`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`CLOVER NETWORK, LLC
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CLOUDOFCHANGE, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________________________
`Case IPR2023-00287
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 11,226,793
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 1
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................................ 1
`C. Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ............................................................. 2
`D. Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) .......................................... 3
`STANDING ..................................................................................................... 4
`II.
`III. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS .......................................................................... 4
`IV.
`’793 PATENT SUMMARY ............................................................................ 4
`A. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................ 4
`B. Prosecution History .................................................................................. 5
`STATE OF THE ART ..................................................................................... 5
`V.
`VI. PRIOR ART OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 6
`A. Woycik (EX1004) .................................................................................... 6
`B. Tengler (EX1005) .................................................................................... 7
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 8
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A. “wherein the further information regarding the one or more POS
`transactions, the information used for creating or modifying the one or
`more POS screens, or a combination thereof comprises one or more
`of...” (all claims) ...................................................................................... 9
`B. “display interfaces” (all claims) ............................................................. 10
`C. “the input interface element” (claim 23) ............................................... 10
`D. “the web server”/”the at least one web server” (claim 38) .................... 10
`E. “creating or modifying functionality of the one or POS terminals”
`(claim 44) ............................................................................................... 10
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED .................................. 11
`A.
`Institution is Proper Under § 314(a) ...................................................... 11
`B.
`Institution is Proper Under § 325(d) ...................................................... 14
`CLAIM LISTING .......................................................................................... 15
`
`X.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`XI. GROUND 1: WOYCIK IN VIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF A POSITA
`RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-4, 7-28, AND 31-44 ............................. 15
`A. Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 15
`1. 1[pre] ............................................................................................... 15
`2. 1[a] & 1[b] ....................................................................................... 16
`3. 1[c] ................................................................................................... 19
`4. 1[d] & 1[g] ....................................................................................... 27
`5. 1[e] ................................................................................................... 28
`6. 1[f] ................................................................................................... 34
`B. Claims 2 & 11 ........................................................................................ 38
`C. Claim 3 ................................................................................................... 39
`D. Claims 4 & 9 .......................................................................................... 41
`E. Claim 7 ................................................................................................... 42
`F. Claim 8 ................................................................................................... 43
`G. Claim 10 ................................................................................................. 45
`H. Claim 12 ................................................................................................. 47
`I. Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 49
`J. Claim 14 ................................................................................................. 51
`K. Claim 15 ................................................................................................. 51
`L. Claim 16 ................................................................................................. 52
`M. Claim 17 ................................................................................................. 54
`N. Claims 18 & 20 ...................................................................................... 55
`O. Claim 19 ................................................................................................. 55
`P. Claim 21 ................................................................................................. 56
`Q. Claim 22 ................................................................................................. 57
`R. Claim 23 ................................................................................................. 58
`S. Claim 24 ................................................................................................. 60
`T. Claims 25 & 26 ...................................................................................... 61
`U. Claim 27 ................................................................................................. 64
`1. 27[pre] ............................................................................................. 64
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`4. 27[d] ................................................................................................. 67
`5. 27[e] & 27[h] ................................................................................... 67
`6. 27[f] ................................................................................................. 67
`7. 27[g] ................................................................................................. 68
`V. Claims 28, 31-38, 40-41 ........................................................................ 68
`W. Claim 39 ................................................................................................. 69
`X. Claim 42 ................................................................................................. 69
`Y. Claim 43 ................................................................................................. 70
`Z. Claim 44 ................................................................................................. 71
`XII. GROUND 2: TENGLER IN VIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF A
`POSITA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-4, 7-28, AND 31-44 .............. 72
`A. Claim 1 ................................................................................................... 72
`1. 1[pre] ............................................................................................... 72
`2. 1[a] & 1[b] ....................................................................................... 74
`3. 1[c] ................................................................................................... 79
`4. 1[d] & 1[g] ....................................................................................... 85
`5. 1[e] ................................................................................................... 87
`6. 1[f] ................................................................................................... 91
`B. Claims 2 & 11 ........................................................................................ 98
`C. Claim 3 ................................................................................................... 98
`D. Claims 4 & 9 ........................................................................................ 100
`E. Claim 7 ................................................................................................. 102
`F. Claim 8 ................................................................................................. 103
`G. Claim 10 ............................................................................................... 104
`H. Claim 12 ............................................................................................... 107
`I. Claim 13 ............................................................................................... 107
`J. Claim 14 ............................................................................................... 108
`K. Claim 15 ............................................................................................... 109
`M. Claim 17 ............................................................................................... 112
`N. Claims 18 & 20 .................................................................................... 112
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`O. Claim 19 ............................................................................................... 115
`P. Claim 21 ............................................................................................... 116
`Q. Claim 22 ............................................................................................... 117
`R. Claim 23 ............................................................................................... 118
`S. Claim 24 ............................................................................................... 120
`T. Claims 25 & 26 .................................................................................... 120
`U. Claim 27 ............................................................................................... 122
`1. 27[pre] ........................................................................................... 122
`2. 27[a] & 27[b] ................................................................................. 122
`3. 27[c] ............................................................................................... 122
`4. 27[d] ............................................................................................... 123
`5. 27[e] & 27[h] ................................................................................. 124
`6. 27[f] ............................................................................................... 124
`7. 27[g] ............................................................................................... 124
`V. Claims 28, 31-38, 40-41 ...................................................................... 124
`W. Claim 39 ............................................................................................... 126
`X. Claim 42 ............................................................................................... 126
`Y. Claim 43 ............................................................................................... 127
`Z. Claim 44 ............................................................................................... 128
`XIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 129
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner Clover Network, LLC (“Clover”) respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-4, 7-28, and 31-44 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,226,793 (“’793 patent”) (EX1001).
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Clover Network, LLC.
`
`is a real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`CloudofChange, LLC (“Patent Owner” or “PO” or “CloudofChange”) sued
`
`Clover for patent infringement of the ’793 patent. CloudofChange, LLC v. Clover
`
`Network, Inc., 6:22-cv-00634 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2022) (“the Clover Litigation”).
`
`The Clover Litigation is pending.
`
`CloudofChange sued Lightspeed POS Inc. (“Lightspeed”) for patent
`
`infringement of the ’793 patent. CloudofChange, LLC v. Lightspeed POS Inc., 6:21-
`
`cv-01102 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021) (“the Lightspeed Litigation”). The Lightspeed
`
`Litigation is pending.
`
`Lightspeed filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’793 patent on June
`
`13, 2022. Lightspeed Commerce Inc. v. CloudofChange, LLC, IPR 2022-01143,
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Paper No. 1 (PTAB June 13, 2022). The PTAB instituted inter partes review on
`
`November 10, 2022. Id., Paper No. 8 (PTAB Nov. 10, 2022).
`
`CloudofChange sued NCR Corporation for patent infringement of the ’793
`
`patent. CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corporation, 6:19-cv-00513 (W.D. Tex. Aug.
`
`30, 2019) (“the NCR Litigation”). The NCR Litigation resulted in a jury verdict for
`
`Patent Owner, but it is still pending final judgment. CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR
`
`Corporation, 2021 WL 2964323 (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2021).
`
`C. Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner provides the following designation
`
`of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Jason D. Kipnis
`Reg. No. 40,680
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR, LLP
`2600 El Camino Real
`Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 600-5036
`jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`Sarah B. Petty
`pro hac vice to be requested
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`
`Backup Counsel
`Gregory H. Lantier
`pro hac vice to be requested
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR, LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6327
`gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`Backup Counsel
`R. Gregory Israelsen
`Reg. No. 72,805
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`DORR, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6755
`sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com
`
`DORR, LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6215
`greg.israelsen@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Amy L. Mahan
`Reg. No. 75,997
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6182
`amy.mahan@wilmerhale.com
`
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`Post and hand delivery: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jason.kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`
`gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com
`
`greg.israelsen@wilmerhale.com
`
`amy.mahan@wilmerhale.com
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`II.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`STANDING
`Petitioner certifies under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) that the ’793 patent is
`
`available for IPR and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR.
`
`III. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner requests
`
`cancellation of the challenged claims of the ’793 patent on the following grounds.1
`
`Ground Basis
`
`References
`
`Claims
`
`1
`
`2
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2007/0265935 (“Woycik”)
`(EX1004)
`U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2005/0049921 (“Tengler”)
`(EX1005)
`’793 PATENT SUMMARY
`A. OVERVIEW
`The ’793 patent relates to a method for building “a point of sale (POS) system
`
`1-4, 7-28, 31-44
`
`1-4, 7-28, 31-44
`
`IV.
`
`to manage business operations.” EX1001, 1:22-29. EX1002, ¶36.
`
`The ’793 patent background describes the “[c]urrent practice in the field of
`
`assembling point of sale systems includes manually coding front-of-screen
`
`information,” e.g., with programmer help. Id., 1:33-39. Manually “building and
`
`
`1 References to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA version.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`editing” POS terminal user interfaces (POS screens) by means of “a complex
`
`interface to a front-of-screen programming language” required “specially trained
`
`people,” was “prone to mistakes,” and was “time-consuming.” Id., 1:37-46. EX1002,
`
`¶37.
`
`The ’793 patent purports to improve the process of creating/modifying POS
`
`screens by using the Internet to access screen-design software on a networked server.
`
`Id., 2:16-33, 5:43-6:11, Claim 1. EX1002, ¶38.
`
`B.
`Prosecution History
`The application for the ’793 patent was filed November 30, 2017, and claims
`
`priority to February 5, 2008, the filing date of U.S. Patent No. 9,400,640. EX1001,
`
`(22), (63). The ’793 patent issued January 18, 2022. Id., (45). In response to prior art
`
`rejections, applicant amended all claims to include the “further information”
`
`limitations (e.g., 1[e]-1[f]) of the ’793 claims. EX1003, 109-27. The examiner
`
`identified these limitations in the Reasons for Allowance. EX1003, 19-27. EX1002,
`
`¶¶39-46.
`
`V.
`
`STATE OF THE ART
`Web-based POS systems were known. EX1002, ¶31, Tomlinson (EX1010),
`
`McNally (EX1021), Mueller (EX1008), and Tengler (EX1005)). POS builder
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`software was known. Id., ¶32. PO “does not dispute that the prior art discloses POS
`
`builder software.” EX1012, 7 n.3.
`
`Web-based access to POS builder systems was also known. EX1002, ¶34.
`
`POS builder software (and interfaces for accessing such software) allowing creation
`
`and editing of user interfaces, including POS screens and web pages, was also
`
`known. Id..
`
`Using the Internet for communications between a POS server and POS
`
`terminals was known. Id., ¶35. Configuring POS terminals with information from a
`
`POS builder interface to display POS screens during a transaction, including based
`
`on order- and customer-specific information (e.g., item/option selections, past
`
`orders, customer identity/picture) was also known. Id.
`
`VI. PRIOR ART OVERVIEW
`A. Woycik (EX1004)
`Woycik was filed May 1, 2007 and published November 15, 2017, before the
`
`’793 patent’s priority date. EX1004, (22), (43). EX1002, ¶55. Woycik is prior art
`
`under at least §§ 102(a), (e).
`
`Woycik discloses a web-based administrative tool for building/editing user
`
`interfaces displayed on POS screens of self-service touchscreen POS kiosks.
`
`EX1004, Abstract, [0071]-[0073]. The administrative tool is installed on a central
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`server and accessible by “web access.” Id., [0075]. The administrative tool and its
`
`user interfaces enable “the administrator to perform various administrative functions
`
`such as configuring kiosks [and] creating and editing menus and available food
`
`items.” Id., [0073]. The central server configures kiosks over the Internet with
`
`information from the administrative tool’s user interface to create/modify a set of
`
`hierarchical POS screens with selection buttons based on a manager’s inputs to the
`
`interface, including POS screens displayed based on order history, items
`
`added/updated, and other customer- and order-specific information, e.g., to allow
`
`returning customers to “quickly order items ordered in the past without having to
`
`rebuild [them] each time.” [0089], [0091], [0140]-[0142], Fig. 40; EX1002, ¶56.
`
`B.
`Tengler (EX1005)
`Tengler published March 3, 2005, more than one year before the ’793 patent’s
`
`priority date. EX1005, (43). EX1002, ¶57. Tengler is prior art under at least § 102(b).
`
`Tengler discloses an order processing system for merchants. EX1005,
`
`Abstract. Restaurant Management Software runs on a web server, and POS terminal
`
`devices display POS screens with touchscreen buttons/keys. Id., [0095]. Tengler’s
`
`system allows “a manager to access a management database of a quick-serve
`
`restaurant location remotely through a web interface.” Id., [0022]. The manager’s
`
`web interface includes “[a] user interface designer” allowing managers “to edit the
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`user interface of the register and self-service applications” running on POS
`
`terminals. Id., [0103]; EX1002, ¶58. The server configures POS terminals with
`
`information from the manager’s web interface to create/modify hierarchical POS
`
`screens with selection buttons based on a manager’s interface inputs; POS screens
`
`include customer- and order-specific information (including items added/updated,
`
`price, tax, and customer picture). Id., [0017]-[0018], [0076], Figs. 9-10; EX1002,
`
`¶58.
`
`VII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA) at the time of the effective
`
`filing date of the ’793 patent would have been someone with a working knowledge
`
`of designing, developing, and deploying web-based software and systems. A
`
`POSITA would have had a Bachelor of Science in computer science or a related
`
`field, and approximately two years of professional experience or equivalent study in
`
`the design and development of web-based software and systems, including web-
`
`based POS systems. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional
`
`experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal
`
`education. EX1002, ¶¶29-30.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION2
`Unless otherwise noted, terms should be given “ordinary and customary
`
`meaning” to those “of ordinary skill in the art.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`reserves the opportunity to respond to constructions offered by PO or adopted by the
`
`Board.
`
`A.
`
`“wherein the further information regarding the one or more POS
`transactions, the information used for creating or modifying the
`one or more POS screens, or a combination thereof comprises one
`or more of...” (all claims)3
`This term recites two lists of alternatives and is met if any of “the
`
`information,” “the further information,” or “a combination thereof” includes at least
`
`one of the enumerated information types. Cf. Ex parte Jung, Appeal 2016-008290
`
`(PTAB Mar. 22, 2017). A POSITA would have understood that “a combination” of
`
`“the information” and “the further information” includes a combination of all or
`
`some of each category of information (e.g., if information from each category is used
`
`to create/modify a POS screen). EX1002, ¶49.
`
`
`2 Prior Markman orders do not impact the Petition’s grounds. EX1024, EX1025,
`
`EX1029. EX1002, ¶30.
`
`3 Claim 43 replaces “POS transactions” with “transactions” but is treated the same
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`here. EX1002, ¶49 n.2.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`B.
`“display interfaces” (all claims)
`Display interfaces at least include buttons or keys for display on POS screens.
`
`EX1001, Cl. 9. A “display interface” is a display area of a POS screen, e.g., for
`
`displaying content and/or inputting information. EX1002, ¶50.
`
`C.
`“the input interface element” (claim 23)
`The term “input interface element” appears in claims 23, 25, and 26; however,
`
`claim 23 recites “the input interface element” without antecedent basis. For this IPR,
`
`Petitioner assumes claim 23 includes “the display interface comprises an input
`
`interface element” limitation of claim 25. EX1002, ¶51.
`
`D.
`“the web server”/”the at least one web server” (claim 38)
`Claim 38 depends from claim 27 and recites “the web server” and “the at least
`
`one web server,” neither of which has antecedent basis. For this IPR, Petitioner
`
`assumes these terms refer to “at least one server” recited in claim 27. EX1002, ¶52.
`
`E.
`
`“creating or modifying functionality of the one or POS terminals”
`(claim 44)
`Claim 44 is similar to claim 1, but more broadly claims “creating or modifying
`
`functionality of the one or POS terminals” (44[c]) instead of “creating or modifying
`
`the one or more POS screens” (1[c]). A POSITA would have understood
`
`creating/modifying POS screens is a subset of creating/modifying POS terminal
`
`functionality because modifying POS screens and buttons modifies how the POS
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`terminal functions (e.g., which screens are displayed and which items/options are
`
`added to the cart when a particular area of a POS screen receives input or particular
`
`buttons/keys are selected). Limitation 44[f] in view of 44[c] supports Petitioner’s
`
`understanding by reciting, “information for creating or modifying functionality of”
`
`POS terminals (44[c]) followed by “the information used for creating or modifying
`
`the one or more POS screens” (44[f])—the latter of which lacks antecedent basis in
`
`claim 44 and suggests creating/modifying functionality
`
`includes at
`
`least
`
`creating/modifying POS screens. EX1002, ¶53.
`
`IX. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS UNWARRANTED
`The Office considered the art and arguments herein in IPR2022-00779 and
`
`granted institution on November 10, 2022. This is Petitioner’s first petition for IPR
`
`against the ’793 patent, so discretionary denial is unwarranted. Cf. Apple Inc. v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00854, Paper No. 9 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2020) (precedential)
`
`(discretionarily denying copycat petition under General Plastic factors where copied
`
`Petition is Petitioner’s second challenge to the patent); General Plastic Industrial
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper No. 19 (PTAB Sept.
`
`6, 2017) (precedential).
`
`A.
`Institution is Proper Under § 314(a)
`The Fintiv factors weigh against discretionary denial. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv,
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)
`
`(hereinafter “Fintiv”). Petitioner respectfully requests the Board not exercise its
`
`discretion to deny institution under Fintiv.4 Memorandum re Interim Procedure for
`
`Discretionary
`
`Denials
`
`(June
`
`21,
`
`2022),
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_d
`
`enials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf
`
`(“Memorandum”). The Fintiv factors are addressed in turn below.
`
`Factor 1: Neutral. Petitioner intends to seek a stay of the Clover
`
`Litigation if this IPR is instituted.
`
`Factor 2: Favors institution. As of filing, the Clover Litigation is in its
`
`infancy—discovery has not commenced, a Markman hearing is scheduled for
`
`April 10, 2023, and jury selection/trial is tentatively scheduled for April 22,
`
`2024. EX1032. Notably, the most recent statistic on median time-to-trial for
`
`civil actions in the Western District of Texas is 28.3 months (here, October
`
`26, 2024 is more than 28 months after June 17, 2022, the Clover Litigation
`
`filing
`
`date).
`
`https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-
`
`
`4 Petitioner has not previously filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’793
`
`patent, so discretionary denial under General Plastic is also unwarranted.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`management-statistics/2022/06/30-2; Memorandum, 8-9. If this IPR is
`
`instituted and joined to the already instituted IPR2022-01143 of the ’793
`
`patent, a FWD would be expected November 10, 2023.
`
`Factor 3: Favors institution. As of filing, the court and parties have
`
`made minimal investment in the Clover Litigation, and the district court has
`
`not issued substantive orders in the Clover Litigation. Petitioner filed this
`
`Petition expeditiously after receiving PO’s preliminary
`
`infringement
`
`contentions served September 30, 2022, reviewing the 30 claims asserted
`
`from three patents, and analyzing prior art for invalidity contentions, which
`
`are not due to be served until December 16, 2022.
`
`Factor 4: Strongly favors institution. Petitioner challenges over four
`
`times as many ’793 patent claims as PO asserts in district court (40
`
`challenged; 9 asserted). Thus, “[i]nstituting trial here serves overall system
`
`efficiency and integrity goals ... by resolving materially different patentability
`
`issues.” Apple, Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00156, Paper No. 10,
`
`19 (PTAB June 15, 2020) (finding this factor “strongly” favored institution).
`
`Factor 5: Neutral.
`
`Factor 6: Favors institution. The grounds presented herein are strong,
`
`as the Board has already found. IPR2022-01143, Paper No. 8 (PTAB Nov. 10,
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2022) (instituting IPR of ’793 patent on the same art and arguments as herein);
`
`Memorandum, 3-5. This IPR will resolve issues beyond those in the Clover
`
`Litigation and may prevent future litigation as PO, a non-practicing entity,
`
`sent notice letters to at least 25 entities. EX1014, 6.
`
`B.
`Institution is Proper Under § 325(d)
`Although both Woycik and Tengler are listed on the face of the ’793 patent,
`
`institution is proper. Discretionary denial is unwarranted where a petitioner relies
`
`upon art cited on the face of the challenged patent but “not applied by the examiner
`
`… in any rejection of claims.” Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Promptu Sys.
`
`Corp., IPR2018-00342, Paper No. 8, 17 (PTAB Jan. 15, 2019). Woycik was not used
`
`in any rejection or otherwise discussed during prosecution.5
`
`The Tengler-based ground herein was not considered by the examiner, and the
`
`Office has never considered Tengler relative to the claims challenged. EX1002, ¶60.
`
`Tengler was cited, “but only in a very limited fashion” in an obviousness
`
`combination rejecting video-related claims (claims 5-6 and 29-30) not challenged
`
`here. Asetek Danmark A/S v. Coolit Sys., Inc., IPR2019-00705, Paper No. 19, 9
`
`
`5 The examiner erroneously identified Woycik (EX1003, 145) because no rejection
`
`addresses Woycik. EX1003. EX1002, ¶59.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`(PTAB Sept. 6, 2019) (granting institution). “In contrast, Petitioner uses [Tengler]
`
`as a primary reference” against different claims. Id. While limited portions of
`
`Tengler were “considered during examination, the Examiner did not evaluate
`
`Petitioner’s assertions that [Tengler] teaches or suggests most limitations recited in
`
`the challenged claims.” Id., 10. “There also is little overlap between the arguments
`
`considered during prosecution and” those “set forth” herein. Id., 10-11.
`
`Accordingly, both grounds rely on noncumulative prior art and arguments not
`
`considered by the Office during prosecution, which favors institution regardless of
`
`purported overlapping references. Oticon Medical AB et al. v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`
`IPR2019-00975, Paper No. 15, 18-20 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019).
`
`X. CLAIM LISTING
`A listing of the challenged claims is in Appendix A.
`
`XI. GROUND 1: WOYCIK IN VIEW OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF A
`POSITA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-4, 7-28, AND 31-44
`A. Claim 1
`1.
`1[pre]6
`
`
`6 PO contends the preamble is not limiting. EX1017, p.5. To the extent any
`
`preambles are limiting, they are disclosed in each ground. EX1002, ¶62 n.3.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,226,793
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Woycik discloses a computer-based POS system “for ordering goods and
`
`services [that] includes … self-service client terminals and a server.” EX1004,
`
`Abstract; id., [0006]-[0009], [0129]. The system includes an “administrative tool”
`
`(POS builder) providing “a menu editor that enables the administrator to create and
`
`edit the interactive menu screens” displayed on self-