Petitioners’
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`IPR2018-001008/001011 – U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`IPR2018-001009/001012 – U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228
`IPR2018-001010/001014 – U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825
`Consolidated Oral Hearing, July 25, 2019 – Denver, Colorado
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`IPR2018-001008/001011 – U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`IPR2018-001009/001012 – U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228
`IPR2018-001010/001014 – U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825
`Consolidated Oral Hearing, July 25, 2019 – Denver, Colorado
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Summary of Instituted Grounds
`
`Moore IPRs
`
`Loshin IPRs
`
`Three petitions pertain to Moore
`and the Digital River publications as
`primary references, and Arnold as
`the secondary reference.
`
`Three petitions pertain to Loshin as
`the primary reference, and Moore
`and the InfoHaus documents as the
`secondary references.
`
`‒ IPR2018-001011 –
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`
`‒ IPR2018-001012 –
`U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228
`
`‒ IPR2018-001014 –
`U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825
`
`‒ IPR2018-001008 –
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876
`
`‒ IPR2018-001009 –
`U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228
`
`‒ IPR2018-001010 –
`U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Summary of Instituted Grounds – Moore IPRs
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`’876 Patent Claims
`Challenged
`
`’228 Patent Claims
`Challenged
`
`’825 Patent Claims
`Challenged
`
`Digital River Publications
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17,
`and 18
`
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13,
`15, and 16
`
`Moore
`
`§ 102(a)
`
`1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17,
`and 18
`
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13,
`15, and 16
`
`1-8, 11-18
`
`1-8, 11-18
`
`Moore and Arnold
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1, 7, 11, and 17
`
`1, 4, 9, and 12
`
`1, 3, 11, and 13
`
`Moore and the Digital River
`Publications
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1-5, 7, 8, 11-15, 17,
`and 18
`
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13,
`15, and 16
`
`1-8, 11-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Summary of Instituted Grounds – Loshin IPRs
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Basis
`
`’876 Patent Claims
`Challenged
`
`’228 Patent Claims
`Challenged
`
`’825 Patent Claims
`Challenged
`
`Loshin
`
`Loshin and the InfoHaus
`Documents
`
`Loshin and Moore
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`1-5, 7, 8, 11-13,
`and 16-18
`
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13,
`15, and 16
`
`1-8, and 11-18
`
`1, 7, 11, 16,
`and 17
`
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13,
`15, and 16
`
`1-4, 8, 11-14, 17,
`and 18
`
`1-5, 7, 8, 11-15,
`and 17-18
`
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-13,
`15, and 16
`
`1-4, 8, 11-14, 17,
`and 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Current Status | Moore IPRs
`
`The Board took up the three Moore petitions on all grounds
`
`Patent Owner only disputes certain aspects of the claims as not disclosed by Moore
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Common overall appearance
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Commission limitations
`Hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`Catalog-searching limitations
`Matching-URL limitations
`Multi-product searching limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Current Status | Loshin IPR
`
`The Board took up the three Loshin petitions on all grounds
`
`Patent Owner only disputes certain aspects of the claims as not disclosed by Loshin
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Common overall appearance
`Providing page pairs for internet transactions
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Commission limitations
`Hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`Catalog-searching limitations
`Matching-URL limitations
`Multi-product searching limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`Moore
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Moore Overview
`
` Discloses a distributed electronic commerce system.
` Identifies as prior art a “non-distributed electronic commerce system for the World
`Wide Web” as depicted in Figure 1.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), FIG. 1.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 3:47-49, 4:23-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Moore Overview
`
` Step forward is when and where the web pages are generated and where those pages are served from.
` All pages generated by Development Tool on Store-Builder server.
`‒ Storefront Web Pages generated ahead of time by Java servlet
`on Store-Builder Server and served from another server.
`‒ Buy Web Pages generated by Java servlet
`and served by Store-Builder server.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 5:49-59, 6:23-25, FIG. 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Current Status | Moore IPRs
`
`The Board took up the three Moore petitions on all grounds
`
`Patent Owner only disputes certain aspects of the claims as not disclosed by Moore
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Common overall appearance
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Commission limitations
`Hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`Catalog-searching limitations
`Matching-URL limitations
`Multi-product searching limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Corresponding Overall Appearance
`
` The Institution Decision agreed with Petitioner, noting that “one might reasonably infer that from such
`generic description that the style implemented by the Development Tool can apply to all pages.”
`
` Patent Owner ignores the Board’s request to provide any definition for “overall appearance” and distorts
`the Federal Circuit’s guidance on the issue.
` Petitioner closely follows the Federal Circuit’s guidance and finds all the hallmarks of a shared Overall
`Appearance in Moore.
`
`Source: Institution Decision (IPR2018-01011, Paper 10), 20-21.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Corresponding Overall Appearance
`
` Claim Language – Each independent claim requires a shared “overall appearance.”
`
`Source: '876 patent (IPR2018-01008, Ex.
`1001), Cl. 1.
`
`Source: '825 patent (IPR2018-01010, Ex.
`1001), Cl. 1.
`
`Source: '228 patent (IPR2018-01009, Ex.
`1001), Cl. 1.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Corresponding Overall Appearance
`
` Patent Owner misrepresents the language of its own claims.
`
` “Overall match” does not appear in the claims of the ‘876, ‘228 or ‘825 Patents.
` “Overall match” does not appear in the specification of the DDR Patents.
` “Overall” only appears once in the specification of the DDR Patents when describing an
`“overall transaction.”
`
`Source: PO Resp. (IPR2018-01008, Paper 21), 4, 23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Corresponding Overall Appearance
`
` Patent Owner states that the Federal Circuit did not find that any Digital River page pairs
`disclosed corresponding overall appearance.
`
` The Federal Circuit clearly stated that Digital River satisfies the “look and feel element,” which is
`described by the court as “convey[ing] an overall appearance identifying a website.”
`
`Source: PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01008,
`Paper 25), 3.
`
`Source: DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245
`(IPR2018-01008, Ex. 1017), 1254.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Corresponding Overall Appearance
`
` The Federal Circuit provided clear guidance on the meaning of the “look and feel” elements, which was
`interpreted by the Federal Circuit as meaning “conveying an overall appearance of a website”
` This look and feel elements / overall appearance was conveyed by three elements: “website logo,”
`“background color,” and “prominent circular icons.”
`
` Patent Owner ignores this discussion from the Federal Circuit.
` Moore discloses the sharing of exactly these elements:
`‒ Default header and footer are disclosed as containing “the company name and logo” in Moore (Ex. 1010),
`11:4-15
`‒ Default background color is disclosed by Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:16-27
`‒ “Position and sizes of the style components are defined by the style” for the web pages is disclosed by
`Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:27-36
`Source: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (IPR2018-01008, Ex. 1017), 1253-54.
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Corresponding Overall Appearance
`
`Source: DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245
`(IPR2018-01008, Ex. 1017),
`1253-54.
`
`BACKGROUND COLOR (WHITE)
`
`Source: Excerpted Joint Appendix Vol IV
`Pages A07502, A08856-7 (IPR2018-01008,
`Ex. 1025).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Board Requested Clarification
`
` In the Institution Decisions the Board instructed “the parties to take positions with
`respect to construction of the phrase ‘defining an overall appearance’ that [the Board]
`can evaluate and consider in ascertaining whether Moore teaches or suggests the
`relevant limitation.” Institution Decision (IPR2018-01010, Paper 8), 20.
`
` Patent Owner ignores the Board’s request to provide any definition for “overall
`appearance” and distorts the Federal Circuit’s guidance on the issue.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`“Overall Appearance” Considered by Federal Circuit
`
` The Federal Circuit considered the construction of the term “look and feel,” which required
`the composite web page to convey the “overall appearance” of the source page:
`‒ “the parties agreed to a construction of: ‘A set of elements related to visual appearance and user
`interface conveying an overall appearance identifying a website; such elements include logos,
`colors, page layout, navigation systems, frames, ‘mouse-over’ effects, or others elements consistent
`through some or all of the website.’” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, (IPR2018-
`01008, Ex. 1017), 1250-1251 (emphasis added).
`
` The Federal Circuit found correspondence of overall appearance was shown when some
`“‘look and feel’ elements identifying the host website are transferred to and displayed on
`the generated composite webpage.” Id. at 1254.
`
` “There is no claim language requiring an ‘overall match’ or a specific number of ‘look and
`feel’ elements.” Id.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`“Substantially Corresponding” Overall Appearance/Look and Feel Invalid
`
` Claim 17 of the ’572 Patent invalid:
`‒ 17. An e-commerce outsourcing process comprising the steps of:
`‒ a) storing a look and feel description associated with a first website in a data Store associated with a
`Second website;
`‒ b) including within a web page of the first website, which web page has a look and feel substantially
`corresponding to the stored look and feel description, a link correlating the web page with a commerce
`object; and
`‒ c) upon receiving an activation of the link from a visitor computer to which the web page has been Served,
`Sewing [sic] to the Visitor computer from the Second website a composite web page having a look and feel
`corresponding to the Stored look and feel description of the first website and having content based on the
`commerce object associated with the link.
` Despite the “substantially corresponding” requirement, the Federal Circuit found claim 17
`anticipated noting that “[i]ndependent claim 17 requires only that the generated composite
`web page have a ‘look and feel corresponding to the stored look and feel description’ of the
`host website. There is no claim language requiring an ‘overall match’ or a specific number of
`‘look and feel’ elements.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245 (IPR2018-01008, Ex. 1017), 1254.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`’572 Claim Construction Inserted into ’825 Claims
`
` When construed by the Federal Circuit in accordance
`with the stipulated construction of the term “look and
`feel,” claim 17 of the invalidated ’572 Patent recited:
`
` Claim 1 of the ’825 Patent recites substantially the same
`subject matter as claim 17 of the ’572 Patent, which the
`Federal Circuit invalidated:
`
` c) upon receiving an activation of the link from a visitor
`computer to which the web page has been served,
`sewing [sic] to the visitor computer from the second
`website a composite web page[:]
`
` having a [set of elements related to visual appearance
`and user interface substantially] corresponding to the
`stored [overall appearance of] the first website[,
`wherein the set of elements includes at least some of
`logos, colors, page layout, navigation systems, frames,
`“mouse-over” effects, or others [sic] elements
`consistent through some or all of the website;] and
`
` having content based on the commerce object
`associated with the link.
`
` upon receiving . . . an electronic request generated . . .
`in response to selection of a uniform resource locator
`(URL) within a source web page that has been served to
`the visitor computer when visiting a first website, . . . (b)
`automatically . . . serving . . . a composite web page . . .
`[that] includes:
`
` (i) information associated with the commerce object
`associated . . . , and
`
` (ii) a plurality of visually perceptible elements
`derived from the retrieved pre-stored data defining an
`overall appearance of the composite web page . . .
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`’572 Claim Construction Inserted into ’228 Claims
`
` When construed by the Federal Circuit in accordance
`with the stipulated construction of the term “look and
`feel,” claim 17 of the invalidated ’572 Patent recited:
`
` Claim 1 of the ’228 Patent recites substantially the same
`subject matter as claim 17 of the ’572 Patent, which the
`Federal Circuit invalidated:
`
` c) upon receiving an activation of the link from a visitor
`computer to which the web page has been served,
`sewing [sic] to the visitor computer from the second
`website a composite web page[:]
`
` having a [set of elements related to visual appearance
`and user interface substantially] corresponding to the
`stored [overall appearance of] the first website[,
`wherein the set of elements includes at least some of
`logos, colors, page layout, navigation systems, frames,
`“mouse-over” effects, or others [sic] elements
`consistent through some or all of the website;] and
`
` having content based on the commerce object
`associated with the link.
`
` upon receiving . . . an electronic request generated . . .
`in response to selection of a uniform resource locator
`(URL) within a source web page that has been served to
`the visitor computer when visiting a first website, . . . (b)
`automatically . . . serving . . . a composite web page . . .
`[that] includes:
`
` (i) information associated with the commerce object
`associated . . . , and
`
` (ii) a plurality of visually perceptible elements . . . ,
`wherein the visually perceptible elements comprise any
`of . . . : logos, colors, page layout, navigation systems,
`frames, and visually perceptible mouse-over effects,
`wherein the plurality of visually perceptible elements
`define an overall appearance of the composite page
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`’572 Claim Construction Inserted into ’876 Claims
`
` When construed by the Federal Circuit in accordance
`with the stipulated construction of the term “look and
`feel,” claim 17 of the invalidated ’572 Patent recited:
`
` Claim 1 of the ’876 Patent recites substantially the same
`subject matter as claim 17 of the ’572 Patent, which the
`Federal Circuit invalidated:
`
` c) upon receiving an activation of the link from a visitor
`computer to which the web page has been served,
`sewing [sic] to the visitor computer from the second
`website a composite web page[:]
`
` upon receiving . . . an electronic request generated . . .
`in response to selection of a uniform resource locator
`(URL) within a source web page . . . , automatically
`serving . . .
`
` having a [set of elements related to visual appearance
`and user interface substantially] corresponding to the
`stored [overall appearance of] the first website[,
`wherein the set of elements includes at least some of
`logos, colors, page layout, navigation systems, frames,
`“mouse-over” effects, or others [sic] elements
`consistent through some or all of the website;] and
`
` . . . commerce object information . . . displayed . . . on a
`composite web page visually corresponding to the
`source web page;
`
` wherein the visual correspondence relates to overall
`appearance of the composite web page as compared to
`the source web page, . . .
`
` having content based on the commerce object
`associated with the link.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`PO’s Incorrect Statements Made to Examiner to Obtain Allowance
`
` Patent Owner told Examiner “overall appearance” = “overall match”
`‒ “[T]he phrase ‘overall match’ was used in the trial in Texas as a shorthand reference to general
`correspondence of overall appearance.” Response filed Dec. 24, 2014 at 18 (Ex. 2005), 62.
`
`‒ “Patent Owner also told the examiner of the Federal Circuit’s invalidation of certain claims of the parent ‘572
`patent and that the same reasoning was ‘emphatically not equally applicable to the pending claims,’ which
`‘expressly requires an overall appearance correspondence.’” PO Resp. (IPR2018-01008, Paper 21), 5.
`
`‒ “Patent Owner explained . . . that the decision turned on the absence of a limitation in the grandparent ‘572
`patent requiring corresponding overall appearance. In allowing the ‘228 patent, then, the examiner
`accepted Patent Owner’s explanation that the Digital River art merely “carried over isolated elements” but
`contained no page pair with “a substantially similar overall appearance.’” PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01008,
`Paper 25), 4-5.
`
`‒ “[T]he examiner granted these [’825, ’228, ’876] patents with claims that . . . ‘expressly recited’ the ‘overall
`match’ requirement.” PO Prelim. Resp. (IPR2018-01008, Paper 11), 24-25.
` Federal Circuit explicitly distinguished “overall appearance” from “overall match.” DDR
`Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245 (IPR2018-01008, Ex. 1017), 1254 (noting that claims requiring “overall
`appearance” did not require an “overall match”).
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`PO’s Incorrect Statements Made in IPR Proceedings
`
` “The Federal Circuit in Hotels did not reverse the district court finding that Digital River failed to disclose
`corresponding overall appearance. The jury, the district court, and the examiner all concluded that the
`Digital River page pairs did not show corresponding overall appearance, and the examiner rightly
`understood that the Federal Circuit did not disagree.” PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01008, Paper 25), 5-6.
`
` “Petitioner’s thesis is wrong because it mistakenly assumes that the Federal Circuit decision overturned
`the jury’s judgment, upheld by the district court, that the Digital River page pairs fail to show
`“correspondence of overall appearance” based only on the presence of a few common ‘look and feel’
`elements.” Id. at 6.
`
` “The Federal Circuit’s decision in Hotels thus did not disturb the jury and district court’s factual findings,
`which remain persuasive evidence that the few common elements on Digital River page pairs did not
`produce overall correspondence.” Id. at 3-4.
`
` “The Federal Circuit partial reversal did not disturb the jury findings or court affirmance of what
`constituted a correspondence in visual appearance; it merely held that the grandparent claims did not
`require such correspondence.” PO Resp. (IPR2018-01008, Paper 21), 11 n.6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit Reversed Jury and District Court
`
` The Federal Circuit expressly reversed the jury and district court by ruling that “the
`record allows only one reasonable finding: clear and convincing evidence establishes
`that Digital River's prior art SSS anticipates the asserted claims of the ′572 patent.
`The record lacks substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the asserted
`claims of the ′572 patent are not anticipated. Therefore, the district court erred by
`denying the defendants' motion for JMOL of invalidity.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245
`(IPR2018-01008, Ex. 1017), 1253.
`
` Thus, the Federal Circuit invalidated claims requiring the source and composite web
`pages to have corresponding look and feel, i.e., corresponding overall appearance. Id.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`“Overall Match” NOT Required by the Challenged Claims
`
` “The Response (at 10-11) cites evidence from the district court and from the prosecution histories
`demonstrating that ‘page pairs’ that share only the name and logo of a host ‘fall short[]’ of ‘conveying an
`overall match of appearance.’ . . . Accordingly, the Board should find that claim terms requiring ‘visual
`correspondence’ of ‘overall appearance’ cannot be met by a host page and composite page that just
`share a host’s name or name plus trademark or logo.” PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01008, Paper 25), 7-8.
`
`‒ Patent Owner’s argument is wrong, the Federal Circuit found correspondence of overall appearance was
`shown when some “‘look and feel’ elements identifying the host website are transferred to and displayed on
`the generated composite webpage.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245 (IPR2018-01008, Ex. 1017), 1254.
`
` Patent Owner concedes “the claim limitations [do not] require that the pages must match exactly,” and
`that “there is no basis for such a position in the specification, file history, or previous determinations of
`overall appearance.” PO Resp. (IPR2018-01008, Paper 21), 23.
`
`‒ Like the invalidated claims of the ’572 Patent (which also required correspondence of “overall appearance”),
`the challenged claims contain “no claim language requiring an ‘overall match’.” Id.
`
`‒ Like the invalidated claims of the ’572 Patent, the challenged claims do not require “a specific number of ‘look
`and feel’ elements.” Id.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`“Look and Feel” (’572) = “Overall Appearance” (’825, ’228, ’876)
`
` “[C]ommonality of overall appearance cannot
`be premised merely on the presence of a few
`common ‘look and feel’ elements, especially
`non-distinctive ones.” PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-
`01008, Paper 25), 13.
`
`‒ “There is nothing, however, in the . . . claim
`language, or the specification that requires the
`generated composite web page to match the
`host website or to incorporate a specific number,
`proportion, or selection of the identified ‘look
`and feel’ elements on a host website.” DDR
`Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245 (Ex. 1017), 1254.
`
`‒ “There is no claim language requiring an ‘overall
`match’ or a specific number of ‘look and feel’
`elements.” Id.
`
`’572 Invalidating Prior Art
`= Overall Appearance
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Moore IPR -Tool Creates Pages with Common Overall Appearance
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 10:43 – 12:32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Moore IPR -Tool Creates Pages with Common Overall Appearance
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 10:48-53, FIGS. 6-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Moore IPR -Tool Creates Pages with Common Overall Appearance
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 10:43 – 11:61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Tool Uses Category to Assist
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 10:59-11:3, FIG. 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Tool Defines Page Defaults
`
`Having a common header and footer on “all pages”
`creates a common overall appearance.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:4-15, FIG. 7.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Tool Defines Page Defaults
`
`Having a common background color and page
`style creates a common overall appearance.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 10:48-53, 11:16-26, FIGS. 8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs –Tool Allows Optional Page Customization
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:37-49
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:28-37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Changing Pages From Defaults
`
` The Development Tool creates the Storefront pages with defaults settings.
` The merchant is free to change the style components to individualize the pages.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:50-61.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Single Tool Makes All Pages
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:1-32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Converting price URL to Buy Page
`
` The Development Tool on the Store Builder Server decrypts the price URL and
`converts it to “an HTML page (a Buy Page).”
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:25-32.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), Fig. 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – Buy Pages Use the Defaults
`
` Price URL is a link to a Java servlet in the Development Tool on the Store Builder Server.
` The price URL can be attached to “any style component.”
` The price URL includes “several fields used to customize the Buy Page.”
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), FIG. 15
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:3-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Moore IPRs – PO Mischaracterizes Testimony
`
`
`
`In context, Dr. Shamos’s testimony is clear.
`
` DDR provides slightly altered, out of
`context testimony in an effort to
`identify an alleged admission by
`Shopify’s Expert, Dr. Shamos, that
`Moore fails to make a specific
`disclosure about headers and footers.
` DDR edits an isolated portion of
`Dr. Shamos’s testimony to make the
`following statement: “Petitioner’s
`own witness, Dr. Shamos, agrees that
`Moore contains no explicit statement:
`“Q. Moore never refers to applying
`headers and footer [to Buy Pages] as
`such; correct? A. That’s correct. Ex.
`2027 at 117:10-22.” Patent Owner’s
`Sur Reply, at p. 3.
`
`Source: Shamos Depo. Tr. (Ex. 2027), 116:8-117:22.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – DDR’s Arguments Are Baseless
`
` DDR’s arguments regarding Moore are based on the assertion that
`Petitioner made several assumptions about the disclosure of Moore.
`Petitioner did not.
`‒ Petitioner relies on express disclosures to support its arguments.
`‒ DDR’s argument is based on conjecture and wishful thinking.
`‒ The tenuous nature of DDR’s argument is shown by the fact that the argument is
`not even internally consistent throughout DDR’s briefing.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Moore IPR –Single Tool Generates Consistent Overall Appearance
`
` In its Sur-Reply, DDR alleges that Petitioner assumes that “a single tool, the Development
`Tool” generates the Storefront and Buy Pages. PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01011, Paper 24), 5.
` The express disclosure of Moore provides this fact.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 5:51-63.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:25-32.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Moore IPR –Single Tool Generates Consistent Overall Appearance
`
` Patent Owner admits to this fact in their Patent Owner’s Response at 35-36.
` Both the Storefront Pages and the Buy Pages are created by the Development Tool
`on the Store Builder Server.
`
`Source: PO Resp. (IPR2018-01008, Paper 21), 35.
`
`Source: Id. at 36.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Moore IPR –Single Tool Generates Consistent Overall Appearance
`
` In its Sur-Reply, DDR alleges that Petitioner assumes that the defaults extend only to a
`subset of pages (alleged Assumption 2). PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01011, Paper 24), 5.
` The express disclosure of Moore provides this fact.
` DDR points to no disclosure that limits this disclosure to “Storefront Pages.”
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:51-61.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 11:27-37.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`
`
`Moore IPR –Single Tool Generates Consistent Overall Appearance
`
` In its Sur-Reply, DDR alleges that Petitioner assumes that the price URLs access
`merchant specific styles (alleged Assumption 3). PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01011, Paper
`24), 5.
` The express disclosure of Moore provides this fact.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:3-8.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Moore IPR –Single Tool Generates Consistent Overall Appearance
`
` In its Sur-Reply, DDR alleges that Petitioner assumes that the price URLs is a link to merchant
`specific look and feel information (alleged Assumption 4). PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01011, Paper
`24), 6.
` The express disclosure of Moore provides this fact.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 6:17-22.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:3-8.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:13-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Storefront and Buy Pages
`
` DDR again provides slightly altered, out of context testimony in an effort to identify an alleged admission by Shopify’s Expert, Dr.
`Shamos, that Moore fails to make a specific disclosure about templates.
` DDR’s slightly edited quotation is misleading as excerpted below. Dr. Shamos testified that the Development Tool creates the
`“everything that is needed to generate the buy page[.]” DDR attempts to make a distinction where there is none.
`In context, Dr. Shamos’s testimony is clear.
`
`
`
`Source: Shamos Depo. Tr. (Ex. 2027), 177:13-18.
`
`Source: Shamos Depo. Tr. (Ex. 2027), 59:7-20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Storefront and Buy Pages
`
` When viewed in context, Dr. Shamos’s testimony is clear in that the Development Tool
`generates all the materials necessary to create a Buy Page using java servlets.
`
`Source: Shamos Depo. Tr. (Ex. 2027), 176:21-177:9.
`
`Source: Shamos Depo. Tr.
`(Ex. 2027), 87:7-12.
`
`Source: Shamos Depo. Tr.
`(Ex. 2027), 88:6-14.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Storefront and Buy Pages
`
` DDR’s “Impossibility” argument is a red herring.
` Dr. Keller’s price URL argument ignores requirements in the specification –
`the price URL is a link.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 12:3-8.
`
`Source: PO Sur-Reply (IPR2018-01011, Paper 24), 20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Storefront and Buy Pages
`
` Dr. Keller concedes that his example price URL which has omitted several items was already close to the
`maximum byte limit of web browsers at the time of Moore.
` Dr. Keller’s price URL omits at least the “quantity of measure,” “merchant ID,” and background picture.
` Dr. Keller’s price URL is not even encrypted.
`
`Source: Example Price URL
`(IPR2018-01008, Ex. 2032).
`
`Source: Keller Decl.
`(IPR2018-01008, Ex. 2025)
`at ¶ 39(d).
`
`Source: Keller Decl.
`(IPR2018-01008, Ex. 2025)
`at ¶ 39(c).
`
`Source: Moore
`(Ex. 1010), 12:13-17.
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Current Status | Moore IPRs
`
`The Board took up the three Moore petitions on all grounds
`
`Patent Owner only disputes certain aspects of the claims as not disclosed by Moore
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Common overall appearance
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Commission limitations
`Hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`Catalog-searching limitations
`Matching-URL limitations
`Multi-product searching limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Discloses Commissions
`
` Claim Language – Host/merchant receives payment of a “commission”
`from the outsource provider.
`
`Source: '876 patent (IPR2018-
`01008, Ex. 1001), Cl. 4.
`
`Source: '825 patent (IPR2018-
`01010, Ex. 1001), Cl. 6.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Discloses Commissions
`
` Moore teaches revenue sharing.
` The specifications of the DDR Patents do not attribute a specialized meaning to commission.
` DDR cites a definition of commission as “a fee paid to an agent or employee for transacting a piece of
`business.” Ex. 2033.
`
`Moore discloses revenue
`sharing between parties:
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 9:23-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Discloses Commissions
`
` Dr. Shamos points to the disclosure of Moore as disclosing revenue sharing
`arrangements. Shamos Decl. (IPR2018-01011, Ex. 1002), ¶ 127.
` Dr. Keller does not dispute that Moore makes this disclosure.
` To the extent that DDR is arguing that it is a payment from the Outsource Provider
`to the Host that differentiates their claim, Moore is agnostic about whether the
`funds are flowing through the Transaction Servers to the merchants or through the
`merchants to the Transaction Servers.
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 9:23-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
`
`Current Status | Moore IPRs
`
`The Board took up the three Moore petitions on all grounds
`
`Patent Owner only disputes certain aspects of the claims as not disclosed by Moore
`
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Common overall appearance
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Commission limitations
`Hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`Catalog-searching limitations
`Matching-URL limitations
`Multi-product searching limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`
`Source: '876 patent (IPR2018-01008, Ex.
`1001), Cl. 7.
`
`Source: '825 patent (IPR2018-01010, Ex.
`1001), Cl. 3.
`
`Source: '228 patent (IPR2018-01009, Ex.
`1001), Cl. 4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`Moore IPR – Discloses Hierarchical-page electronic catalog limitations
`
` Moore teaches hierarchical-page electronic catalogs
` Moore explicitly addresses the problem of maintain an updated “Web catalog” and keeping it up to date
`
`Source: Moore (Ex. 1010), 2:34-35.
` Moore analogizes its web storefronts to “traditional catalog companies with its good available via the
`Web” and makes a specific reference to L.L. Bean, which provides hierarchical sorting of its goods (shirts,
`shoes, fishing eq
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
