throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 15
`Filed: September 1, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC, HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTEL
`TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC., KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP.,
`OPENTABLE, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, PAPA JOHN’S USA, INC.,
`STUBHUB, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE NATION
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, WANDERSPOT
`LLC, AGILYSYS, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA,
`LLC, HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION, HILTON WORLDWIDE,
`INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., MOBO SYSTEMS, INC., PIZZA
`HUT OF AMERICA, INC., PIZZA HUT, INC., and USABLENET, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-00096
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`____________
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, RICHARD E. RICE, and
`STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.208
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b)
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00096
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`On April 3, 2015, Expedia, Inc., Fandango, LLC, Hotels.com L.P.,
`
`Hotel Tonight, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., Kayak Software Corp., Opentable, Inc.,
`
`Orbitz, LLC, Papa John’s USA, Inc., Stubhub, Inc., Ticketmaster, LLC, Live
`
`Nation Entertainment, Inc., Travelocity.com LP, Wandersport LLC,
`
`Agilysys, Inc., Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Domino’s Pizza, LLC, Hilton Resorts
`
`Corporation, Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Hilton International Co., Mobo
`
`Systems, Inc., Pizza Hut of America, Inc., Pizza Hut, Inc., and Usablenet
`
`Inc. (“collectively, Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting a review under the
`
`transitional program for covered business method patents of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,384,850 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’850 patent”). Paper 8 (“Pet.”). Ameranth,
`
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response on June 8, 2015. Paper
`
`12 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`The Petition sets forth alleged grounds of unpatentability as follows:
`
`Ground
`
`Prior Art
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Inkpen1, Nokia2, and Digestor3
`
`DeLorme4
`
`Blinn5 and Inkpen
`
`12–16
`
`12–16
`
`12–16
`
`
`1 Gary Inkpen, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FOR TRAVEL AND TOURISM, 1–195
`(2d ed. 1998) (Ex. 1021) (“Inkpen”).
`2 Nokia 9000i Communicator Owner’s Manual, 1–131 (1997) (Ex. 1023)
`(“Nokia”).
`3 Timothy W. Bickmore & Bill N. Schilit, Digestor: device independent
`access to the World Wide Web, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29,
`1075–82 (1997) (Ex. 1022) (“Digestor”).
`4 DeLorme et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,948,040 (issued Sept. 7, 1999) (Ex.
`1024) (“DeLorme”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00096
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
` We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324, which provides that a
`
`covered business method patent review may not be instituted “unless . . . it is
`
`more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable.”
`
`Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 10, “Mot.”) seeking
`
`to join this proceeding, under 35 U.S.C. § 325(c), with the covered business
`
`method patent review in Apple, Inc., Eventbrite, Inc., Starwood Hotels &
`
`Resorts Worldwide, Inc., v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2015-00080 (“the
`
`Apple CBM”). The Motion for Joinder indicates that the Petitioner in the
`
`Apple CBM does not oppose joinder. Mot. 2. Patent Owner did not file an
`
`opposition to the Motion for Joinder.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, we institute a covered business
`
`method patent review on the ground of claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over DeLorme and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`II. INSTITUTION OF COVERED BUSINESS METHOD PATENT
`REVIEW ON SAME GROUNDS INSTITUTED IN THE APPLE CBM
`
`Concurrent with this Decision, we institute a covered business method
`
`patent review on the ground of claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`DeLorme. Apple CBM, Paper 13.
`
`The Petition asserts the same grounds, relies upon the same expert
`
`declarant, prior art, claim charts, and claim constructions as relied upon in
`
`the Apple CBM. Mot. 2. The Petition is substantively identical to the
`
`Petition in the Apple CBM. Id. The Preliminary Response is also
`
`substantively identical to the Preliminary Response filed in the Apple CBM.
`
`5 Blinn et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,058,373 (issued May 2, 2000) (Ex. 1025)
`(“Blinn”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00096
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`It relies upon the same claim constructions, evidence, and contentions as
`
`relied upon in the Apple CBM.
`
`For the same reasons given in the Decision to Institute in the Apple
`
`CBM, we institute a covered business method patent review in this
`
`proceeding on the ground of claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`DeLorme, the same ground which we instituted in the Apple CBM. Also for
`
`the same reasons given in the Decision to Institute in the Apple CBM, we do
`
`not institute a covered business method patent review in this proceeding on
`
`the grounds of claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Inkpen, Nokia, and
`
`Digestor and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Blinn and Inkpen.
`
`
`
`III. GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`As noted above, Patent Owner did not oppose Petitioner’s request to
`
`join this Petition with the Apple CBM. The petitioner in the Apple CBM
`
`also does not oppose Petitioner’s request to join this Petition with the Apple
`
`CBM. See Mot. 2; Paper 11, 2.
`
`The grounds upon which we institute a covered business method
`
`patent review in this proceeding are identical to the grounds upon which we
`
`instituted in the Apple CBM. Further, as noted above, the Petition includes
`
`the same arguments and relies upon the same evidence and grounds of
`
`unpatentability.
`
`Under the circumstances, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated that joinder of the two covered business method patent
`
`reviews will not unduly complicate or delay the Apple CBM, and therefore,
`
`we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. All filings in the consolidated
`
`proceeding will be made by petitioner in the Apple CBM on behalf of both
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00096
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`petitioner in the Apple CBM and Petitioner in this proceeding, except for
`
`motions that do not involve the other party. See Paper 11, 2. Petitioner shall
`
`not file any separate papers or briefing in these consolidated proceedings
`
`without authorization from the Board. In addition, Petitioner shall not seek
`
`any additional discovery beyond that sought by the petitioner in the Apple
`
`CBM.
`
`Petitioner and Petitioner in the Apple CBM shall resolve any disputes
`
`between them concerning the conduct of the joined proceedings and shall
`
`contact the Board if any such matters cannot be resolved. No additional
`
`burdens shall be placed on Patent Owner as a result of the joinder.
`
`In consideration of the above, we institute a covered business method
`
`patent review in this proceeding and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that CBM2015-00096 is instituted and joined with
`
`CBM2015-00080;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground on which CBM2015-00080
`
`was instituted is unchanged, and no other grounds are instituted in the joined
`
`proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place for
`
`CBM2015-00080 shall govern the joined proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, throughout the consolidated proceeding,
`
`any paper, except for a motion that does not involve the other party, shall be
`
`filed by petitioner in the Apple CBM as a single consolidated filing on
`
`behalf of both petitioners, each paper shall be in accordance with the page
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00096
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`limits established by the Board’s rules, and each filing will be identified as a
`
`consolidated filing;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that except as otherwise agreed by counsel,
`
`petitioner in the Apple CBM will conduct cross-examination and other
`
`discovery on behalf of both Petitioners, and that Patent Owner is not
`
`required to provide separate discovery responses or additional deposition
`
`time as a result of consolidation;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that CBM2015-00096 is terminated under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined proceeding are to be
`
`made in CBM2015-00080;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`
`into the record of CBM2015-00080; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in CBM2015-00080
`
`shall be changed to reflect joinder with this proceeding in accordance with
`
`the attached example.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`CBM2015-00096
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Richard S. Zembek
`Gilbert A. Greene
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefullbright.com
`bert.green@nortonrosefullbright.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John Osborne
`Michael Fabiano
`josborne@osborneipl.com
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC., EVENTBRITE INC., STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
`WORLDWIDE, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., FANDANGO, LLC,
`HOTELS.COM, L.P., HOTEL TONIGHT, INC., HOTWIRE, INC.,
`KAYAK SOFTWARE CORP., OPENTABLE, INC., ORBITZ, LLC, PAPA
`JOHN’S USA, INC., STUBHUB, INC., TICKETMASTER, LLC, LIVE
`NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP,
`WANDERSPOT LLC, AGILYSYS, INC., DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC.,
`DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION,
`HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., HILTON INTERNATIONAL CO., MOBO
`SYSTEMS, INC., PIZZA HUT OF AMERICA, INC., PIZZA HUT, INC.,
`and USABLENET, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2015-000801
`Patent 6,384,850 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00096 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`8

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket