Filed on behalf of Petitioner By: Todd M. Siegel (Reg. No. 73,232) … · 2020-03-13 · CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246 1. Courts Have Repeatedly Found That Basic Database

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

Filed on behalf of Petitioner By: Todd M. Siegel (Reg. No. 73,232)

[email protected] KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 595-5300 Facsimile: (503) 595-5301

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________

EMNOS USA CORP.

Petitioner

v.

DUNNHUMBY, LTD Patent Owner

____________

U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246 ____________

PETITION FOR COVERED BUSINESS METHOD REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND

§ 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT

mailto:[email protected]

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................... 1 II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3

A. Real Party-In-Interest ........................................................................................... 3

B. Related Matters ...................................................................................................... 3

C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel .............................................................................. 3

D. Service Information .............................................................................................. 4

III. THE PETITIONER HAS STANDING AND THE PATENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CBM REVIEW ...................................... 4 A. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable .......................................... 4

B. Petitioner emnos USA Has Been Sued For Infringement Of The ’246 Patent And Petitioner Is Not Estopped ........ 5

C. The Challenged Claims Fall Within The Definition Of A “Covered Business Method” ...................................... 5

D. The Challenged Claims Are Not Directed To A “Technological Invention” .................................................. 13

IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED .................................18 A. Claims For Which Review Is Requested ....................................................... 18

B. Statutory Grounds Of Challenge ...................................................................... 18

C. Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art In 2004 ..................................... 18

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................19

VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................22 A. The Two-Step Test For Analyzing Patentability Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

22

B. The Challenged Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea ..................... 24

C. The Claimed Generic Elements Do Not Transform The Challenged Claims Into Patentable Subject Matter ........................... 25

i

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

1. Courts Have Repeatedly Found That Basic Database Functionality Does Not Transform Patent Claims Directed At Abstract Ideas Into Patentable Subject Matter ....................27

2. The ’246 Patent’s Claimed Database And Related Functionality Is Conventional And Not Inventive ....................30

D. The Dependent Claims Are Directed At The Same Abstract Idea And Do Not Transform The Claims Into Patentable Subject Matter ................................................. 33

1. Generic Computer/Network Devices And Functions ...............33 2. Collecting, Downloading, Or Transmitting Information ..........37 3. Ways To Get To “Know Your Customer” ................................39 4. Organizing Or Presenting Information .....................................43

VII. FEE ................................................................................................................47 VIII. COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION ............................................47 IX. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................48

ii

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Cases Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,

728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 27, 36 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,

134 S. Ct. 2347 (Jun. 19, 2014) .................................................................... passim Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,

2014 WL 5430956 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2014) ................................................ 29, 36 Application of Fox,

471 F.2d 1405 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ............................................................................32 Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,

687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................36 Bilski v. Kappos,

130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ....................................................................................2, 24 buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,

765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................38 Clear with Computers, LLC v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.,

2014 WL 923280 (E.D. Tex., January 21, 2014) .................................................46 Content Extraction & Transmission LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Assoc.,

776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................25 CyberSource Corp., v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,

654 F.3d at 1370 (2011) .......................................................................................36 Data Distribution Techs., LLC, v. BRER Affiliates, Inc.,

No. 12-4878, 2014 WL 4162765 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014)....................................28 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,

773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................32 Diamond v. Diehr,

450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................... 3 Digital Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,

758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................45 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,

No. 2:12-cv-07360, 2014 WL 5661456 (C.D. Ca. Nov. 3, 2014) ................. 27, 36

iii

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00002, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2015) .......................................... 7

Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00002, Paper 17, (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2015) ......................................... 4

In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................20

Indeed, Inc. v. Career Destination Development, LLC, CBM2014-00068, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014) ........................................23

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, 2014 WL 7215193 (D. Del., Sept. 18, 2014) .......................................................46

IpLearn, LLC v. K12 Inc., 2014 WL 7206380 (D. Del., Dec. 17, 2014) ........................................................38

Linkedin Corp., v. Avmarkets, CBM2013-00025, Paper 30, (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2014) .......................................23

Lumen View Tech. LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., No. 13 Civ. 3599, 2013 WL 6164341 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2013) .......................43

Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)....................................................................... 22, 23, 25, 27

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011)..........................................................................................19

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ............................................................18

Salesforce.com, Inc. v. Virtualagility, Inc., CBM2013-00024, Paper 47 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 16, 2014) ........................................23

SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) .......................................6, 14

Shortridge v. Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC, 2015 WL 1739256 (N.D. Cal., April 14, 2015) .........................................37

Tuxis Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2014 WL 4382446 (D. Del. 2014)........................................................................42

U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management Co., CBM2013-00014, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014) ................................23

iv

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) ............................................ 23, 25, 38, 47

Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim 35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 2 35 U.S.C. § 18 ............................................................................................................ 1 35 U.S.C. § 321 .......................................................................................................... 1 35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................44 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 4 AIA § 18(d)(1) ........................................................................................................... 5 Other Authorities 157 Cong. Rec. S1360 (Mar. 8, 2011). ...................................................................... 6 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ........................................................ 5 MPEP § 2258 ...........................................................................................................18 Rules 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(b) .................................................................................................44 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 ..................................................................................................... 1 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) ..............................................................................................18 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) ................................................................................................ 5 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 ..................................................................................................... 3 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ......................................................................................................... 3 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ..............................................................................................44 Regulations 77 Fed. Reg. 157

(Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................................................. passim

v

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

LIST OF EXHIBITS

No. Description 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246, Springfield et al., issued on July 3, 2012. 1002 Complaint for Patent Infringement, Dkt. 1, Filed January 17, 2013. 1003 US Patent and Trademark Office, Memorandum, June 25, 2014. 1004 Declaration of Padhraic Smyth 1005 Memorandum Opinion and Order re Claim Construction, Dkt. 183,

Filed March 13, 2015. 1006 US Patent and Trademark Office, Definition for Class 705 1007 CV for Padhraic Smyth 1008 Data Warehousing for Dummies, Alan Simon, Hungry Minds, Inc.,

1997, pgs. 20-24 1009 Fry, J. P., & Sibley, E. H., “Evolution of data-base management

systems,” ACM Computing Surveys, 8(1), 7-42, p. 19, 1976. 1010 M. Stonebraker, E. Wong, P. Kreps, and G. Held, “The Design and

Implementation of INGRES”, ACM Transactions on Databases, volume 1, issue 3, pp 189-222, September 1976

1011 “Special Report: DBMS: Opening Doors to New Opportunities,” L. Paul and S. Blakeney (eds.), ComputerWorld, Oct 25. 1982.

1012 http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/profit/p27anniv-timeline-151918.pdf.

1013 Database Development for Dummies, Allen Taylor, IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 2001, pp. 214-216.

1014 SQL for Dummies, A. G. Taylor, Wiley Publishing, 2003 5th edition, pgs.

1015 SQL Server Developer’s Guide, Pages 304-314 1016 http://www.theserverside.com/news/1365244/Why-Prepared-

Statements-are-important-and-how-to-use-them-properly (January 1, 2000)

1017 “APL2 and SQL: A Tutorial,” Proceedings of the ACM/SIGAPL Conference on APL as a Tool of Thought, pp. 53-90, ACM Press, New York (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=328880).

1018 Mattos et al., IBM, “SQL99, SQL/MM, and SQLJ: An Overview of the SQL Standards,” slide 30, http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N0251-0300/32N0294.pdf

1019 Database Language Standards: Past, Present, and Future, Phil Shaw IBM Corporation

vi

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=328880

http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N0251-0300/32N0294.pdf

http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N0251-0300/32N0294.pdf

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

1020 “Easy SQR Queries Oracle, SQL Server”, InfoWorld, page 13, March 12th 1990).

1021 “Democratic data tools,” InfoWorld, pages 80-81, October 23rd 1995.

1022 “Universal Data Access with OLE DB,” J. A. Blakeley, Proceedings of the IEEE Compcon Conference, pages 2-7, February 1997.

1023 G. Ehmayer, G. Kappel, and S. Reich, “Connecting databases to the Web: A taxonomy of gateways” (1997);

1024 Exhibit 1024 Intentionally Left Blank 1025 “Visualizing Real Estate Property Information via the Web,”

Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information Visualization, pages 182-187, IEEE Press.

1026 USP 5,974,396 – Anderson et al., Issued October 26, 1999. 1027 Info World, February 11, 1985 at pp. 26-30. 1028 ComputerWorld, August 25th, 1986 1029 Lotus 1-2-4- Millennium Edition for Dummies, John Walkenbach,

1998

vii

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 17, 2013, dunnhumby USA, LLC and dunnhumby, LTD filed a

complaint (Ex. 1002) against emnos USA Corp. (“emnos USA”) in the Northern

District of Illinois, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246 B2 (“the ’246

patent”) (Ex. 1001). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith

America Invents Act (“AIA”) and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., emnos USA

Corp. hereby petitions for a Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review of claims 1-

9, 11-14, 16-19, 21, 23-32, 34-35, 37-45, 51-56, 58, 60, 62-67, and 69-73 of the

’246 patent (the “Challenged Claims”.)

The ’246 patent, entitled “Method for Performing Retail Sales Analysis,”

claims the abstract idea of a retailer knowing its customers. The ’246 patent issued

on July 3, 2012 from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/955,946, filed on September

30, 2004.

According to the ’246 patent, the alleged invention assists retailers “in

requesting and generating analysis projects on transaction and/or consumer data that

is stored in one or more databases.” (Ex. 1001 at Abstract.) Examples of analysis

projects include “Consumer Insight Reports” seeking to answer questions such as

“Who buys my brand?” and “Who buys my brand over time?” (Id. at Fig. 2; see also

Covered Business Method Patent Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246 Page 1

CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

id. at 10:61-11:111.) The goal of the analysis projects is to provide “insights” that

can “lead to better decisions on new product launches, sampling, merchandizing,

assortment, distribution, and other sales and marketing priorities.” (Id. at Abstract;

see also id. at 7:24-43.)

The Challenged Claims add no technological invention or solution to this

abstract idea. Instead, they claim the use of generic computer hardware and database

software to implement the idea of gathering and organizing transaction and

consumer information that may be queried to generate reports (spreadsheets) with

the requested information. (See id. at Fig. 1.) The only possible technical limitations

recited in the Challenged Claims—“computer,” “database,” and “database analysis

scripts”—were indisputably well-known, conventional mechanisms by the time the

’246 patent was filed in 2004.2 (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 16-32.) It is well settled that such an

abstract idea does not become patentable merely because it is accomplished using

standard computer components. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230 (2010)

1 References herein to the ’246 patent as X:Y refer to the patent’s column:line

numbering.

2 Petitioner does not concede and nothing herein should be construed as an

admission that the challenged claims meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 or

are entitled to claim priority to the 2004 application.


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

(quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 (1981)); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (Jun. 19, 2014). Thus, the Challenged Claims are

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

II. MANDATORY NOTICES

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.304 and 42.8, Petitioner submits the following

Mandatory Notices.

A. Real Party-In-Interest

Petitioner emnos USA Corp., through multiple intervening and non-publically

traded companies, including but not limited to American Express Travel Related

Services Company, Inc., is owned by American Express Company. Thus, the real

parties in interest for this petition for CBM are emnos USA Corp., American Express

Company, and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.

B. Related Matters

dunnhumby USA, LLC and dunnhumby, LTD filed a complaint asserting the

‘246 patent against emnos USA Corp. on January 17, 2013, which started the

ongoing and related patent litigation proceeding, dunnhumby USA, LLC et al. v.

emnos USA Corp., Case No. 1:13-cv-00399 (N.D. Ill.). (Ex. 1002.) According to the

Complaint filed in that case, dunnhumby, LTD owns the ’246 patent, and

dunnhumby USA, LLC is a licensee of the patent. (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 9-10.)

C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel

Petitioner identifies lead and back-up counsel as follows:


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

Lead Counsel Todd M. Siegel USPTO Reg. No. 73,232 KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 595-5300 Facsimile: (503) 595-5301 [email protected]

Back-Up Counsel Joseph T. Jakubek USPTO Reg. No. 34,190 KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 595-5300 Facsimile: (503) 595-5301 [email protected]

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney executed by

Petitioner for appointing the above counsel is concurrently filed.

D. Service Information

Please direct all correspondence to the lead counsel at the above address.

Petitioner consents to email service at [email protected] and

[email protected].

III. THE PETITIONER HAS STANDING AND THE PATENT IS ELIGIBLE FOR CBM REVIEW

A. At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable

“A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to

be eligible for review.” Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-

00002, Paper 17, Institution Decision at 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2015). As further

detailed below, claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21, 23-32, 34-35, 37-45, 51-56, 58, 60, 62-

67, and 69-73 of the ’246 patent (the “Challenged Claims”) are unpatentable under

35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, it is more likely than not that

at least one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).




CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

B. Petitioner emnos USA Has Been Sued For Infringement Of The ’246 Patent And Petitioner Is Not Estopped

Petitioner certifies that it is not estopped from challenging the claims on the

grounds identified in this petition, and that the ’246 patent is available for post-grant

review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b). Petitioner further certifies that emnos USA Corp. has

been sued for infringement of the ’246 patent. Specifically, dunnhumby USA, LLC

and dunnhumby, LTD filed a complaint against emnos USA Corp. on January 17,

2013, which started the ongoing patent litigation proceeding, dunnhumby USA, LLC

et al. v. emnos USA Corp., Case No. 1:13-cv-00399 (N.D. Ill). (Ex. 1002.)

C. The Challenged Claims Fall Within The Definition Of A “Covered Business Method”

The AIA defines a covered business method (“CBM”) patent as “a patent that

claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other

operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product

or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological

inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1). The legislative history of the AIA explains that the

scope of this definition is broad — it “was drafted to encompass patents claiming

activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or

complementary to a financial activity.” 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48,735

(quoting 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)).

The legislative history also provides that that the language “practice,


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

administration, or management” is “intended to cover any ancillary activities related

to a financial product or service, including, without limitation, marketing, customer

interfaces, Web site management and functionality, transmission or management of

data, servicing, underwriting, customer communications, and back office

operations—e.g., payment processing, stock clearing.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1360,

S1365 (Mar. 8, 2011).

The legislative history also provides that the definition of technological

invention, for purposes of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods,

will be considered on a case-by-case basis and depend on “whether the claimed

subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious

over the prior art, and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.” 77 Fed.

Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48,753.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) has repeatedly held that, for the

purposes of CBM review, the term “financial” is “an adjective that simply means

relating to monetary matters” and has allowed review for “patents claiming activities

that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a

financial activity.” SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,

CBM2012-00001, Paper 36, Institution Decision at 21-23 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013)

(citing 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (August 14, 2012) at 48736).

In a recent example, the Board found this broad standard of “financial product


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

or service” to be satisfied by a claim reciting “controlling the user’s processing of

the given data element value in conformity with the collected protection

attribute/attributes.” Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00002,

Paper 17, Institution Decision at 10 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2015) (internal citations

omitted). In Epicor, the Board also relied on the patent specification that discloses

that banking is a field that desires protections against unauthorized access to

databases, and that banking is a financial activity. Id. at 10-11.

Here, the ’246 patent falls squarely within the CBM boundary. Indeed, the

’246 patent is entitled “Method for Performing Retail Sales Analysis,” strongly

suggesting financial activity. (Ex. 1001.) Moreover, the ’246 patent is classified in

the 705 art group, which is defined (in part) by the U.S Patent and Trademark Office

(“USPTO”) as being “uniquely designed for or utilized in the practice,

administration, or management of an enterprise, or in the processing of financial

data.” (Ex. 1006.)

More specifically, the subject matter of the ’246 patent is related to financial

matters, namely providing flexibility in analyzing consumer data such as retail sales,

frequent-shopper and loyalty card statistics, etc., which purportedly can lead to better

decisions on product launches, merchandizing, and other sales and marketing

priorities. (Ex. 1001, Abstract.) “The service/system is designed to answer key sales,

marketing, category management/planning, and provide brand/SKU level insights


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

.…” (Id. at col. 7, lines 24-26.) Figure 2, reproduced below, is an example menu

presented to the user in an initial step of ordering an analysis project to provide such

customer insights and information.

Using the claimed system to gather and organize “[s]uch insights can be used

to provide, for example, an early indication of the success of a re-launch (i.e., is our

launch achieving the expected level of trial and repeat purchase compared with our

competitors and the category?); provide robust and detailed consumer information


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

at an individual product level that can be utilized across the business; and review

consumer purchasing patterns over a time period (such as a year) to plan future

marketing activity.” (Id. at col. 7, lines 26-43.) Reproduced below is Figure 7H

(“What are the weekly key measures for my products?”), which shows a sample

screen shot from the reports that provide the product sales information that can be

used by the user to make better business decisions.

Furthermore, the patent specification describes the claimed transaction and

consumer data as being financial in nature:

In an exemplary embodiment, transaction and/or consumer data

may include “shopping purchase data” or “shopping history data,”


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

which can be information regarding a consumer’s shopping

history, including the identity of products and quantities thereof

that the consumer has purchased. In an exemplary embodiment,

transaction and/or consumer data may also include a consumer’s

demographic data, shopping preferences data, financial data and

the like.

(Id. at col. 7, lines 48-55.)

The patent specification also provides that the alleged “invention is not limited

for use with retail store transactions and that the invention can be used with most (if

not all) types of transactions (such as financial/banking transactions, insurance

transactions, service transactions, telecoms etc.) .…” (Id. at col. 10, lines 21-25.)

The idea of reporting this information for business analysis is embodied in the

patent claims. For example, independent claim 1 recites the following:

1. A method for performing a transaction-related analysis,

comprising the steps of:

providing one or more computerized databases that include

at least one of transaction and consumer data for one or

more establishments, the at least one of transaction and

consumer data including one or more transaction

records associating at least a product identification code

with a consumer identification code;

formulating an analysis project request via a user interface

that is operatively coupled to a computer system having

access to the database; and


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

generating, by the computer system, an analysis project on

the at least one of transaction and consumer data in

response to receiving the analysis project request;

wherein the step of formulating the analysis project request

includes the steps of,

selecting, via the user interface, the analysis project from a

predefined list of available analysis projects;

obtaining, by the computer system a template of executable

database analysis scripts based, at least in part, upon the

selected analysis project;

selecting, via the user interface, one or more analysis

parameters associated with the analysis project; and

loading, by the computer system, the selected one or more

analysis parameters with the template of executable

database analysis scripts to construct an executable

analysis project script to be executed against on the at

least one of transaction and consumer data in the gener-

ating step;

wherein the step of selecting, via the user interface, one or

more analysis parameters associated with the analysis

project includes the step of selecting one or more prod-

ucts from a list of available products;

wherein the step of selecting, via the user interface, one or

more analysis parameters associated with the analysis

project includes the step of selecting a time frame in

which to limit the analysis of the at least one of transaction

and consumer data; and


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

wherein the method further includes the step of executing,

by the computer system, the executable analysis project

script on the at least one of transaction and consumer

data to produce result data.

Claim 8, reproduced below, depends on claim 1 and adds limitations related

to consumer transaction data regarding the rate at which a particular product is

purchased.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more transaction records associates the product

identification code with a vendor identification code; and

the predefined list of available projects includes an analysis project providing a comparison of rates at which a product associated with a first vendor identification code and a product associated with a second vendor identification code are purchased.

Several other of the Challenged Claims similarly expressly require tracking

product purchase and shopping history information. (See, e.g., id. at claims 6, 18,

32, 33, 64 (tracking products that are “repeat purchased”); claims 7, 19, 65 (tracking

products that are “cross-purchased”); claims 9, 21 (tracking products purchased by

consumers in different categories); claims 11, 12, 23, 24, 69, 70 (purchaser

categories derived from shopping histories or price sensitivity); claims 25 and 71

(collecting shopper loyalty card data).

Thus, the patent’s description and claims are at least incidental or

complementary toward administering and managing financial transactions, such as


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

shopping-related transactions. Therefore, the ’246 patent and its claims fall within

the definition of a CBM.

D. The Challenged Claims Are Not Directed To A “Technological Invention”

The AIA excludes “patents for technological inventions” from the definition

of CBM patents. AIA § 18(d)(1). As noted above, a patent is not for a technological

invention unless “the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological

feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem

using a technical solution.” 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48,753. The

legislative history explains that the “‘patents for technological inventions’ exception

only excludes patents whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the

prior art and are concerned with a technical problem which is solved by a technical

solution.” Id. at 48735. The claims of the ’246 patent fail both of these requirements.

The Board has cited the following guidance regarding patent claims that

would typically not qualify as “technological inventions”:

(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer

hardware, communication on computer networks, software, memory,

computer readable storage medium, scanners, display devices or

databases, or specialized machines, such as an ATM or point of sale

device.

(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish

a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and

non- obvious.


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected,

or predictable result of that combination.

SAP America, Inc., No. CBM2012-00001 at 25-26 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013), citing 77

Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012) at 48763-48764; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359

(holding that the methods claims at issue were directed to non-patentable subject

matter where “[t]he method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the

functioning of the computer itself . . . . [n]or do they effect an improvement in any

other technology or technical field”).

The ’246 patent claims are directed to the standard business practice idea of

gathering and organizing information regarding a retailer’s customers and sales, and

analyzing that data to gain “insights” about the customers in order to make better

business decisions. While long in patent-speak, independent claim 1 (reproduced

above) is substantially the same as the other two independent claims challenged

herein, claims 29 and 62. In one form or another, each independent claims requires

the following limitations, none of which purportedly improves the performance of

the claimed method or system in a technological way (see ex. 1004 at ¶ 16):

(1) one or more databases of transaction or consumer data;

(2) formulating an analysis project request on the data via a user interface

connected to a computer system that has access to the database(s),

which includes the steps of:


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

(a) user selecting the analysis project from a predefined list of

available analysis projects;

(b) obtaining a template of executable database analysis scripts

based, at least in part, upon the selected analysis project;

(c) user selecting analysis parameters, which includes

(i) selecting one or more products from a list of available

products; and

(ii) selecting a timeframe;

(d) loading the selected analysis parameters with the template of

executable database analysis scripts to construct an executable

analysis project script to be executed against on the at least one

of transaction and consumer data;

(3) generating an analysis project on the data by executing the script; and

(4) presenting/outputting the project results.

The closest these claims come to reciting anything technological are the words

“computer,” “database,” and “database analysis scripts.” (Id.) The claims do not

recite—and the patent does not describe—some new technology inside the

“computer,” “database,” or “database analysis scripts.” For example, the claims do

not recite—and the patent does not describe, some new way for the computer to load

information from the database to execute the scripts in a way to speed up computer


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

processing.

Instead of describing anything unique about any of the disclosed hardware or

software programming implemented by the hardware, the patent merely provides

that conventional hardware and software can be used to implement the abstract idea

of a retailer knowing its customer by gathering and organizing customer and sales

information. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-32.) For example, the patent recites that the allegedly

inventive system can be provided “over a computer network, such as the Internet 42,

using an appropriate network-enabled (Web-enabled) device, such as a personal

computer 44. Other network-enabled devices (such as PDAs, cell-phones, etc.) will

be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. Preferably, the network-enabled

device includes a display and an input device (such as a mouse, keyboard, voice-

recognition, etc.).” (Ex. 1001 at 8:35-41; see also ex. 1004 at ¶ 18.)

The patent goes on to explain that conventional “commercially available

scripting language[s]” can be used to generate the reporting of the customer and sales

information. The patent further provides that “any suitable spreadsheet product may

be used to generate these projects such as Microsoft Excel, Lotus 1-2-3, StarOffice

Calc, OpenOffice.org Calc, and the like. It is also within the scope of the invention,

and it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill, that the projects can be generated

in other suitable formats, and using other suitable tools (whether off-the-shelf,

custom, or a combination of both) for generating the types of projects described


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

herein.” (Ex. 1001 at 12:62 – 13:2.)

Thus, the potentially technical claim limitations taken alone or in combination

with the customer and transaction data limitations amount to nothing more than a

recitation of known technologies, such as computer hardware or database software,

or the use of known prior art technology to assist the retailer in its gathering and

organizing of customer and sales information. (See Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 16-32) (explaining

that the computer, database, and spreadsheet functionality described by the ’246

patent was conventional and routine long before the ’246 patent was filed in 2004.)

For example, institutions had been regularly querying database systems since the

1970s. (See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at ¶ 23; Ex. 1012; Ex. 1013.) Using software scripts to

run queries in commercial SQL-based database products also dates back to at least

the 1990s. (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 28-29, 32; Ex. 1014 at 301, 302; Ex. 1022; Ex. 1023; Ex.

1025; Ex. 1026 at 10:1-4.) Similarly, using spreadsheets in various ways to output

the results of such queries was also routine long before 2004. (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 30-32;

Ex. 1029.)

Nor does the ’246 patent solve a technical problem. The patent does not

identify any technical problem that is addressed by these claims. Instead, the

“problem” it discusses is not technical, but instead involves non-technical sales and

marketing issues such as effectiveness of product promotions and launches in the

marketplace. (See Ex. 1001 at 7:24-43.)


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

In sum, CBM review is appropriate because the claims of the ’246 patent

cover methods and systems directed at organizing and comparing customer

information for managing the marketing and selling of products, but fail to recite a

new technological feature, and do not solve a technical problem with a technical

solution.

IV. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM CHALLENGED

A. Claims For Which Review Is Requested

Petitioner respectfully requests review and cancellation of claims 1-9, 11-14,

16-19, 21, 23-32, 34-35, 37-45, 51-56, 58, 60, 62-67, and 69-73 of the ’246 patent

(the “Challenged Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and AIA § 18.

B. Statutory Grounds Of Challenge

Petitioner requests that the Challenged Claims be cancelled as unpatentable

under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The reasons for unpatentability are detailed below.

C. Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art In 2004

“The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the

term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the

invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v.

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, the ’246 patent

was filed in 2004. In 2004, a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ’246 patent

would have a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering,


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

or Computer Science, or equivalent work experience, and at least four years of

experience designing database systems.

V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Unlike in district court proceedings, there is no presumption of patent validity

in CBM review proceedings. 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (August 14, 2012) at 48697 (citing

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2243 (2011)). Thus, in CBM

review proceedings a claim “shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in

light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b);

see also MPEP § 2258 (applying broadest reasonable construction standard to ex

parte reexamination proceeding).

For the purposes of this petition, it is not necessary to set forth any explicit

construction for any particular claim in the ’246 patent to determine that the at least

one of the Challenged Claims is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and that a

covered business review should therefore be instituted. Thus, for the purposes of this

petition, the ’246 patent’s claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable

interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with

the disclosure. See 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (August 14, 2012) at 48764 (“Regarding the

need for a claim construction, where appropriate, it may be sufficient for a party to

provide a simple statement that the claim terms are to be given their broadest


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

reasonable interpretation, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and

consistent with the disclosure.”.

In a CBM, the broadest reasonable interpretation applies even when a district

court has construed the claims in a separate proceeding. That is the case here in that

the Northern District of Illinois has entered an order construing the claims of the

’246 patent. (Ex. 1005.) See In re Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1148

(Fed. Cir. 2012).

So far as this CBM is concerned, Petitioner explains throughout this petition

that the claim terms “computer,” “database,” and “database analysis scripts” were

conventional and routine technology by the time the ‘246 patent was filed in 2004.

In its claim construction order, the District Court did not separately construe these

terms. Nonetheless, in 2004, each of these terms was plainly understood by persons

having ordinary skill in the art and therefore they should be giving their plain

meaning, and no further construction is necessary for the purposes of this petition.

That said, and without agreeing that the District Court’s claim constructions

are correct, the Board may find the District Court’s claim constructions are

summarized in the table below. Although the District Court’s constructions were set

forth under the Phillips standard of claim construction as opposed to the broadest

reasonable interpretation, Petitioner submits that the District Court’s constructions

illustrate that the ’246 patent claims attempt to claim an abstract idea implemented


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

with generic computer and database functionality that does not transform the claims

into patentable subject matter. Petitioner submits that to the extent the District

Court’s constructions differ from the broadest reasonable interpretation, that the

broadest reasonable interpretation would not change the fact that the claimed subject

matter relies on generic and conventional computer and database related

components.

Disputed Claim Term Court’s Construction

“template of executable database analysis scripts”

a template of executable database analysis scripts

“plurality of analysis project script executable code templates”

a collection of analysis project script executable code templates

“loading … the selected one or more analysis parameters with”

merging, inserting or incorporating the selected analysis parameter(s) into

“feeding … the obtained parameters into” “feeding the obtained parameters into”

merging, inserting, or incorporating the obtained analysis parameters into

“to construct an executable analysis project script”

to form by assembling or combining parts, to build or create a package of code that can be run (without additional instructions or data) on the retail sales, consumer and other data in the database in order to carry out a particular analysis project that has been requested by the user

“to produce an executable job file” to create a package of code that can be run (without additional instructions or data) on the retail sales, consumer and other data in the database in order to carry out a particular analysis project that has been requested by the user.


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

“inserting the returned results into a selected one of the plurality of analysis project interactive output spreadsheet templates to produce an interactive output”

inserting the returned results into an analysis project interactive output spreadsheet template, selected from a collection of templates, to produce a spreadsheet based interactive report that can be manipulated by a user

“a user interface operatively coupled to the computer system”

a user interface that is electrically coupled, coupled via a direct or indirect data link, or capable of being coupled via a direct or indirect data link to the computer system

“a computer interface provided by the computer system”

a computer interface provided by the computer system

VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101

A. The Two-Step Test For Analyzing Patentability Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101 as “any new and

useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and

useful improvement thereof . . . .” There are three exceptions to this: laws of nature;

natural phenomena; and abstract ideas. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus

Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). A two-part framework should be followed

in order to “distinguish[] patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and

abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.”

Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo,

132 S. Ct. at 1293).


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

First, determine whether the claims are directed to one of the above patent-

ineligible categories. Id. Second, determine whether additional elements of the

claims transform the claims such that the combination is “sufficient to ensure that

the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible

concept] itself.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v.

Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-716 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (applying two-step test

from Alice Corp. and Mayo to a Section 101 challenge).

The USPTO adopted this two-step framework as a test for analyzing the

patentability for claims directed to abstract ideas in its “Memorandum Regarding

Preliminary Examination Instructions In View of Alice Corp.” (Ex. 1003.) The

Board has since applied this test when evaluating patentability under Section 101

during CBM review. See, e.g., Linkedin Corp., v. Avmarkets, CBM2013-00025,

Paper 30, Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2014); Salesforce.com, Inc. v.

Virtualagility, Inc., CBM2013-00024, Paper 47, Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B.

Sept. 16, 2014); U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management Co.,

CBM2013-00014, Paper 33, Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2014);

Indeed, Inc. v. Career Destination Development, LLC, CBM2014-00068, Paper 11,

Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2014). The same test applied here shows the

challenged claims are not patentable.


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

B. The Challenged Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea

Regarding the first step of the Alice framework, the Supreme Court has

repeatedly held that claims covering “fundamental economic practice[s] long

prevalent in our system of commerce” are directed to abstract ideas. Id. at 2356

(quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)). In Alice, the claims at issue

disclosed a “computer-implemented scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’ (i.e., the

risk that only one party to a financial transaction will pay what it owes) by using a

third party intermediary.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351-52. Applying the first step in the

Section 101 analysis, the Court held that the claims at issue were drawn to the

abstract idea of “intermediated settlement.” Id. at 2355. In so holding, the Court

emphasized that this concept was “a fundamental economic practice long prevalent

in our system of commerce” and “a building block of the modern economy.” Id. at

2356.

Each of the Challenged Claims recites steps directed at such fundamental

business activities. Specifically, independent claims 1, 29, and 62 each requires a

method or system for (1) providing a database with customer or transaction

information; (2) selecting a predefined project for analyzing the customer or

transaction information; (3) using conventional scripts for searching the database to

obtain the customer or transaction information; and (5) outputting the results into a

spreadsheet template. As discussed in Section III above, these steps are directed at


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

the standard business practice of gathering and organizing customer and transaction

information in order to make business decisions regarding product launches,

merchandizing, and other sales and marketing priorities is a fundamental part of

engaging in commerce. (See Ex. 1001 at Abstract; see also id. at 7:24-43.). This is

an abstract idea which has been around as long as commerce has existed.

C. The Claimed Generic Elements Do Not Transform The Challenged Claims Into Patentable Subject Matter

Regarding the second step, the Supreme Court has instructed that “mere

recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea

into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The Supreme Court

went on to conclude that using a computer to perform well-understood, routine,

conventional activities such as electronic recordkeeping, adjusting account balances,

obtaining data, and issuing automated instructions is insufficient to transform claims

directed to an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Id. at 2359 (citing

Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).

In the wake of Alice, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed this

principle. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l

Assoc., 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting that “[t]here is no ‘inventive

concept’ in . . . perform[ing] well-understood, routine, and conventional activities

commonly used in industry.”); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Although certain additional limitations, such as consulting an


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

activity log, add a degree of particularity, the concept embodied by the majority of

the limitations describes only the abstract idea of showing an advertisement before

delivering free content.”).

Here, in addition to claiming the abstract concept of knowing your customer,

the Challenged Claims include several limitations that recite generic computer-

related devices and functions. However, as discussed below, these generic elements

are insufficient to transform the Challenged Claims into patentable subject matter.

The independent claims recite methods and systems requiring only a generic

computer implementing conventional database functionality. (Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 16, 21-

32.) For example, the independent claims recite in one formulation or another a

“computer” having access to a “database”, of “transaction and consumer data,”

through an “interface,” user-selected search “parameters” for “analysis,”

“identification of retail products for analysis,” “identification of a timeframe for

analysis,” computer code for searching the database in the form of a “template of

executable database analysis scripts” and “an executable analysis project script”, and

“output spreadsheet templates” (claim 62 only). The ’246 patent does not purport to

invent any of these claim elements. Instead, such computer functionality was

commonplace since long before 2004, and achieve their normal, expected, or

predictable result alone and in combination with one another.


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

1. Courts Have Repeatedly Found That Basic Database Functionality Does Not Transform Patent Claims Directed At Abstract Ideas Into Patentable Subject Matter

It is well-established that computer and database technology, thoroughly

disclosed in the prior art, does not transform the claims to something “significantly

more” than the ineligible abstract concept applied on generic computer equipment

that would be required under under Mayo. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294. For

example, in Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d

1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the claims at issue recited an “insurance transaction database”

for storing information related to insurance transactions, and a “task library

database” for storing rules about what should happen when information in the

insurance transaction database changes. Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338. The Federal

Circuit instructed that the recitation of specialized databases to carry out the abstract

idea of “handling insurance-related information” did not save the claims from

invalidity under Section 101. See Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1344-45 (“[Patentee]’s

attempts to limit the abstract concept to a computer implementation and a specific

industry [] do not provide additional substantive limitations . . . . [T]he system claims

themselves only contain generalized software components arranged to implement an

abstract idea on a computer.”); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-

cv-07360, 2014 WL 5661456, at *6-*7 (C.D. Ca. Nov. 3, 2014) (“For millennia,

humans have used tables to store information. . . . In essence, the claims capture the


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

concept of organizing information using tabular formats.”) (emphasis in original);

Data Distribution Techs., LLC, v. BRER Affiliates, Inc., No. 12-4878, 2014 WL

4162765, at *11 (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2014) (concluding that a patent directed to

maintaining a database and updating users about new information in the database is

abstract and noting that “database management is a fundamental economic or

business practice”).

A court in Virginia recently reached the same conclusion on patent claims

strikingly similar to those of the ’246 patent. Specifically, the claims recited

limitations directed to storing records in a database, filtering and aggregating

information, “submitting queries to the database utilizing predetermined reports for

retrieving information,” and “outputting a report based on the queries.”3 Amdocs

3 The relevant claim at issue in Amdocs recites in full as follows:

16. A computer program product stored in a computer readable medium for

reporting on a collection of network usage information from a plurality of network

devices, comprising:

computer code for collecting network communications usage information in real-

time from a plurality of network devices at a plurality of layers;

computer code for filtering and aggregating the network communications usage

information;


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

(Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 2014 WL 5430956, at *8 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24,

2014). The court noted that the limitations reciting conventional features of

databases such as “collecting, filtering, [and] aggregating” information “amount[] to

‘electronic recordkeeping,’ which is one of the most basic functions of a computer.”

Id. (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359). Moreover, with respect to the limitations

computer code for completing a plurality of data records from the filtered and

aggregated network communications usage information, the plurality of data

records corresponding to network usage by a plurality of users;

computer code for storing the plurality of data records in a database;

computer code for submitting queries to the database utilizing predetermined

reports for retrieving information on the collection of the network usage

information from the network devices; and

computer code for outputting a report based on the queries;

wherein resource consumption queries are submitted to the database utilizing the

reports for retrieving information on resource consumption in a network; and

wherein a resource consumption report is outputted based on the resource

consumption queries.

Amdocs, 2014 WL 5430956, at *8 (emphasis added).


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

directed to running queries on the database using predetermined reports, the court

noted that “storing and querying information in a database, and building reports

based on that information, is one of the most basic functions of a database system.”

Id. (emphasis added). Because the claim at issue was “directed to a computer

functioning in a conventional way, and a database functioning in a conventional

way,” the claim was directed to ineligible subject matter. Id.

2. The ’246 Patent’s Claimed Database And Related Functionality Is Conventional And Not Inventive

Database systems date back decades, and a variety of institutions were

regularly querying databases using computer software by the mid-1970s. (Ex. 1004

at ¶ 23.) Similarly, it was common by the late 1970s to input search parameters into

SQL programs to query databases. (Id. at ¶¶ 24-25; Ex. 1015.)

Similarly, using templates of executable database analysis scripts was also

routinely used in database systems. For example, dunnhumby LTD and dunnhumby

USA have asserted in the underlying litigation that SQL prepared statements satisfy

the claim limitations “template of executable database analysis scripts” (claims 1,

29) and “script executable code templates” (claim 62). (Ex. 1004 at ¶ 26.) However,

SQL prepared statements have also been used for decades. (Id.) As far back as 1989,

IBM used the “SQL PREPARE” command to generate SQL prepared statements.

(Id.) By 1992, the PREPARE command, that IBM and others had been routinely

using, was included in the internationally-adopted standard for SQL. (Id.; Ex. 1016;


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

Ex. 1017.) Therefore “prepared statements” had become the standard by the early

1990s.

Thus, the ’246 patent does not purport to have invented a template of

executable database analysis scripts or script executable code templates of any kind.

In fact, the ’246 patent did not provide any examples of any, nor describe how one

would create them. Instead, the patent merely recites that they are used: “[t]he

particular format of the interactive spreadsheet 65 will differ depending on what type

of analysis project is being performed, and the appropriate format will be specified

by the script template 61 that was used to encode the analysis project on the front

end, as described above. For each type of analysis project, the script template 61

utilized is associated with a corresponding spreadsheet template that is formatted in

an appropriate way to receive and present the data returned by the search/query for

that analysis project. For use with the present invention, any suitable spreadsheet

product may be used to generate these projects such as Microsoft Excel, Lotus 1-2-

3, StarOffice Calc, OpenOffice.org Calc, and the like. It is also within the scope of

the invention, and it will be appreciated by those of ordinary skill, that the projects

can be generated in other suitable formats, and using other suitable tools (whether

off-the-shelf, custom, or a combination of both) for generating the types of projects

described herein.” (See, Ex. 1001 at 12:51-61.)

The lack of detail regarding the claimed script templates and spreadsheet


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

templates suggests that they were routine and matters of common knowledge at the

time the patent was filed. Application of Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407 (C.C.P.A. 1973)

(finding claimed method obvious and “admittedly old . . . in part is deducible from

the fact that it assumes anyone desiring to carry out the process would know of the

equipment and techniques to be used, none being specifically described.”)

Nor does the patent purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself

or database, or effect an improvement in any other technological or technical field.

(Ex. 1004 at ¶ 16.) Instead, the ’246 patent’s alleged invention uses pre-existing,

conventional database technology such as database analysis scripts to implement the

idea of gathering and organizing retail customer and product information.

Finally, the ’246 patent is not directed to the type of subject matter that the

Federal Circuit found to be patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,

773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In DDR Holdings, the court held that the

claimed subject matter was patent-eligible in part because it was a “solution []

necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem

specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d

at 1257. Here, there is no problem arising specifically in the realm of computer

networks that the ’246 alleged invention solves. Retailers endeavored to know their

customers long before the advent of computers. And the ’246 patent does not purport

to invent any new database technology that overcomes technical limitations in prior


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

technology.

Thus, claims 1, 29, 62 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they

do not recite sufficient additional elements, and instead merely “recite a handful of

generic computer components configured to implement the [abstract] idea.” Alice

Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360.

D. The Dependent Claims Are Directed At The Same Abstract Idea And Do Not Transform The Claims Into Patentable Subject Matter

The challenged dependent claims do not add anything to the independent

claims that would make them any less abstract. Nor do they add anything inventive

or technical that would transform the claims into patentable subject matter. (Ex. 1004

at ¶¶ 17-19.) All depend on and share the same underlying idea to which the

independent claims are directed and merely add basic data gathering or insignificant

post-solution activity steps in pursuit of the “knowing your customer” abstract idea.

1. Generic Computer/Network Devices And Functions

Claims 2, 3, 14, 26-28, 51, 58, and 60 add limitations regarding generic

computer equipment, such as network devices, or generic computer functions such

as saving information for re-use later or returning results in a spreadsheet.

Specifically, claim 2 adds the limitation “wherein the user interface is resident

on a network device operatively coupled to the computer system over a global

computer network.” Claim 3 adds the limitation “wherein the network device is a


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

web-enabled device operatively coupled to the computer system over the world-

wide-web.” These added limitations do not change the claims’ abstract goal of

knowing your customer, but merely add the basic concept of a generic computer

system being connected to a global network, namely the world-wide-web. (See, e.g.,

Ex. 1004 at ¶ 18; Ex. 1014 at 301, 382) (describing downloading data over the

Web).)

Claim 14 adds the limitation “saving at least portions of the analysis project

request for re-use in the formulation of future analysis project requests.” Saving

customer and transaction information for re-use in future analysis projects is a

routine step of gathering and organizing customer and transaction information

performed by a retailer as part of knowing its customer.

Claim 26 adds the limitation “wherein the step of generating, by the computer

system, an analysis project includes the steps of: obtaining, by the computer system,

a spreadsheet template; and inserting, by the computer system, the result data into

the spreadsheet template to provide the analysis project.” This step is routine,

insignificant spreadsheet functionality that does not transform the claim into

patentable subject matter.

Claim 27 adds the limitation “wherein the spreadsheet template is an

interactive spreadsheet template and the analysis project is an interactive analysis

project.” This step is routine, insignificant spreadsheet functionality that does not


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

transform the claim into patentable subject matter.

Claim 28 adds the limitation “wherein the spreadsheet template is obtained

based, at least in part, upon the selected analysis project.” Claim 51 adds the

limitation “wherein: the project reflecting the returned results is presented as a

spreadsheet file; the method further comprises a step of generating the spreadsheet

file from the returned results; and the generating step including the steps of selecting

a spreadsheet project template from a plurality of available spreadsheet project

templates based, at least in part, upon the analysis project selection and populating

the spreadsheet project template with at least a portion of the returned results.” This

step is routine, insignificant spreadsheet functionality that does not transform the

claim into patentable subject matter. (See, e.g. Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 30-32; Ex. 1029)

(describing spreadsheet functionality).)

Claim 58 adds the limitation “wherein the step presenting to the user a project

reflecting the returned analysis includes the steps of: notifying the user of the

availability of the project; and providing the user with access to the project after

notifying the user and upon the user requesting access to the project.” This step is

routine, insignificant computer functionality that does not transform the claim into

patentable subject matter.

Claim 60 adds the limitation “wherein the step of providing the user with

access to the project includes the step of providing the access to the project to the


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

user via a web-based interface.” This step is routine, insignificant computer

functionality that does not transform the claim into patentable subject matter.

These limitations do not change the claims’ abstract goal of knowing your

customer, nor introduce concrete technical innovations, but merely add generic

equipment and functions that were conventional and routine by 2004. As noted

above, performing basic database and spreadsheet functions such as storing and

querying information is not enough to transform otherwise abstract claims into

patentable subject matter. See Enfish, 2014 WL 5661456 at *6-7; Amdocs, 2014 WL

5430956 at *8.

In Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266, 1277-

78 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit held that claims including computer elements

such as a “generator,” a “calculator,” and “digital storage” failed Section 101’s

requirements. Even if the computer “performs more efficiently what could

otherwise be accomplished manually,” the claims remain invalid. Id. at 1279.

Similarly, reference to performing conventional steps over a “global computer

network” or using client and server computers do not save dependent claims that

refer to such features. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp., v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654

F.3d at 1370 (2011) (gathering data over the internet does not transform concept into

patent eligible one). In Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344, the Court

concluded that, in addition to the database features discussed above, claim elements


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

for “computer components including…a client component, and a server component,

which includes an event processor, a task engine, and a task assistant” did not

transform abstract claims into patent eligible ones.

Finally, recitation of generic user interfaces to generate or access reports do

not render these claims patent eligible either. See Shortridge v. Foundation

Construction Payroll Service, LLC, 2015 WL 1739256, at *12 (N.D. Cal., April 14,

2015) (finding features such as “a networked plurality of computer processors,” “at

least one user interface,” and “a plurality of independent processing modules

connected by a plurality of interfaces to the core payroll calculation and processing

engine” insufficient to make claims patent eligible).

2. Collecting, Downloading, Or Transmitting Information

Claims 4, 17, 25, 52, and 71 add limitations directed to collecting or

transmitting information, such as downloading project results over the internet.

Specifically, Claims 4 and 17 add the limitation “downloading” the

project/result data. Claim 4 also adds the limitation that the project result is

“transmitted.” Adding a “downloading” and/or “transmitting” step does not change

the claims’ abstract goal of knowing your customer, but merely adds a step that was

conventional and routine by 2004.

Claims 25 and 71 add the limitation “collecting at least a portion of the at least

one of transaction and consumer data from shopper loyalty card data,” which is


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

basic, non-technical sales information that is part of knowing your customer.

Claim 52 adds the limitation “wherein at least one of transaction and consumer

data includes an identity of products purchased, quantity of products purchased, date

of purchase, and a code related to a particular purchasing consumer,” which is basic,

non-technical sales information that is part of knowing your customer.

As noted above, performing basic computer functions such as collecting or

transmitting information over the Internet is not enough to transform otherwise

abstract claims into patentable subject matter. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,

765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the

information over a network . . . is not even arguably inventive.”); Ultramercial, 772

F.3d at 716 (“The claims’ invocation of the Internet also adds no inventive concept.

As we have held, the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract

claims from ineligibility under § 101.”); id. (“[T]he steps of consulting and updating

an activity log represent insignificant ‘data-gathering steps’ . . . and thus add nothing

of practical significance.”).

In IpLearn, LLC v. K12 Inc., 2014 WL 7206380 (D. Del., Dec. 17, 2014), the

court held that a claim providing for gathering and analyzing information via the

internet regarding a user’s performance on tests was “an abstraction, addressed to

fundamental human behavior related to instruction….” Id. at 6. The court noted

that this was particularly so when the claim’s “steps are summarized without their


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

generic references to computers and networks: 1) accessing a learner’s test results,

2) analyzing those test results, 3) providing guidance on weaknesses, 4) generating

a report on two or more subjects to be shared with others [and four other

limitations].” Id.

3. Ways To Get To “Know Your Customer”

Claims 6-9, 18, 19, 21, 30-32, 34, 35, 37-45, and 64-67 add limitations

directed to various ways of implementing the abstract idea of “knowing your

customer” using a database by claiming various ways and methodologies of getting

and using information about your customer and sales.

Specifically, claims 6 and 64 add the limitation “providing rates at which a

product associated with the product identification code is repeat purchased by the

consumer associated with the consumer identification code.”

Claims 7 and 65 add the limitation “providing rates at which products

associated with the vendor identification code are cross-purchased by the consumer

associated with the consumer identification code.”

Claims 8 and 66 add the limitation providing “rates at which a product

associated with a first vendor identification code and a product associated with a

second vendor identification code are purchased.”

Claims 9 and 67 add the limitation providing “rates at which a product

associated with the product identification code is purchased by consumers in


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

different consumer categories.”

Claim 18 adds the limitation “wherein the analysis project request pertains to

an analysis project providing rates at which a product associated with the product

identification code is repeat purchased by the consumer associated with the

consumer identification code.” Claim 19 adds the limitation “wherein: the one or

more transaction records associates the product identification code with a vendor

identification code; and the analysis project request pertains to an analysis project

providing rates at which products associated with the vendor identification code are

cross-purchased by the consumer associated with the consumer identification code.”

These limitations merely specify that the particular project should provide

information regarding a particular consumer purchasing products from a particular

vendor, which is basic, non-technical sales information that is part of knowing your

customer.

Claim 21 adds the limitation “wherein: the one or more transaction records

associates the consumer identification code with a purchaser category; and the

analysis project request pertains to an analysis project providing a comparison of

rates at which a product associated with the product identification code is purchased

by consumers in different purchaser categories.” This limitation merely specifies

that the project should provide information regarding a particular product being

purchased by different types of purchasers, which is basic, non-technical sales


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

information that is part of knowing your customer.

Claim 30 adds the limitation “wherein the parameters for analysis include

parameters relating to measures of retail sales.” Claim 31 adds the limitation

“wherein the parameters for analysis include an identification of an analysis format.”

Claim 32 adds the limitation “wherein the analysis format pertains to rates at which

consumers make repeat purchases of a retail product.” Claim 34 adds the limitation

“wherein the analysis format pertains to an identification of successful or

unsuccessful recently-launched retail products for a retail establishment.” Claim 35

adds the limitation “wherein the analysis format pertains to rates at which consumers

cross-shop a vendor’s retail products.” Claim 37 adds the limitation “wherein the

analysis format pertains to key sales measures in a particular retail product

category.” Claim 38 adds the limitation “wherein the analysis format pertains to key

sales measures for a vendor’s retail products.” Claim 39 adds the limitation “wherein

the analysis format pertains to key sales measures for the vendor’s retail products

over time.” Claim 40 adds the limitation “wherein the analysis format pertains to

key sales measures for a particular brand of retail products over time.” Claim 41

adds the limitation “wherein the analysis format pertains to other retail products

purchased by consumers of a vendor’s retail products.” Claims 42 and 43 add the

limitation “wherein the analysis pertains to locations where a” particular retail

product or particular vendor’s brand of retail products is sold. Claims 44 and 45 add


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

the limitation “wherein the analysis pertains to types of consumers who purchase the

vendor’s retail products” or do so “over time.”

Observing and analyzing consumer behavior—including purchasing behavior

where the product, its price, and the identity of the consumer are recorded—is not a

new concept. In Tuxis Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2014 WL 4382446,

*3-*6 (D. Del. 2014), the court granted a motion to dismiss because the asserted

claim, directed to applying a basic marketing technique involving observing and

collecting information regarding consumer behavior as to electronic and remote

commerce, claimed patent ineligible subject matter. The court held that claim 1 of

the asserted patent in that case could be “broken down into the following main steps:

1) establishing a communication with a user over an electronic communications

device wherein the user initiates the purchase of a good or service; 2) obtaining data

about: the user’s identity, the good or service purchased, and a second data element

relating to the user; 3) generating an upsell offer based on the second data element

related to the identity of the user and the good or service purchased; 4) offering the

upsell item and receiving an acceptance in real time.” Id. at *3-4. The court further

noted that using “certain information obtained about the customer and the initial

purchase” to generate future offers was not new, even if that generation was

performed automatically by a computer: “Shrewd sales representatives have long

made their living off of this basic practice.” Id. at *5.


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

In Lumen View Tech. LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc., No. 13 Civ. 3599, 2013

WL 6164341 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2013), the Southern District of New York

considered the invalidity under Section 101 of a patent that analyzed a user’s

preferences to match them with the profile of a potential online dating match. Id. at

*2, 10. The court held that the types of computer-implemented actions claimed—

“1) retrieving the submitted preference data; 2) analyzing the data to compute a

closeness of fit conclusion; and 3) providing a list” of results could be performed by

humans without a computer, although the computer performed them more quickly.

Id. The court further held that dependent claims containing elements such as “adding

data from external co-evaluators (Claim 3); assigning a value figure to the preference

data inputted (Claims 4 and 6); hiding that value figure from participants (Claims 5

and 7); and using the Internet (Claims 8 and 9)” were similarly invalid. Id. at *13.

In sum, all of the foregoing limitations involve collecting basic, non-technical

sales information that is part of abstract idea of knowing your customer.

4. Organizing Or Presenting Information

Claims 5, 11-13, 16, 23, 24, 53-56, 63, 69, 70, 72, and 73 add limitations

directed to specific manners of organizing or presenting information.

Claim 5 adds the limitation “wherein the one or more transaction records

associates the product identification code with at least one of a transaction time and

a transaction date.” This added limitation merely specifies that the transaction


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

information associates a particular product transaction with a transaction time and

date, which is routine, non-technical information that is part of knowing and using

customer and product sales information.

Claims 11, 23 and 69 adds the limitation of wherein the consumer/purchaser

“categories are defined based upon data derived from shopping histories associated

with the consumer identification code.” This limitation merely specifies that the

customer information should include shopping history information, which is basic,


Claims 12, 24, and 70 add the limitation wherein the consumer/purchaser

“categories are defined based upon data associated with price sensitivity associated

with the consumer identification code.” This limitation merely specifies that the

customer information should include price sensitivity information, which is basic,


Claim 13 adds the limitation “wherein the step of selecting one or more

products from a list of available products is preceded by a step of selecting a product

category from a list of available product categories.” Categorizing products is basic,


Claims 16 and 63 add the limitation “wherein the one or more transaction

records associates the product identification code and the consumer identification

code with a transaction price.” Including transaction price as part of the transaction


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

information is basic, non-technical sales information that is part of knowing your

customer.

Claim 53 adds the limitation “wherein the project reflecting the returned

results is presented as an interactive project.” Claim 54 adds the limitation of

“generating the interactive project from the returned results, the generating step

including the steps of selecting a project template from a plurality of available

project templates based upon at least the analysis project selection and populating

the project template with at least a portion of the returned results.” Claims 55 and 72

add the limitation wherein the interactive project “provides the ability for a user to

toggle between two or more different formats of display of the returned results.”

Claims 56 and 73 add the limitation wherein the two or more different formats of

display of the returned results includes a bar-graph display.” These limitations do

not change the claims’ abstract goal of knowing your customer, but merely add

spreadsheet functionality that was conventional and routine by 2004. Indeed, the

’246 patent provides “any suitable spreadsheet product may be used to generate these

projects such as Microsoft Excel, Lotus 1-2-3, StarOffice Calc, OpenOffice.org

Calc, and the like.” (Exhibit 1001 at 12:61-64.)

Varying ways of organizing or presenting data is not enough to transform an

otherwise abstract idea into patentable subject matter. See, e.g., Digital Image

Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2014)


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

(invalidating claims directed to “a process of organizing information” and an

“abstract process of gathering and combining data,” noting that “a process that

employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate

additional information is not patent eligible). Similarly, the court in Clear with

Computers, LLC v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., 2014 WL 923280 (E.D. Tex.,

January 21, 2014) held that claims involving customizing lists of products using a

computer did not satisfy Section 101’s threshold for patentability. The plaintiff in

Clear with Computers argued that the patent involved a particular type of computer

process involving a configuration engine that could not be duplicated by humans.

The court rejected this argument: “Despite CWC’s assertion to the contrary, a store

clerk, armed with only a pencil and paper, can receive a question about men’s

basketball sneakers, determine the options available (color, brand, size, etc.) and the

availability of those options in inventory, prepare a list of those available options,

and present that list to the customer. Thus, claim 1 covers the mental process of

inventory-based selling limited only by the non-essential configuration engine of a

computer system.” Id. at *6.

The court in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust

Company, 2014 WL 7215193, *6-*12 (D. Del., Sept. 18, 2014), held invalid under

Section 101 a claim to storing a consumer profile in a database with a spending limit

associated with the profile and thereafter sending notifications to the consumer if


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

transactions exceeded the saved limit. The claim included observing the consumer’s

commercial transactions, and then presenting “over a communication medium and

to a receiving device,…said transaction summary data…wherein said transaction

summary data is configured to be presented by the receiving device in a table.” Id.

at 6. The court noted that “the core idea of the patent is allowing users to set self-

imposed limits on their spending and receive notifications regarding such limits….”

Id. at *6. Storing and presenting over the internet the data in a particular format did

not save the claim: “The steps of storing data from a user, listing data, and presenting

summary data (configured in a table), however, are ways ‘to implement the abstract

idea with routine and conventional [computer] activity.’” Id. at *7, quoting

Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716.

Accordingly, none of the dependent claims are directed to patent-eligible

subject matter, and all of the Challenged Claims are unpatentable.

VII. FEE

An electronic payment in the amount of $63,150.00 for the fee specified by 37

C.F.R. § 42.15(b) is being paid at the time of filing this petition, charged to deposit

account no. 02-4550. Any adjustments in the fee may be debited/credited to the

deposit account.

VIII. COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION

In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner identifies Todd M. Siegel


CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

as lead counsel and Joseph T. Jakubek as back-up counsel along with service

information for both:

Todd M. Siegel Reg. No. 73,232 [email protected] Joseph T. Jakubek Reg. No. 34,190 [email protected] Klarquist Sparkman LLP 121 SW Salmon St., Ste. 1600 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-595-5300 Fax: 503-595-5301

IX. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Petitioner requests that the Board institute trial against

claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-19, 21, 23-32, 34-35, 37-45, 51-56, 58, 60, 62-67, and 69-73.

Further, Petitioner requests an order cancelling these claims. Petitioner reserves the

right to provide additional arguments as needed.

Dated: May 1, 2015 By: /Todd M. Siegel/ Todd M. Siegel Registration No. 73,232 [email protected] KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 595-5300 Facsimile: (503) 595-5301





CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the Petition for Covered Business Method

Review under 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents

Act and Exhibits 1001-1029 were served on May 1, 2015, by Express Mail at

the following address of record for the subject patent:

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP WASHINGTON SQUARE, SUITE 1100 1050 CONNECTICUT AVE. N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20036-5304 JOHN LETCHINGER KATHARINE HEITMAN BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 191 NORTH WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60606 SCOTT STANLEY BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 312 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 3200 CINCINNATI, OH 45202

By /Todd M. Siegel/ Todd M. Siegel Registration No. 73,232 [email protected] KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 595-5300 Facsimile: (503) 595-5301

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


Documents

Filed on behalf of Petitioner By: Todd M. Siegel (Reg. No. 73,232) … · 2020-03-13 · CBM2015-00116 U.S. Patent No. 8,214,246 1. Courts Have Repeatedly Found That Basic Database