Paper No. 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`PRICELINE.COM LLC AND BOOKING.COM B.V.
`
`Petitioners
`
`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
`
`
`
`73722679.1
`
`

`

`Petitioners’ Exhibit List
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,639,876 (’876 Patent)
`Declaration of Peter Kent
`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)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`73722679.1
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 1 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ........................... 6 
`D. 
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 6 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 6 
`IV.  STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED ................................................................................ 7 
`A. 
`Claims for Which Review is Requested (37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(b)(1)) ......................................................................................... 7 
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2)) ................ 7 
`1. 
`The Asserted References are Printed Publications and
`Available as Prior Art ................................................................. 8 
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative ................................. 9 
`2. 
`REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22(a)(2) AND 42.104(b)(4) ...................................................................... 10 
`A. 
`Background ......................................................................................... 10 
`1. 
`Field of Technology .................................................................. 10 
`2. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................. 11 
`3. 
`The ’876 Patent ......................................................................... 11 
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)) .................................. 12 
`1. 
`“merchants” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17) ................................. 12 
`2. 
`“host” (Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16) ........................................... 13 
`3. 
`“commerce object” (Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17,
`19) ............................................................................................. 13 
`“commission” (Claims 4, 14) ................................................... 13 
`
`4. 
`
`73722679.1
`
`i
`
`V. 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`

`

`C. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`2. 
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
`103 ....................................................................................................... 14 
`1. 
`Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are obvious in view
`of the Digital River Publications .............................................. 14 
`The Digital River Publications ....................................... 14 
` 
`  Claim 1 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 18 
`  Claim 2 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 24 
`  Claim 3 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 24 
`  Claim 4 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 25 
`Claim 5 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 26 
`  Claim 7 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 26 
`  Claim 8 is rendered obvious by the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 28 
`Claims 11-15 and 17-18 are rendered obvious by
`the Digital River Publications ........................................ 29 
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are anticipated by
`Moore ........................................................................................ 29 
`  Moore .............................................................................. 29 
`  Claim 1 is anticipated by Moore .................................... 31 
`  Claim 2 is anticipated by Moore .................................... 40 
`  Claim 3 is anticipated by Moore .................................... 41 
`  Claims 4 and 14 are anticipated by Moore ..................... 42 
`Claims 5 and 15 are anticipated by Moore ..................... 43 
` 
`  Claim 7 is anticipated by Moore .................................... 44 
`  Claim 8 is anticipated by Moore .................................... 45 
`Claims 11-15 and 17-18 are anticipated by Moore ........ 46 
`
` 
`
`73722679.1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`3. 
`
`4. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 7, 11 and 17 are rendered obvious
`by Moore in view of Arnold ...................................................... 46 
`Summary of Arnold ........................................................ 46 
` 
`It was obvious to a POSITA to combine the
`teachings of Moore and Arnold ...................................... 48 
`  Claim 1 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ............................................................................. 50 
`  Claim 7 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ............................................................................. 50 
`  Claim 11 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ............................................................................. 52 
`Claim 17 is rendered obvious by Moore in view of
`Arnold ............................................................................. 52 
`Ground 4: Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, and 17-18 are
`rendered obvious by Moore in view of the Digital River
`Publications .............................................................................. 52 
`It was obvious to a POSITA to combine the
` 
`teachings of Moore and the Digital River
`Publications .................................................................... 52 
`  Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-18 are rendered obvious
`by Moore in view of the Digital River Publications ...... 54 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 54 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`73722679.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`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, 14
`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) ............................................................... 2
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Travel Holdings, Inc., and Tourico Holidays, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 17-502 (D. Del. 2017) ............................................................... 2
`Priceline Group Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-00482 ..................................................................................................... 5
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-01008 ..................................................................................................... 5
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-01009 ..................................................................................................... 6
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-01010 ..................................................................................................... 5
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-01011 ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`73722679.1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-01012 ..................................................................................................... 6
`Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC,
`IPR2018-01014 ..................................................................................................... 5
`Rules and Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... 2
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................... 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 48, 54
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................... 7, 14, 48, 54
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .......................................................................................................... 1
`Rule 42.104(b)(4) ..................................................................................................... 14
`Other Authorities
`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) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 12
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) .......................................................................................... 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`73722679.1
`
`v
`
`

`

`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))
`The 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 Europe Holdco, Inc., are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`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 ’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 U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,639,876 (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.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`(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.
`
`(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 patents related to the ’399 Patent: 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 ’399
`
`Patent as shown below:
`
`
`
`73722679.1
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Claim 13 of the ’572 Patent
`
`Claim 1 of the ’399 Patent
`
`e-commerce
`An
`13.
`outsourcing system comprising:
`a) a data store including a
`and
`feel
`description
`look
`associated with a host web page
`having a link correlated with a
`commerce object; and
`b) a computer processor
`coupled to the data store and in
`communication
`through
`the
`Internet with the host web page
`and programmed, upon receiving
`an indication that the link has been
`activated by a visitor computer in
`Internet communication with the
`host web page,
`to
`serve a
`composite web page to the visitor
`computer wit[h] a look and feel
`based on
`the
`look and
`feel
`description in the data store and
`with
`content based on
`the
`commerce object associated wit[h]
`the link.
`
`
`
`73722679.1
`
`1. A method of an outsource provider
`serving web pages offering commercial
`opportunities, the method comprising:
`(a) automatically at a server of the
`outsource provider, in response to activation,
`by a web browser of a computer user, of a
`link displayed by one of a plurality of first
`web pages, recognizing as the source page the
`one of the first web pages on which the link
`has been activated;
`(i) wherein each of the first web pages
`belongs to one of a plurality of web page
`owners;
`(ii) wherein each of the first web pages
`displays at least one active link associated
`with a commerce object associated with a
`buying opportunity of a selected one of a
`plurality of merchants; and
`(iii) wherein the selected merchant, the
`outsource provider, and the owner of the first
`web page are each third parties with respect
`to one [an]other;
`(b) automatically retrieving from a
`storage coupled to the server pre-stored data
`associated with the source page; and then
`(c) automatically with
`the server
`computer-generating and transmitting to the
`web browser a second web page
`that
`includes:
`(i) information associated with the
`commerce object associated with the link that
`has been activated, and
`(ii) a plurality of visually perceptible
`elements derived from the retrieved pre-
`stored data and visually corresponding to the
`source page.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`As shown above, both claims require an outsource provider which stores
`
`data associated with visual elements used to construct a Web page 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 ’399 Patent), where the
`
`constructed Web page maintains visually perceptible elements of the Web page on
`
`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. 1011,
`
`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.”)
`
`(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 and therefore an anticipation
`
`rejection over a two-party system was overturned. Ex. 1012, 12-15.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`(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.
`
`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 and therefore an anticipation rejection over a two-
`
`party system was overturned. Ex. 1013, 9-11.
`
`(10) Priceline Group Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-00482, which
`
`involves the ’399 Patent.
`
`(11) The ’876 Patent is related to pending application Serial No.
`
`15/582,105.
`
`(12) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01008, which involves
`
`the ’876 Patent.
`
`(13) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01011, which involves
`
`the ’876 Patent.
`
`(14) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01010, which involves
`
`the ’825 Patent.
`
`(15) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01014, which involves
`
`the ’825 Patent.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`(16) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01009, which involves
`
`the ’228 Patent.
`
`(17) Shopify, Inc. v. DDR Holdings, LLC, IPR2018-01012, which involves
`
`the ’228 Patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`Lead counsel: Nathan Rees (Reg. No. 63,820). Back-up counsel: Allan
`
`Braxdale (Reg. No. 64,276), R. Ross Viguet (Reg. No. 42,203), and Brett C.
`
`Govett (Reg. No. 45,492).
`
`D.
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`Email: DDR_IPR_Service@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Post: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`
`2200 Ross Avenue
`
`Suite 3600
`
`Dallas, TX 75201-2784
`
`Phone: 214 855 7164 Fax: 214 855 8200
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`This Petition is entitled to a filing date of no later than December 14, 2018.
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’876 Patent is available for inter partes review, and that
`
`Petitioners have filed this Petition within thirty (30) days of institution of the
`
`IPR2018-01011 with an accompanying Motion for Joinder.
`73722679.1
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`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.
`
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2))
`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
`
`
`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.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`17, 1999, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/100,697,
`
`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. 1010. Arnold was filed August 28, 1996, and is prior art
`
`under § 102(e). Ex. 1011.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`2.
`The Asserted Grounds are not Cumulative
`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
`
`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.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`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
`At the time of the alleged invention, ecommerce websites and systems to
`
`support ecommerce website functionality were well-established. Ex. 1002,2 ¶ 17-
`
`25. 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, ¶ 17-25. As affiliate programs became more established,
`
`entities began utilizing “white-label” storefronts. Ex. 1002, ¶ 17-35. 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-
`
`Merchant Group. Ex. 1002, ¶ 25.
`
`
`2
`Citations to Exhibit 1002 refer to paragraph numbers as opposed to pages in
`
`the exhibit.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`2.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`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, ¶ 60-62.
`
`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. Id. Such topics were
`
`not generally covered in university curricula at the time. Id. 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. Id.
`
`3.
`The ’876 Patent
`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
`
`73722679.1
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`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
`
`provider (Ex. 1001, 23:49-24:57), which is consistent with common industry
`
`practice at the time of the alleged invention. Ex. 1002, ¶ 25-35.
`
`B. Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3))
`Claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`
`understood by a POSITA and consistent with the ’876 Patent’s disclosure. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.200(b) (November 13, 2018). The following summarizes how certain
`
`claim terms of the ’876 Patent should be construed according to their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning3 for purposes of Inter Partes Review:
`
`1.
`
`“merchants” (Claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 13, 17)
`
`
`3 This Petition is filed with a request to join IPR2018-01011, which construed the
`
`identified terms under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as applied to
`
`IPRs filed before November 13, 2018. The constructions of IPR2018-01011
`
`utilized dictionary definitions and the Specification to define the terms and those
`
`definitions are consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning as proposed
`
`herein. See. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 63, 64.
`
`73722679.1
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`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, ¶ 72; 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
`
`“product, product category, catalog, or dynamic selection.” Ex. 1001, 15:63-16:4;
`
`see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 73; 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 ordinary and customary meaning
`
`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
`73722679.1
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`not be limited to being earned based on any particular business arrangement. See
`
`Ex. 1002, ¶ 71; 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
` The Digital River Publications
`The Federal Circuit invalidated claims in the ’572 Patent under § 102(a)
`
`over 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, ¶ 74; Ex. 1010,
`
`4-6; Ex. 1010; Ex. 1020, Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 4,7. Taken together, the Digital River
`
`Publications render the claims of the ’876 Patent obvious under § 103(a). Id.
`
`(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 usi