Paper No. 1
`
`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
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`Shopify v. DDR Holdings
`IPR2018-01011
`
`

`

`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
`Declaration of James Pichler
`Digital River Brochure (Brochure)
`Digital River April 1997 Website (April 1997 Website)
`Digital River December 1997 Website (December 1997 Website)
`Web Page of Corel, a Digital River customer (July 1998)
`Web Page of 21 Software Drive, a Digital River customer (April
`1998)
`Web Page of 21 Software Drive, a Digital River customer (April
`1998)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,330,575 (Moore)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,016,504 (Arnold)
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`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)
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 11
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ......................................................................... 11
`A.
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ................................. 11
`B.
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .......................................... 11
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ....................... 44
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ................................... 44
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................... 44
`IV.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ............................................................................ 54
`A.
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)) ..................................................................................... 55
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ............ 55
`1.
`The Asserted References are Printed Publications and
`Available as Prior Art ............................................................. 66
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative ............................. 66
`2.
`REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22(a)(2) AND 42.104(b)(4) .................................................................... 77
`A.
`Background ....................................................................................... 77
`1.
`Field of Technology ................................................................ 77
`2.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................... 88
`3.
`The ‘876 Patent ....................................................................... 99
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) ............................ 1010
`1.
`“merchants” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17) ........................... 1010
`2.
`“host” (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16) ..................................... 1010
`3.
`“commerce object” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17,
`19) ....................................................................................... 1010
`“commission” (Claims 4, 14) ............................................. 1111
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`4.
`
`i
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`(c)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`(i)
`
`(d)
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
`103 ................................................................................................. 1111
`1.
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are obvious in view
`of the Digital River Publications ........................................ 1111
`(a)
`The Digital River Publications ................................. 1111
`(b)
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications ............................................................... 1616
`Claim 2 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications ............................................................... 2121
`Claim 3 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications ............................................................... 2222
`Claim 4 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications ............................................................... 2222
`Claim 5 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications ............................................................... 2323
`Claim 7 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications ............................................................... 2423
`Claim 8 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications ............................................................... 2525
`Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are rendered obvious by
`the Digital River Publications .................................. 2626
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are anticipated by
`Moore .................................................................................. 2626
`(a) Moore ........................................................................ 2626
`(b)
`Claim 1 is anticipated by Moore .............................. 2928
`(c)
`Claim 2 is anticipated by Moore .............................. 3737
`(d)
`Claim 3 is anticipated by Moore .............................. 3838
`(e)
`Claim 4 is anticipated by Moore .............................. 3939
`(f)
`Claim 5 is anticipated by Moore .............................. 4040
`(g)
`Claim 7 is anticipated by Moore .............................. 4141
`(h)
`Claim 8 is anticipated by Moore .............................. 4242
`(a)
`Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are anticipated by Moore .. 4342
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 7, 10 and 17 are rendered obvious
`by Moore in view of Arnold ................................................ 4343
`(a)
`Summary of Arnold .................................................. 4343
`(a)
`It was obvious to a POSITA to combine the
`teachings of Moore and Arnold ................................ 4545
`
`ii
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`(a)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(b)
`
`Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ....................................................................... 4747
`Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ....................................................................... 4747
`Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ....................................................................... 4948
`Claim 17 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ....................................................................... 4949
`Ground 4: Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, and 17-18 are
`rendered obvious by Moore in view of the Digital River
`Publications ........................................................................ 4949
`(a)
`It was obvious to a POSITA to combine the
`teachings of Moore and the Digital River
`Publications .............................................................. 4949
`Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-18 are rendered obvious
`by Moore in view of the Digital River Publications 5150
`VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 5151
`
`4.
`
`(b)
`
`iii
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal 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, 2, 11
`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
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................ 2, 3, 4, 45
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................... 5, 11, 45, 51
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`Rules
`Rule 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`iv
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) ................................................................................................... 52
` (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 ..................................................................................................... 53
`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)) ...................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a) ............................................................................................... 52
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................... 10
`Other Authorities
`American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary 280 (Robert B. Costello et
`al. eds., 3rd ed. 1997) ............................................................................................ 2
`Ex. 1007. Voorhees .................................................................................................... 6
`FIG. 6. Arnold .......................................................................................................... 44
`Therefore, Moore ..................................................................................................... 28
`U.S. Patent No. 6,330,575 .......................................................................................... 2
`U.S. Patent No. 6,629,135 ...................................................................................... 2, 3
`U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572 .................................................................................passim
`
`v
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 7,818,399 .................................................................................passim
`U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825 ...................................................................................... 1, 2
`U.S. Patent No. 9,043,228 ...................................................................................... 1, 2
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 ...................................................................................... 1, 2
`Webster’s New World Basic Dictionary of American English 167-168
`(Michael Agnes et al. eds., 1998) ......................................................................... 2
`Suspects
`DDR_IPR_ ................................................................................................................. 4
`§ 102(b) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`§ 102(e) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`Id. Third..................................................................................................................... 8
`§ 102(a) .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`vi
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`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, 11-15, and, 17-18 (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 the U.S. Patent No. 7,818, 399 Patent (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 the ‘876 Patent, 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-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`(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 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 visually perceptible elements of the Web page on
`
`-2-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`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. 1018, 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.
`
`-3-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`6,629,135, 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.
`
`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
`
`Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review on the
`
`Grounds identified herein.
`
`-4-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`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, 11-15, and
`
`17-18 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 Claims: 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-
`18
`Ground 2 Claims: 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-
`18
`Ground 3 Claims 1, 7, 11 and 17
`
`Ground 4 Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, and
`17-18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the Digital
`River Publications1/
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Moore
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Moore and
`Arnold
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Moore and
`the Digital River Publications
`
`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,
`
`1/
`
`Grounds 1 and 3 utilize six different printed publications describing the Digital River system and Digital
`
`River websites. This art may be viewed individually and as two or more together as a whole. These Grounds do not
`
`stand or fall based on the status of any one of these printed publications.
`
`-5-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`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 earliest possible priority date. Petitioners reserve the right to present such an
`
`argument in the event that such an argument becomes relevant.
`
`1.
`
`The Asserted References are Printed Publications and
`Available as Prior Art
`The Digital River Brochure was publicly available and freely disseminated
`
`to persons of ordinary skill in the art (POSITAs) in the Summer of 1997 and is
`
`prior art under § 102(b). Ex. 1004; Ex. 1020, 6. The April 1997 Website and
`
`December 1997 Website were publicly available and accessible to a POSITA
`
`exercising reasonable diligence in April of 1997 and December 1997, respectively,
`
`and are prior art under § 102(b) and § 102(a), respectively. Ex. 1005; Ex. 1020, 4-
`
`5. The Corel web page was publically available and accessible to a POSITA at
`
`least by July 9, 1998 and the 21 Software Drive web pages were publically
`
`available and accessible to a POSITA at least by April 21, 1998 and are prior art
`
`under § 102(a). Exs. 1007-1009. Moore was filed March 31, 1998 and is prior art
`
`under § 102(e). Ex. 10071010. Arnold was filed August 28, 1996, and is prior art
`
`under § 102(e). Ex. 1011.
`
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative
`2.
`Petitioners submit that the above-identified grounds are non-cumulative.
`
`The prior art utilized in Ground 1 illustrates why it would have been obvious to
`
`-6-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`utilize an outsource provider to distribute processing of ecommerce tasks in a two-
`
`party system. Additionally, Patent Owner cannot swear behind Ground 1.
`
`Ground 2 illustrates why it would have been anticipated, when implementing
`
`a two-party system, to incorporate specific design aspects of pages served by the
`
`outsource provider based on where the page request originates. Accordingly,
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 utilize different rationales to invalidate the claims of the ‘876
`
`Patent. Further, while Moore was of record during the prosecution of the DDR
`
`Patents, the examiner never analyzed Moore and did not reject any patent claims
`
`during the prosecution of the DDR Patents or their family members.
`
`Ground 3 is not cumulative of Ground 2 because Ground 3 adds evidence
`
`addressing elements that Patent Owner may assert are not explicitly reflected in
`
`Moore of Ground 2.
`
`Ground 4 is not cumulative of Grounds 1 and 2 because Ground 4 combines
`
`evidence from Grounds 1 and 2 in addressing elements that Patent Owner may
`
`assert are not explicitly reflected by one or the other of the Digital River Patent in
`
`Ground 1 and Moore in Ground 2.
`
`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
`
`-7-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`At the time of the alleged invention, ecommerce websites and systems to
`
`support ecommerce website functionality were well-established. Ex. 1002,2/ 13-21.
`
`Ecommerce websites began as singular Web storefronts, but quickly expanded to
`
`incorporate offline commerce concepts, such as affiliate programs. Ex. 1001, 1:27-
`
`2:48; Ex. 1002, 13-21. As affiliate programs became more established, entities
`
`began utilizing “white-label” storefronts. Ex. 1002, 13-31. A white-label
`
`storefront allows a first merchant to sell another 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. Id. At the time of the
`
`alleged invention, multiple entities already implemented these systems, such as e-
`
`Me
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`2.
`The ’825 Patent defines its field of invention as follows: “The invention
`
`relates to a system and method supporting commerce syndication. More
`
`specifically, the invention relates to a system and method for computer-based
`
`information providers to receive outsourced electronic commerce facilities in a
`
`context-sensitive, transparent manner.” Ex. 1001, 1:24-31; Ex. 1002, 56-58.
`
`2/
`
`Citations to Exhibit 1002 refer to paragraph numbers as opposed to pages in the exhibit.
`
`-8-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`Based on the disclosure of the ’825 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (POSITA), in order to understand the ’825 Patent 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. Ex. 1002, 56-58. Such
`
`topics were not generally covered in University curricula at the time. Ex. 1002,
`
`56-58. 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. Ex. 1002, 56-58.
`
`The ‘876 Patent
`3.
`The ‘876 Patent describes a system
`
`in which certain well-known
`
`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 links causes a Web page having
`
`the appearance of the host website to be built and sent to a user’s Web browser. Id.
`
`The ‘876 Patent outsources certain processing functionality to an outsource
`
`-9-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`provider (Ex. 1001, 23:49-24:57), which is consistent with common industry
`
`practice at the time of the alleged invention. Ex. 1002, 21-31.
`
`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.
`
`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 outsource provider into its web content.” Ex. 1001, 23:35-37.
`
`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
`
`-10-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`“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 manner in which 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.
`
`C.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
`103
`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 obvious in view of
`the Digital River Publications
`(a)
`The Digital River Publications
`The Federal Circuit invalidated claims in the ’572 Patent under § 102(a)
`
`over
`
`-11-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`the DR SSS (a system that had been used to outsource certain ecommerce
`
`functionality over one year before the ‘876 Patent’s earliest priority date). Ex.
`
`1017, DDR Holdings, LLC, 773 F.3d at 1253, Ex. 1003, ¶¶3-11. The Digital River
`
`Publications were available to a POSITA and described concepts of the DR SSS
`
`before the earliest priority date of the ’876 Patent. Ex. 1002, 69; Ex. 1010, 4-6;
`
`Ex. 1010; Ex. 1020, Ex. 1003, ¶¶4,7. Taken together, the Ditigal River
`
`Publications render the claims of the ‘876 Patent obvious under § 103(a).
`
`(1)
`
`The April 1997 Website
`
`The April 1997 Website discloses that the DR SSS enabled manufacturers
`
`and dealers to sell and deliver products via the Internet using the DR SSS as an
`
`outsource service provider. Ex. 1002, 70; Ex. 1005, Ex. 1003, ¶¶5, 7. The April
`
`1997 Website discloses that the DR SSS processed transactions as a third party in a
`
`manner that created the “appear[ance] to the consumer as if the transaction is being
`
`processed by the manufacturer or dealer.” Ex. 1002, 70; Ex. 1005 (“[a] key
`
`advantage to a partnership with Digital River is the high level of service offered by
`
`the company, including customization of Web presentation so that the SSS
`
`remains behind the scenes...and of course timely reporting and payment on all
`
`software sales”) (emphasis added).
`
`(2)
`
`The Brochure
`
`-12-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`The Brochure describes how the DR SSS enables companies to utilize an
`
`outsource provider to increase sales and ease burdens of operating ecommerce
`
`websites. Ex. 1002, 71; Ex. 1004, 2-3. Specifically, “[a]s a client of Digital River,
`
`you will become part of the Digital River Network. Network members will be able
`
`to link between each other’s sites so that complimentary [sic] products can be
`
`bundled, and the consumer experience enhanced; not to mention the added
`
`opportunity for sales revenue. Digital River can also provide assistance in
`
`increasing site traffic, the sites’ sales impact, and even design modifications.” Ex.
`
`1002, 71; Ex. 1004, 2-3 (emphasis added). Additionally, the DR SSS could be
`
`implemented as “an integrated back-end commerce system tailored just to your site
`
`so your customers will feel that they’ve never left your page.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added). These disclosures taught a POSITA that an outsource provider could
`
`enable products of a merchant to be marketed across a network of ecommerce
`
`websites while maintaining the appearance that a user remained on a single
`
`merchant’s webstore throughout the duration of a transaction. Id.
`
`The Brochure discusses commonly-known factors that would motivate a
`
`merchant to utilize an outsource provider. Ex. 1002, 72; Ex. 1004, 2-3. For
`
`example, utilizing an outsource provider eliminated the high costs and “huge pain
`
`in the butt” associated with developing and establishing a webstore. Id.
`
`Additionally, an outsource provider could provide merchants with protections with
`
`-13-
`
`Shopify Exhibit 1023
`
`

`

`respect to processing sales transactions (e.g., guarant