throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Entered: February 14, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SHOPIFY, INC., PRICELINE.COM LLC, and BOOKING.COM B.V.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-010081
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before CARL M. DEFRANCO, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining No Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`1 Priceline.com v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-00435 (PTAB filed
`Dec. 14, 2019) has been joined to this proceeding. Paper 26. In view of this
`joinder, the Board has adjusted the time period for issuing a final
`determination. Paper 34; see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(c).
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Shopify, Inc. filed a Corrected Petition (Paper 10, “Pet.”) requesting
`inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–18 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,639,876 B1 (“the ’876 patent”). Pet. 1. On November 15, 2018, we
`instituted trial. Paper 12 (“Inst. Dec.”).
`After institution, DDR Holdings, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Response. Paper 21 (“PO Resp.”). Shopify, Inc. filed a Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Response. Paper 23 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply.
`Paper 25 (“Sur-reply”).
`On June 10, 2019, we granted a Motion for Joinder by Priceline.com
`LLC and Booking.com B.V. in IPR2019-00435. Paper 26. As a result,
`Shopify, Inc., Priceline.com LLC, and Booking.com B.V. (collectively
`“Petitioner”) are challenging the claims of the ’876 patent in this proceeding.
`An oral hearing was held on July 25, 2019. A transcript of the hearing
`has been entered into the record. Paper 33 (“Tr.”).
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`For the reasons that follow, we conclude Petitioner has not demonstrated
`that claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–18 of the ’876 patent are unpatentable by a
`preponderance of the evidence.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`A. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies Shopify, Inc., Priceline Group Inc., Priceline.com
`LLC, Priceline Partner Network, Booking.com B.V., Booking.com Holding
`B.V., Priceline.com Bookings Acquisition Co., Ltd., Priceline.com
`International Ltd., Priceline.com Holdco U.K. Ltd., and Priceline.com
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`Europe Holdco, Inc. as real parties in interest. Pet. 1; Priceline.com LLC v.
`DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-00435, Paper 3 at 1 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2018)
`(Petition in joined proceeding). Patent Owner identifies only itself as a real
`party in interest. Paper 4, 1.
`
`
`B. Related Matters
`The parties identify the following five proceedings from the U.S.
`District Court for the District of Delaware: (1) DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`Priceline.com LLC, No. 1:17-cv-498-ER (D. Del. filed May 2, 2017);
`(2) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Booking.com B.V., No. 1:17-cv-499-ER (D. Del.
`filed May 2, 2017); (3) DDR Holdings, LLC v. TicketNetwork, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-500-ER (D. Del. dismissed May 9, 2018); (4) DDR Holdings,
`LLC v. Shopify, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-501-ER (D. Del. filed May 2, 2017); and
`(5) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Travel Holdings, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-502-ER
`(D. Del. dismissed May 9, 2018). Pet. 1–2; Paper 4, 1–2. Patent Owner
`indicates that these five proceedings have been consolidated under
`No. 1:17-cv-498-ER. Paper 4, 1–2.
`The parties also identify DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`954 F.Supp.2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2013), as well as the corresponding appeal,
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com. L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Pet. 2–3; Paper 4, 2–3. Patent Owner additionally identifies DDR Holdings,
`LLC v. World Travel Holdings, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00646-JRG (E.D. Tex.
`filed Aug. 20, 2013) and DDR Holdings, LLC v. Digital River, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-00647-JRG (E.D. Tex. filed Aug. 20, 2013). Paper 4, 3–4.
`The parties further identify the following reexamination proceedings:
`Ex parte DDR Holdings, LLC, No. 2009-013987 (BPAI 2010) and Ex parte
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC, No. 2009-013988 (BPAI 2010). Pet. 3–4; Paper 19,
`5–6. Patent Owner also identifies: U.S. Patent Application Serial
`No. 15/582,105 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,304,121 B1); U.S. Patent
`No. 6,629,135 B1; U.S. Patent No. 6,993,572 B2; U.S. Patent
`No. 7,818,399 B1; U.S. Patent No. 8,515,825 B1; and U.S. Patent
`No. 9,043,228 B1. Paper 4, 4; Paper 22, 1.
`Furthermore, the parties identify related proceedings before the Board.
`Namely, the parties identify Priceline Group Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-00482 (PTAB filed Jan. 16, 2018). Pet. 4; Paper 4, 4. Patent
`Owner also identifies the following eleven Board proceedings: (1) Shopify,
`Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01009 (PTAB filed May 3, 2018);
`(2) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01010 (PTAB filed
`May 4, 2018); (3) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01011
`(PTAB filed May 2, 2018); (4) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-01012 (PTAB filed May 2, 2018); (5) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR
`Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01014 (PTAB filed May 2, 2018);
`(6) Priceline.com v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-00435 (PTAB filed
`Dec. 14, 2019); (7) Priceline.com v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-00436
`(PTAB filed Dec. 14, 2019); (8) Priceline.com v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2019-00437 (PTAB filed Dec. 14, 2019); (9) Priceline.com v. DDR
`Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-00438 (PTAB filed Dec. 14, 2019);
`(10) Priceline.com v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2019-00439 (PTAB filed
`Dec. 14, 2019); and (11) Priceline.com v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2019-00440 (PTAB filed Dec. 14, 2019). Paper 4, 1, 4–5; Paper 19, 5.
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`C. The ’876 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’876 patent relates to an affiliate commerce system for
`co-marketing on the Internet. Ex. 1001, 2:64–66. As described in the
`’876 patent, an affiliate program is a commercial arrangement between an
`owner of an Internet commerce website, like Amazon.com, and a third-party
`website owner. Id. at 2:23–30. More specifically, the owner of the Internet
`commerce website lets the third-party website owner promote a subset of its
`goods, e.g., ten books selected by the website owner from Amazon.com’s
`millions of books, on the third party’s website. Id.
`These affiliate programs generate revenue for the third-party website
`owners, i.e., affiliates, but there is a greater benefit to the owners of the
`Internet commerce websites. Id. at 2:31–38. According to the ’876 patent:
`Not only do these sites benefit from the marketing resources of
`the affiliate operators, they are also able to lure the visitor traffic
`away from the affiliate. Once a visitor clicks on an affiliate ad
`and enters an online store, that visitor has left the affiliate’s site
`and is gone. . . . No alternatives have been able to address a
`fundamental drawback of the affiliate programs—the loss of the
`visitor to the vendor.
`Id. at 2:38–47.
`The disclosed invention provides the same benefits as traditional
`affiliate programs, but without the restrictive limitation of losing visitors.
`Id. at 2:66–3:8. In particular, the invention enables a website host to control
`the customer experience before, during, and after a purchase transaction. Id.
`at 3:1–3. As set forth in the ’876 patent:
`According to the present invention the look and feel of
`each participating Host is captured and stored. Hosts may include
`links to selected products or product categories within pages
`residing on the Hosts’ website. Upon actuation of such a link by
`a visitor of the Host website, a page is presented to the visitor
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`incorporating a replica of the Host’s look and feel directed to the
`sale of the selected products or product categories.
`Id. at 3:18–25.
`Furthermore, an outsource provider may be used to capture the look
`and feel of a host’s website and generate pages that replicate the host’s look
`and feel. Id. at 3:26–34. Namely, the ’876 patent explains:
`The look and feel of a host is captured and stored by
`receiving an identification of an example page of a target host.
`The identified page is retrieved. The look and feel elements of
`the page are identified, and these elements are stored for future
`use in generating outsourced transparent pages, pages served by
`a server other than the host but with the host’s look and feel. Such
`pages give the viewer of the page the impression that she is
`viewing pages served by the host.
`
`Id.
`
`The ’876 patent further explains that there are three main parties in the
`outsourced e-commerce relationship, excluding the end consumer:
`merchants, hosts, and the e-commerce outsource provider. Id.
`at 22:66–23:2. However, there may be only two parties where one party
`plays the dual rule of host and merchant. Id. at 23:2–3.
`In a typical transaction process, a customer visits a host’s website and
`becomes interested in a product offered. Id. at 24:15–20. The customer
`selects the item she wishes to purchase by clicking a product image or
`similar link, taking her to dynamically generated web pages which retain the
`look and feel of the referring host and are served by the e-commerce
`outsource provider. Id. at 24:21–26. After browsing through and selecting
`certain offered products, the customer initiates the checkout procedure,
`never leaving the host’s website. Id. at 24:27–36. A secure checkout
`interface appears, which is similarly consistent in look and feel with the
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`host’s referring website, and the customer provides billing and shipping
`information. Id. at 24:37–42. Once the payment is authorized, the customer
`is returned to another section of the host’s website, possibly the page in
`which the offer was placed. Id. at 24:43–46. The outsource provider passes
`the order to the merchant, and the merchant receives and logs the order
`before assembling and shipping the order to the customer. Id. at 24:47–53.
`The outsource provider also periodically remits payment to the merchant for
`filled orders and remits payment to hosts for commissions earned. Id.
`at 24:54–57.
`
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–5, 7, 8, and 11–18 of the ’876 patent.
`Pet. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Ex. 1001, 27:37–28:2,
`28:59–29:26. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`1. A method of serving commerce information of an
`outsource provider in connection with host web pages offering
`commercial opportunities, the method comprising:
`with a computer system of an outsource provider:
`upon receiving over the Internet an electronic request
`generated by an Internet-accessible computing
`device of a visitor in response to selection of a
`uniform resource locator (URL) within a source
`web page that has been served to the visitor
`computing device when visiting a website of a host
`that is a third party to the outsource provider,
`wherein the URL correlates the source web page
`with a commerce object associated with at least one
`buying opportunity of a merchant that is a third
`party to the outsource provider,
`automatically serving to the visitor computing device first
`instructions directing the visitor computing device
`to display commerce object information associated
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`with the commerce object associated with the URL
`that has been activated, which commerce object
`includes at least one product available for sale
`through the computer system of the outsource
`provider after activating the URL;
`wherein the commerce object information is displayed to
`the visitor computing device 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, but excluding the commerce
`object information and the URL; and
`the visitor
`wherein second
`instructions directing
`computing device to download data defining the
`overall appearance of the composite web page are
`accessible to the visitor computing device through
`the Internet.
`
`Id. at 27:37–28:2.
`
`
`E. References and Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the following references in asserting claims 1–5, 7,
`8, and 11–18 of the ’876 patent are unpatentable (Pet. 5):
`
`Reference
`
`Moore et al., US 6,330,575 B1, issued Dec. 11, 2001
`(“Moore”)
`
`First Virtual Seller Programs web page (June 1997),
`First Virtual InfoHaus Guide web page (June 1997),
`and First Virtual InfoHaus HelpMeister (June 1997)
`(collectively “the InfoHaus Documents”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`1010
`
`1014, 1015, and
`1016, respectively
`
`Peter Loshin, Selling Online with . . . First Virtual
`Holdings Inc. (1996) (“Loshin”)
`
`1013
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`Additionally, the parties rely on testimonial evidence. Namely,
`Petitioner submits a Declaration of Michael Shamos, Ph.D. Ex. 1002.
`Patent Owner deposed and cross-examined Dr. Shamos, and submits a
`transcript of this deposition. Ex. 2027. Patent Owner relies on a Declaration
`of Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D. Ex. 2025. There is no cross-examination
`testimony of Dr. Keller in the record.
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
`
`35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
`Claims Challenged
`Loshin
`1–5, 7, 8, 11–13, 16–18 102(b)2
`
`1, 7, 11, 16, 17
`
`103(a)
`
`Loshin, the InfoHaus Documents
`
`1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17–18 103(a)
`
`Loshin, Moore
`
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “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.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not provide its own explanation of
`the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor does Patent Owner oppose
`Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner’s
`
`
`2 Petitioner asserts Loshin is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 6.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`declarant, Dr. Keller, testifies that he has “no material substantive dispute”
`with Dr. Shamos’s formulation defining the level of ordinary skill, which is
`identical to Petitioner’s proposal. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 18; Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Upon
`consideration of the record, including Loshin, the InfoHaus Documents, and
`Moore, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s proposed explanation of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`We interpret the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)
`(2017); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016) (upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard).3 Under this standard, a claim term generally is given its ordinary
`and customary meaning, as would have been understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, “only those terms
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`3 The Petition in this proceeding was filed on May 3, 2018, prior to the
`effective date of the rule change that replaces the broadest reasonable
`interpretation standard with the federal court claim interpretation standard.
`See Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in
`Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)) (amending
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective Nov. 13, 2018).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`1. “merchant,” “host,” “commerce object,” “commission,” and
`“outsource provider”
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`“merchants,” “host,” “commerce object,” and “commission.” Pet. 9–11.
`Patent Owner proposes constructions for “merchant,” “commerce object,”
`“outsource provider,” and “host.” PO Resp. 6–7. None of these terms,
`however, requires an express construction to determine whether Petitioner
`has shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable.
`2. “the visual correspondence relates to overall appearance of the
`composite web page as compared to the source web page”
`In the Decision on Institution, we instructed the parties to propose
`constructions for this claim limitation. Inst. Dec. 33–34 (“[W]e expect the
`parties to take positions with respect to the construction of the phrase
`‘relates to overall appearance.’”). In response to our instruction, Patent
`Owner argues “explicit claim construction is not required, because the claim
`language itself provides guideposts,” such as the exclusion of the commerce
`object information and the URL. PO Resp. 8 (footnote omitted). Patent
`Owner also argues that the dependent claims, claims from related patents,
`the Specification and file history of the ’876 patent, and determinations
`made during the district court litigation as to which websites do and do not
`have a corresponding overall visual appearance provide guidance as to how
`to achieve the recited visual correspondence. Id. at 8–12 (citations omitted).
`Patent Owner further argues this limitation embodies what the Federal
`Circuit, in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
`2014), determined to be missing from the claims of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,993,572 B2 (“the ’572 patent), to which the ’876 patent claims
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`priority. Id. at 4; Sur-reply 2–6; Tr. 37:12–38:25. More specifically, Patent
`Owner maintains:
`In the same decision, the Federal Circuit invalidated
`certain claims of the grandparent ’572 patent as anticipated by
`Digital River systems, because the ’572 patent’s claims did not
`contain “a requirement that the generated composite web page
`have an ‘overall match’ in appearance with the host website.”
`773 F.3d at 1254. Patent Owner obtained this patent to cure that
`omission, and this patent has such an “overall match” claim
`limitation.
`PO Resp. 4; see also Tr. 38:24–25 (“There is no difference between
`corresponding overall appearance and overall match.”). According to Patent
`Owner, the Federal Circuit acknowledged that the jury reviewed substantial
`evidence that Digital River’s systems do not replicate the host website’s look
`and feel in terms of overall appearance, and found that such correspondence
`is not required by the claims of the ’572 patent. Sur-reply 3–4.
`Petitioner disagrees that this limitation requires an “overall match,”
`and instead asserts that it relates to “look and feel.” Reply 5–7; see also
`Tr. 20:17–20 (“We don’t believe that construction of overall appearance is
`necessary. The Federal Circuit construed look and feel to mean overall
`appearance. That was the plain language of it.”). Petitioner additionally
`contends “overall appearance” should be construed as “appearance taken as
`a whole.” Reply 7.
`We agree with Petitioner that this limitation means look and feel. The
`written description of the ’876 patent does not use the terms “visual
`correspondence” or “overall appearance.” The Specification does use the
`word “corresponding” in regard to “look and feel,” namely:
`The processor performs the tasks of capturing a look and feel
`description associated with a host website, storing the captured
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`look and feel description in the data store, providing the host
`website with a link that link correlates the host website with a
`commerce object for inclusion within a page on the host website
`and which, when activated, causes the processor to serve an
`e-commerce supported page via the communication link with a
`look and feel corresponding to the captured look and feel
`description of the host website associated with the provided link
`and with content based on the commerce object associated with
`the provided link.
`Ex. 1001, 4:61–5:5 (emphasis added). Thus, in the context of the disclosure,
`“the visual correspondence relates to overall appearance of the composite
`web page as compared to the source web page” means the composite web
`page has the look and feel of the source web page.
`Furthermore, we disagree with Patent Owner that the Federal Circuit
`determined the language of this claim limitation cures the shortcoming of the
`claims of the ’572 patent by requiring an overall match between the web
`pages. In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit considered the parties’
`stipulated construction for the term “look and feel” in the claims of the
`’572 patent. The parties stipulated the construction of “look and feel” means
`“[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
`other[] elements consistent through some or all of the website.” DDR
`Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1250–51 (emphasis added). In overturning the jury’s
`finding that Digital River’s systems do not anticipate the claims of the
`’572 patent, the court determined the district court improperly introduced an
`“overall match” requirement into the claims. Id. at 1254. Specifically, the
`court held
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`in
`is nothing, however,
`[t]here
`the parties’ stipulated
`construction of “look and feel,” 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.
`Id. (emphasis added).
`This limitation of the ’876 patent is similar to the stipulated
`construction of “look and feel.” See PO Resp. 8 n.4 (explaining the claim
`language is derived from the stipulated construction of “look and feel”
`(citation omitted)). In particular, both refer to “overall appearance.” Given
`the court explicitly opined that the stipulated construction of “look and feel”
`does not require an overall match, this corresponding limitation of the
`’876 patent does not make up for the lack of an overall match, but instead
`similarly does not require an overall match.
`
`
`
`C. Anticipation by Loshin
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–13, and 16–18 of the
`’876 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Loshin. Pet. 11–34;
`Reply 2–21. In contrast, Patent Owner argues Loshin does not disclose
`every limitation of the claims. PO Resp. 12–29; Sur-reply 8–19. We begin
`our analysis with a brief summary of Loshin, and then address the parties’
`contentions.
`1. Loshin (Ex. 1013)
`Loshin describes First Virtual’s InfoHaus service, which is a hosting
`service that enables sellers to sell their information products without having
`to own their own Internet servers. Ex. 1013, 103, 105, 214. More
`specifically, “InfoHaus is a Web server that customers can browse through,
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`and that merchants can load with their store information and information
`products over the Internet.” Id. at 216.
`Figure 7-1, reproduced below, shows a typical offering on InfoHaus.
`
`
`
`Figure 7-1 shows the InfoHaus News e-mailing list. Ex. 1024.4 According
`to Loshin:
`Nothing can happen until a merchant sets up an Internet
`storefront for consumers to browse and buy from. This page
`includes a description of the product as well as the product’s
`price. There is also a link from the offering screen to a
`
`
`4 As Exhibit 1024, Petitioner submits higher quality scans of the figures of
`Loshin included in the Petition.
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`transaction page with forms for the consumer to fill in with
`required information.
`Ex. 1013, 195. Once a consumer decides to purchase a product, the
`consumer needs to follow the link associated with the image of the $20 bill
`shown on the InfoHaus web page depicted in Figure 7-1. Id. Following the
`link results in an order page shown in Figure 7-2, reproduced below.
`
`Figure 7-2 shows an order page. Ex. 1024. On the order page, a consumer
`enters a First Virtual Account ID (VirtualPIN) and an e-mail address for
`delivery of the subscription and then clicks on the “BUY” button. Ex. 1013,
`195. The merchant then can submit the transaction to First Virtual for
`completion. Id.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`
`2. Discussion
`a. Independent claim 1
`In asserting that Loshin anticipates independent claim 1, Petitioner
`identifies specific portions of Loshin that allegedly disclose each limitation
`of the claim. Pet. 14–24. Beginning with the preamble, independent claim 1
`recites “[a] method of serving commerce information of an outsource
`provider in connection with host web pages offering commercial
`opportunities.” Ex. 1001, 27:37–39. Petitioner contends Loshin discloses
`an outsource provider, First Virtual, serving web pages offering commercial
`opportunities via its InfoHaus service, which allows sellers to sell their
`information products without having to own their own Internet servers.
`Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1013, 103, 126–27, 207; Ex. 1002 ¶ 84).
`Independent claim 1 further recites a plurality of steps performed
`“with a computer system of an outsource provider.” Ex. 1001, 27:40. For
`this, Petitioner asserts Loshin teaches an outsource provider, First Virtual,
`serving web pages via InfoHaus, a web server. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1013,
`127, 216–17, 238–39; Ex. 1002 ¶ 85).
`Independent claim 1 recites the step of
`upon receiving over the Internet an electronic request generated
`by an Internet-accessible computing device of a visitor in
`response to selection of a uniform resource locator (URL)
`within a source web page that has been served to the visitor
`computing device when visiting a website of a host that is
`a third party to the outsource provider.
`Ex. 1001, 27:41–47. Petitioner argues Loshin discloses a sample purchase
`conducted via InfoHaus, whereby a buyer activates a link on a host web
`page, namely the Darren New InfoHaus Page shown in Figure 7-1. Pet. 15
`(citing Ex. 1013, 194–96, Fig. 7-1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 87). Petitioner also asserts
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`Loshin teaches that the host, Darren New, is a third party to the outsource
`provider, First Virtual. Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1013, 103, 126–27; Ex. 1002
`¶ 88).
`Independent claim 1 further recites “wherein the URL correlates the
`source web page with a commerce object associated with at least one buying
`opportunity of a merchant that is a third party to the outsource provider.”
`Ex. 1001, 27:47–50. According to Petitioner, Loshin discloses the URL,
`http://www.infohaus.com/access/subscription/Darren_New/Infohaus_News,
`which correlates the source web page, http://www.infohaus.com/access/
`subscription/Darren_New, with a commerce object, subscription to
`Darren_New/InfoHaus_News. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1013, 195–96, Figs. 7-1,
`7-2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 89). Petitioner again asserts that Loshin teaches Darren
`New, the host and merchant, is a third party to the outsource provider, First
`Virtual. Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 103, 126–27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 90–91).
`Independent claim 1 also recites the step of
`automatically serving to the visitor computing device first
`instructions directing the visitor computing device to
`display commerce object information associated with the
`commerce object associated with the URL that has been
`activated, which commerce object includes at least one
`product available for sale through the computer system of
`the outsource provider after activating the URL.
`Ex. 1001, 27:51–58. According to Petitioner, Loshin discloses that once the
`link on the host’s web page is activated, the order page shown in Figure 7-2
`is automatically loaded. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1013, 195–96, Figs. 7-1, 7-2;
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 94). Petitioner argues the page contains instructions directing a
`buyer’s computer to display information relating to the commerce object,
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`namely the price, start date, and number of issues. Id. (citing Ex. 1013,
`195–96, 227–32, Fig. 7-2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 94).
`
`Independent claim 1 further recites the commerce object information
`is displayed on a composite web page that visually corresponds to the source
`web page. Namely, independent claim 1 recites:
`wherein the commerce object information is displayed to the
`visitor computing device 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, but excluding the commerce object information and
`the URL.
`Ex. 1001, 27:59–65. Petitioner argues that Loshin discloses these
`limitations because the web pages shown in Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 have a
`similar appearance. Pet. 18–22 (citing Ex. 1013, 194–96, Figs. 7-1, 7-2, 7-3;
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 95–96, 99–102). Petitioner also asserts Loshin teaches these
`limitations because it discloses personalizing web pages for individual
`sellers to provide visual correspondence (id. at 19, 22–23 (citing Ex. 1013,
`196–98, 238–39, 252–53, Figs. 7-5, 9-2, 9-3; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 97, 102)), as well
`as using default pages which would visually correspond to each other (id. at
`19, 23 (citing Ex. 1013, 218–27, 228–39, Figs. 8–9; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98, 103)).
`
`Lastly, independent claim 1 recites “wherein second instructions
`directing the visitor computing device to download data defining the overall
`appearance of the composite web page are accessible to the visitor
`computing device through the Internet.” Ex. 1001, 27:59–28:2. Petitioner
`argues that Loshin teaches serving web pages that include retrieved data that
`visually corresponds to the source web page. Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1013,
`249–51; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 104–105). More specifically, Petitioner asserts
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876 B1
`
`Loshin’s web pages contain HTML, which describes the visual appearance
`of the pages and provides for the display of trademarks and images related to
`the company controlling the web page. Id. at 23–24 (citing Ex. 1013, 198,
`238–39, 252–53; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105).
`Patent Owner argues Loshin does not anticipate independent claim 1
`because it does not disclose a source web page served while visiting the
`website of a host that is a third party to the outsource provider.
`PO Resp. 12–16; Sur-reply 14–16. Patent Owner also argues Loshin does
`not teach a visual correspondence of overall appearance between the
`composite web page and the source web page. PO Resp. 16–24;
`Sur-reply 8–13.
`i. “a source web page that has been served to the visitor
`computing device when visiting the website of a host that is a
`third party to the outsource provider”
`Patent Owner asserts Petitioner has not demonstrated the Darren New
`storefront web page shown in Figure 7-1 is served when visiting the website
`of a host that is a third party to the outsource provider as this claim
`limitation requires because the web page shown in Figure 7-1 and the web
`page shown in Figure 7-2 are located on the same server, namely First
`Virtual’s server for the infohaus.com domain. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2025
`¶ 53). Patent Owner further asserts “[n]o embodiment in Loshin teaches the
`two sites being on different servers.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶ 54;
`Ex. 2027, 208:5–10).
`In reply, Petitioner contends the limitation at issue does not require
`two different servers. Tr. 69:18–20 (“[T]here is nothing in the claim
`language of the asserted patents that requires separate servers to be the first
`website and the second website.”). We agree with Petitioner to the extent
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01008
`Patent 9,639,876

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