`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`SHOPIFY, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DDR HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-01011
`Patent No. 9,639,876
`
`MOTION TO CORRECT MISTAKES IN PETITION UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,639,876
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Shopify, Inc. (“Petitioner”) moves to correct errors in the petition
`
`for inter partes review (“IPR”) in IPR2018-01011, and seeks leave to file a
`
`replacement version of the originally-filed petition, which replacement has been
`
`concurrently filed as Exhibit 1023. The Board authorized the filing of this motion
`
`in an email dated August 1, 2018.
`
`The proposed replacement petition corrects typographical errors consisting
`
`of incorrect exhibit citations. The original petition erroneously included citations to
`
`Exhibit 1010 rather than Exhibit 1007, as intended and as evidenced by the
`
`Petition’s Exhibit List.
`
`II.
`
`FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ERRORS
`On May 2, 2018, Petitioner filed its original Petition (Paper No. 1)
`
`challenging various claims of U.S. Pat. No. 9,639,876 (the “’876 Patent”). Shortly
`
`thereafter, Petitioner realized that the body of the Petition incorrectly cited to
`
`evidence within Exhibit 1010 (U.S. Patent No. 6,330,575; “Moore”) rather than
`
`Exhibit 1007 (Web Page of Corel; “Corel”).
`
`On May 4, 2018, counsel for Petitioner notified counsel for DDR Holdings,
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”) of the errors and Petitioner’s intention to file a motion to
`
`correct them. On May 7, 2018, Petitioner provided a redline version of the petition
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,639,876
`
`to Patent Owner’s counsel. Patent Owner informed Petitioner on May 30, 2018,
`
`that they do not oppose this motion.
`
`On August 1, 2018, Petitioner sent an email to trials@uspto.gov requesting
`
`authorization from the Board to file a motion to correct the errors in the originally
`
`filed Petition.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`The original Petition mistakenly cites to Exhibit 1010 in its analysis of the
`
`challenged claims, rather than Exhibit 1007, though from the context it is clear that
`
`Exhibit 1007 should have been cited. Petitioner respectfully requests that it be
`
`allowed to correct its Petition by revising the citations so that they read as “Exhibit
`
`1007”, and thereby accurately reflect the conducted expert analysis. The requested
`
`revision will not alter the substance of the Petition. A redlined proposed Corrected
`
`Petition tracking the proposed corrections has been filed as Ex. 1023.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`The proposed changes should be applied because they relate to a non-
`
`substantive, clerical transcription error that was not identified prior to filing, and
`
`Petitioner promptly sought to correct its mistakes after discovering them the day
`
`after filing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c) (“A motion may be filed that seeks to
`
`correct a clerical or typographical mistake in the petition.”). The proposed changes
`
`seek to correct the Petition to accurately reflect the analysis discussed in the expert
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,639,876
`
`declaration. That is, Petitioner’s requested corrections seek to identify the prior art
`
`exhibit to which the analysis properly applies. The Petitioner is not seeking to
`
`make changes to the arguments applied to the prior art – the grounds for the
`
`challenged claims will rise or fall based on the analysis already present in the
`
`Petition, other than correcting the cited exhibit numbers. See, e.g. Amkor
`
`Technology, Inc. v. Tessera Inc., IPR2013-00242, Paper 32, at 5-6 (PTAB Aug. 29,
`
`2013) (allowing correction of copying and pasting error by subordinate attorney
`
`where no new analysis was added by correction).
`
`Correction of these errors will not prejudice Patent Owner or destroy the
`
`notice function of the Petition. Petitioner notified Patent Owner of the errors and
`
`Petitioner’s intent to file a motion to correct promptly after filing the Petition, and
`
`provided the Patent Owner with redline versions of the proposed corrections.
`
`Petitioner does not seek to alter substantive arguments, and Patent Owner has not
`
`yet submitted a response to the Petition. Patent Owner will retain its opportunity to
`
`address Petitioner’s same substantive arguments regarding the art specifically
`
`applied to the challenged claims of the ’876 Patent.
`
`The original Petition was filed before the one-year time bar. The proposed
`
`corrections would not implicate the one-year time bar, as the grant of such motions
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 104(c) does not change the filing date.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,639,876
`
`Given the clerical nature of the typographical errors, lack of prejudice to the
`
`Patent Owner, and Petitioner’s prompt efforts to correct the issues on their
`
`discovery, the proposed corrections are appropriate under Rule 104(c). See, e.g.,
`
`ABB Inc. v. ROY-G-BIV Corp., IPR2013-00063, Paper 21, at 7 (PTAB Jan. 16,
`
`2013) (Rule 104(c) is “remedial in nature” and should be “liberally applied”)
`
`(citing Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336 (1967)).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`apply the above-proposed corrections to Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review. Further, Petitioner certifies that the suggested corrections will not cause
`
`the Petition to exceed the word count limit of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24.
`
`Dated: August 6, 2018
`
`/Michael J. McNamara/
`Michael J. McNamara (Reg. No. 52,017)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1884
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`E-mails: MMcNamara@mintz.com;
`DDR_IPR_Service@mintz.com
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01011
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,639,876
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that copies of Petitioner’s Motion to Correct and accompanying
`
`Exhibit is being served by electronic mail on the following counsel for the Patent
`
`Owner:
`
`Lead Counsel for DDR Holdings, LLC
`
`Back Up Counsel for DDR Holdings, LLC
`
`Louis J. Hoffman (Reg. No. 38,918)
`Louis J. Hoffman, P.C.
`7689 East Paradise Lane, Suite 2
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
`Telephone: (480) 948-3295
`Emails: louis@valuablepatents.com;
`DDR_IPR@valuablepatents.com
`
`Justin J. Lesko (Reg. No. 69,643)
`Louis J. Hoffman, P.C.
`7689 East Paradise Lane, Suite 2
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
`Telephone: (480) 948-3295
`Email: justinlesko@patentit.com
`
`Dated: August 6, 2018
`
`/Michael J. McNamara/
`Michael J. McNamara (Reg. No. 52,017)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1884
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`E-mails: MMcNamara@mintz.com;
`DDR_IPR_Service@mintz.com
`
`-6-
`
`