Price F X AG v. Vendavo Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: CBM2019-00022
• Patent #: 8,412,598
• Filed: December 14, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Price f(x) AG and Price f(x), Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Vendavo, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Causality Analyzer for Price and Business Management Systems
• Brief Description: The ’598 patent discloses a computer-implemented causality analyzer system and method for determining the causes of changes in business metrics like revenue, margin, and margin percentage between two time periods. The system disaggregates overall changes into specific causality effects (e.g., price effect, volume effect, product mix effect) using a set of rules and mathematical equations.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-19 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101

Core Argument for this Ground: Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining the causes of revenue and profit changes using mathematical equations and lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The argument followed the two-step framework from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.

Alice Step 1 (Abstract Idea)

Petitioner contended the claims are directed to a fundamental economic and mathematical concept. The core of the invention was described as inputting financial data into a series of formulas to generate different informational output. Petitioner asserted that the claim elements, such as the "causality modeler" and "causality attributor," are nothing more than labels for sets of equations performing basic economic analysis. The claims merely automated a mental process of analyzing financial data, which is a long-standing business practice. The "finite difference approach" limitation was argued to be just a specific mathematical technique for allocating effects, which does not render the claim any less abstract. Petitioner argued that the claims are analogous to other pricing and financial analysis claims previously found abstract by the Federal Circuit.

Alice Step 2 (Inventive Concept)

Petitioner argued that the claims fail to provide an inventive concept because they merely recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer system. The claim limitations for a "computer system," "processor," and "using a computer" were added during prosecution simply to overcome a pre-Alice rejection and do not represent any technological improvement. The specification itself was cited as disclosing only well-known, off-the-shelf computer components. The ordered combination of claim elements was argued to do nothing more than instruct a user to apply the abstract mathematical formulas in a conventional manner on a general-purpose computer. Petitioner asserted that no element or combination of elements recites an improvement to computer functionality or solves a technological problem; instead, they solve an abstract business problem using conventional tools.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "causality modeler" and "causality attributor" (claim 1): Petitioner argued these terms are means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA) because they were coined for the patent and lack a sufficiently definite structural meaning. The claimed functions were identified as performing calculations (e.g., "calculate change in total margin") and disaggregating results by causality effects. Petitioner contended that the only corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for performing these functions is a series of mathematical equations. This construction was central to the argument that the claims are directed to an abstract mathematical concept.
• "unbiasing the causality effects" (claims 1 and 12): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "using equations to reduce overstatements of the effects of various factors on changes in an outcome, such as revenue and/or margin." This construction aimed to frame the "unbiasing" step as a purely mathematical manipulation of data, further supporting the §101 ineligibility argument.
• "finite difference approach" (claims 1 and 12): Petitioner argued this term, a well-understood mathematical concept, should be construed as "one or more equations for determining the difference in the value of the same function at two different numbers." The patent uses this approach to allocate a "shared effect" in proportion to the change in each contributing factor. By defining it as a set of equations, Petitioner reinforced that this limitation adds only mathematical complexity, not a patent-eligible inventive concept.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method patent review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’598 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §101.