 67
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ......................................................................................... 5, 34, 44
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`California Rules of Court
`Rule 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................................... 10
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 68
`
`iii
`
`
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................................................................. 1
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ............................................................................................. 1
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............................................................................................. 4
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ............................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) AND 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................. 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ..................................................................................................... 69
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1)) ......................................................................................... 5
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ......................................................................................... 5
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ......................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ............................................................................................... 68
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................. 9
`“over the Internet.” Ex. 1002 ................................................................................... 50
`Alternatively, Loshin ................................................................................................ 24
`Darren New InfoHaus Page. Loshin, Fig. 7-1 .......................................................... 17
`Ex. 1013. Loshin ........................................................................................................ 6
`FIG. 15. Moore ............................................................................................. 55, 56, 57
`First Virtual. Loshin ................................................................................................. 27
`First Virtual Website (https://web.archive.org/web/19970615124058/
`http://www.fv.com:80/selling/) ........................................................................... 35
`First Virtual Website
`(https://web.archive.org/web/19970615125011/http://www.fv.com:
`80/infohaus/guide/index.htm) ............................................................................. 34
`First Virtual Website
`(https://web.archive.org/web/19970615125017/http://www.fv.com:
`80/infohaus/helpmei ster/index.html) ................................................................. 34
`Further, Loshin ......................................................................................................... 22
`Further, Moore ................................................................................................... 50, 61
`Further, Moore’s ...................................................................................................... 52
`Further, Moore ......................................................................................................... 57
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Further, Moore ......................................................................................................... 58
`http://www.infohaus.com/ access/by-seller/Darren_Ne .......................................... 17
`http://www.infohaus.com/access/subscription/Darren_New/InfoHaus_
`News ....................................................................................................... 18, 20, 25
`Java “Buy Page” ....................................................................................................... 55
`Loshin at 238-239 ..................................................................................................... 19
`Loshin. Ex. 1002 ...................................................................................................... 47
`Loshin, Table 8-1 ..................................................................................................... 29
`139. Moreover, Loshin ............................................................................................. 35
`Specifically, Moore ............................................................................................ 56, 57
`Therefore, Moore ......................................................................................... 46, 60, 61
`U.S. Patent 9,043,228................................................................................................. 5
`U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135 ...................................................................................... 3, 5
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572 .............................................................................. 2, 3, 4, 5
`U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399 .................................................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825 .................................................................................. 1, 2, 5
`U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228 ...................................................................................... 1, 2
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 .................................................................................passim
`URL, http://www.infohaus.com/access/subscription/
`Darren_New/InfoHaus_New .............................................................................. 17
`VirtualPIN. Loshin ................................................................................................... 26
`www.infohaus.com .................................................................................................. 28
`
`v
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., Petitioners request
`
`inter partes review of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-18 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,639,876 (the “’876 Patent,” Ex. 1001).
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Shopify, Inc. is the real party-in-interest.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`B.
`The following matters may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`(1) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com, LLC, Civil Action No. 17-498
`
`(D. Del. 2017), which involves U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399 (the “’399 Patent”); U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,515,825 (the “’825 Patent”), which is a continuation of the ’399 Patent;
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228 (the “’228 Patent”), which is a continuation of the ’825
`
`Patent; and U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876, which is a continuation of the ’228 Patent.
`
`(2) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Booking.com B.V., Civil Action No. 17-499(D.
`
`Del. 2017), which involves the ’399 Patent; the ’825 Patent; the ’228 Patent; and the
`
`’876 Patent.
`
`(3) DDR Holdings, LLC v. TicketNetwork, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-500
`
`(D. Del. 2017), which involves the ’399 Patent; the ’825 Patent; the ’228 Patent; and
`
`the ’876 Patent.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`(4) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Travel Holdings, Inc., and Tourico Holidays,
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 17-502 (D. Del. 2017), which involves the ’399 Patent; the
`
`’825 Patent; the ’228 Patent; and the ’876 Patent.
`
`(5) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Shopify, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-501 (D. Del.
`
`2018), which involves patents related to the ’399 Patent: the ’825 Patent; the ’228
`
`Patent; and the ’876 Patent.
`
`(6) DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 954 F.Supp.2d 509
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2013), which involved claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572 (the ’572
`
`Patent) and the ’399 Patent, which is a continuation of the ’572 Patent.
`
`(7) DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 773 F.3d 1245 (2014),
`
`was an appeal of the decision of the district court case (identified at (6) above). In
`
`this case, the Federal Circuit found that claims of the ’572 Patent were anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over the Digital River Secure Sales System (the “DR SSS”)
`
`and that the claims of the ‘399 Patent were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The claims of the ’572 Patent are similar to the claims of the ‘876 Patent. Both
`
`claims require an outsource provider which stores data associated with visual
`
`elements used to construct a Web page (e.g., the composite web page of Claim 13
`
`of the ‘572 Patent and Claim 1 of the ‘876 Patent) in response to activation of a link
`
`on a Web page (e.g., the host Web page of Claim 13 of the ’572 Patent and the source
`
`Web page in Claim 1 of the ’876 Patent), where the constructed Web page maintains
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`visually perceptible elements of the Web page on which the link was activated. This
`
`new page displays information related to a commerce object associated with the
`
`activated link and for sale from a third party merchant.
`
`The Federal Circuit declined to analyze the claims of the ’399 Patent in view
`
`of the DR SSS because the issue was not raised in the appeal. See Ex. 1017, footnote
`
`3 (stating “[n]either Digital River nor NLG ever argued that the ‘399 patent is invalid
`
`as anticipated by or obvious over prior art. We decline to speculate whether Digital
`
`River’s prior art SSS, either alone or in combination with other prior art, invalidates
`
`the ‘399 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.”) The ‘876 Patent was not at issue
`
`in that litigation.
`
`(8)
`
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`
`0013987, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,374, U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572, April
`
`16, 2010. In this reexamination proceeding, claims of the ’572 Patent were analyzed
`
`against the Arnold reference under 35 U.S.C. §102. The BPAI found the claims of
`
`the ’572 Patent require a three-party system (which is explicitly recited in Claim 1
`
`of the ’399 Patent) and therefore an anticipation rejection over a two-party system
`
`was overturned. Ex. 1010, 12-15.
`
`(9)
`
`BPAI Decision, Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, Appeal No. 2009-
`
`0013988, Reexamination Control No. 90/008,375, U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135, April
`
`16, 2010. In this reexamination proceeding, claims of the U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135,
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`which is the parent of the ’572 Patent, were analyzed against the Arnold reference
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §102. The BPAI found the claims of the ’572 Patent require a three-
`
`party system (which is explicitly recited in the Claim 1 of the ’399 Patent) and
`
`therefore an anticipation rejection over a two-party system was overturned. Ex.
`
`1019, 9-11.
`
`(10) Priceline Group Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-00482, which
`
`involves the ’399 Patent.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`C.
`Lead counsel: Michael McNamara (Reg. No. 52,017). Back-up counsel:
`
`William A Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193).
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`D.
`Email: DDR_IPR_Service@mintz.com
`
`Post: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
`
`One Financial Center
`
`Boston, MA 02111
`
`Phone: 617 542 6000 Fax: 617 542 2241
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`This Petition is entitled to a filing date of no later than May 2, 2018.
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’876 Patent is available for inter partes review, and that
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review on the
`
`Grounds identified herein.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1))
`Petitioners request review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-18 of
`
`the ’876 Patent.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`B.
`For the reasons presented below, Petitioners seek the following relief:
`
`Ground
`1
`Ground
`2
`Ground
`3
`
`Claims: 1-5, 7-8, 11-13, and 16-
`18
`Claims: 1, 7, 11, and 16-17
`
`Claims: 1-5, 7-8, 11-18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 over Loshin
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Loshin and
`the InfoHaus Documents
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Loshin and
`Moore
`
`The ‘876 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent 9,043,228, filed August 19,
`
`2013, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825, filed October 18,
`
`2010, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399, filed January 30,
`
`2006, which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572, filed June 11, 2003,
`
`which in turn claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135, filed September 17, 1999,
`
`which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/100,697, filed
`
`September 17, 1998. Petitioners have not addressed whether the claims date back
`
`to this priority date because all prior art references in the Grounds pre-date the
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`earliest possible priority date. Petitioners reserve the right to present such an
`
`argument if such an argument becomes relevant.
`
`1.
`
`The Asserted References are Printed Publications and
`Available as Prior Art
`Published on May 1, 1996, Loshin is prior art under § 102(b). Ex. 1013.
`
`Loshin is a printed publication entitled “Selling Online With… First Virtual
`
`Holdings, Inc.” and has been publicly available to persons of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITAs”) since 1996. Ex. 1012, ¶4. InfoHaus Guide, InfoHaus HelpMeister,
`
`and InfoHaus Seller Program (collectively, the “InfoHaus Documents”) were
`
`publicly available and accessible to a POSITA exercising reasonable diligence by at
`
`least June 15, 1997 and are prior art under § 102(b). Exs. 1014-1016; Ex. 1012, ¶¶5-
`
`9. Filed March 31, 1998, Moore is prior art under § 102(e). Ex. 1010.
`
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative
`2.
`Petitioner submits that the above-identified grounds are non-cumulative.
`
`Ground 1 illustrates how Loshin anticipates an outsource provider to mediate
`
`processing of ecommerce tasks in a two-party system. Additionally, Patent Owner
`
`cannot swear behind Ground 1.
`
`Ground 2 adds evidence addressing elements that Patent Owner may assert
`
`are not explicitly reflected in Grounds 1.
`
`Ground 3 illustrates why it would have been obvious, when implementing a
`
`two-party system, to incorporate specific design aspects of pages served by the
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`outsource provider based on where the page request originates. Ground 3 adds
`
`evidence addressing elements that Patent Owner may assert are not explicitly
`
`reflected in Loshin and/or the InfoHaus Documents.
`
`V.
`
`REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22(a)(2) AND 42.104(b)(4)
`A.
`Background
`1.
`Field of Technology
`At the time of the alleged invention, ecommerce websites and systems to
`
`support ecommerce website functionality were well-established. Ex. 1002, ¶¶22-24.
`
`Ecommerce websites began as single-party Web storefronts, but quickly expanded
`
`to incorporate multi-party e-commerce arrangements, such as affiliate programs.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:27-2:48; Ex. 1002, ¶¶16-19. As affiliate programs became more
`
`established, entities began utilizing “white-label” storefronts. Ex. 1002, ¶¶18-20. A
`
`white-label storefront allows a first merchant to sell a merchant’s product(s) on the
`
`first merchant’s website while pages served to a customer retain the look of the first
`
`merchant’s website. Id. Third party outsource providers were utilized to implement
`
`white-label storefronts and functioned to both serve the web pages and provide back-
`
`end transaction processing functionality, including payment processing. Id. At the
`
`time of the alleged invention, multiple entities already implemented these systems.
`
`Id., ¶21.
`
`2.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Based on the disclosure of the DDR Patents, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (POSITA), in order to understand the DDR Patents and to be able to make and
`
`use the claimed inventions without undue experimentation, would need to be
`
`familiar with the development of Web applications, including Web user-interface
`
`design, electronic catalogs and online payment processing. Such topics were not
`
`generally covered in University curricula at the time. Therefore, a POSITA would
`
`need to have an undergraduate degree in computer science or a related field, or
`
`equivalent experience, and, in addition, at least one year of experience with Web
`
`user-interface design, electronic catalogs and online payment processing.
`
`The ’876 Patent
`3.
`The ’876 Patent describes a system in which certain well-known e-commerce
`
`functionality is implemented by an outsource provider. Ex. 1001, Abstract; see Exs.
`
`1018, 13 and 1019, 9-11 (noting that prior art systems provide functionality that
`
`achieves the same results as the alleged invention). In the ’876 Patent, a host website
`
`includes links to “commerce objects” associated with a third party merchant. Ex.
`
`1001, 4:58-5:6. Activation of such a link causes a Web page having the appearance
`
`of the host website to be served to a user’s Web browser. Id. The ’876 Patent
`
`delegates certain processing functionality to an outsource provider (Ex. 1001, 23:49-
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`24:57), which was consistent with common industry practice at the time of the
`
`alleged invention. Ex. 1002, ¶65.
`
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`B.
`Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), as
`
`understood by a POSITA and consistent with the ’876 Patent’s disclosure. See
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`The following summarizes how certain claim terms of the ’876 Patent should be
`
`construed for purposes of Inter Partes Review:
`
`1.
`“merchants” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17)
`The term “merchants” should be construed in accordance with the definition
`
`provided by the ’876 Patent, which defines “merchants” as “producers, distributors,
`
`or resellers of the goods to be sold through the outsource provider.” Ex. 1001, 23:7-
`
`9; see also Ex. 1002, ¶67; Ex. 1018, 8; Ex. 1019, 6. The “merchants” can also be
`
`the “hosts.” Ex. 1001, 22:66-23:3 (“There are three main parties in the outsourced
`
`e-commerce relationship, excluding the end consumer. These parties include
`
`Merchants, Hosts, and the e-commerce outsource provider. This folds into two
`
`parties where one party plays the dual role of Host and Merchant.”).
`
`2.
`“host” (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16)
`The term “host” should be construed in accordance with the definition
`
`provided by the ’876 Patent, which defines “host” as “the operator of a website that
`
`engages in Internet commerce by incorporating one or more link to the e-commerce
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`outsource provider into its web content.” Ex. 1001, 23:35-37. As noted above, the
`
`“host” can be the “merchant.” Ex. 1001, 22:66-23:3
`
`3.
`“commerce object” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19)
`The term “commerce object” should be construed in accordance with the
`
`definition provided by the ’876 Patent, which defines a “commerce object” as a
`
`“product, product category, catalog, or dynamic selection.” Ex. 1001, 15:63-16:4;
`
`see also Ex. 1002, ¶68; Ex. 1018, 14.
`
`4.
`“commission” (Claims 4, 14)
`The ’876 Patent explains that the outsource provider manages payment of
`
`commissions to hosts based on relationships between the hosts and merchants. Ex.
`
`1001, 24:1-9. The ’876 Patent does not limit the how the commissions are
`
`calculated, earned, or paid. Accordingly, the BRI of the term “commission” should
`
`be construed as “money earned by a host for sales of a third party merchant’s
`
`products through the host’s website,” and should not be limited to being earned
`
`based on any particular business arrangement. See Ex. 1002, ¶66; Ex. 1021; Ex.
`
`1022.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103
`C.
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4) – (5), the following analysis demonstrates
`
`where each element of the Challenged Claims is found in the prior art for each of the
`
`grounds listed above.
`
`1.
`
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are anticipated by Loshin
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Summary of Loshin
`(a)
`Loshin describes First Virtual' InfoHaus (“InfoHaus”), an outsource provider
`
`which allowed sellers “to sell their information products without having to own their
`
`own Internet servers.” Ex. 1013, 103, 126-127; Ex. 1002, ¶70. InfoHaus was an
`
`“Internet hosting service” on which users could store their commercial opportunities
`
`(information products) and “offer them for sale without the expense and effort
`
`associated with managing their own servers.” Id. Sellers can “upload [their] data to
`
`the InfoHaus, and buyers can browse [seller’s] products (as well as those of other
`
`InfoHaus merchants) through the First Virtual Web site (or by other methods).” Id.
`
`Products uploaded to InfoHaus include a “free” portion which was a file
`
`describing the product being sold. Ex. 1013, 232-233; Ex. 1002, ¶71. That file could
`
`contain text, images, audio, video, MIME, or “other” types of data. Ex. 1013, 234-
`
`235; Tables 8-11, 8-12; Ex. 1002, ¶71.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Loshin also describes a typical ecommerce process flow. Ex. 1013, 194-95;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶72. First, “a merchant sets up an Internet storefront for consumers to
`
`browse” commercial opportunities. The web “page includes a description of the
`
`product as well as the product’s price” and “a link from the offering screen to a
`
`transaction page[.]” Ex. 1013, 195; Ex. 1002, ¶72.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013, 195, Figure 7-1; Ex. 1002, ¶72. In the example disclosed above from
`
`Loshin, the product description is an image of a twenty-dollar bill. Ex. 1013, 194;
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶73. Activating that “subscribe” link adjacent to the twenty-dollar bill
`
`redirects the user to a payment page to complete the purchase. Ex. 1013, 196; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶73.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Loshin, 196, Figure 7-2; Ex. 1002, ¶73.
`
`(b) Claim