Price f(x) AG v. Vendavo, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Case #: CBM2019-00024
• Patent #: 7,640,198
• Filed: December 18, 2018
• Petitioner(s): Price f(x) AG and Price f(x), Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Vendavo, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Displaying a Transaction Table Including at Least One Index
• Brief Description: The ’198 patent discloses a system for performing calculations on pricing data. The technology involves a database storing transaction data, a server that calculates a user-configurable index (e.g., “price minus average price”) from the data, and a display for visualizing the index in a transaction table that can be dynamically updated.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-18 are Patent Ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101

• Prior Art Relied Upon: This ground is based on legal precedent (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l and subsequent cases) rather than specific prior art references.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Abstract Idea (Alice Step 1): Petitioner argued that all challenged claims are directed to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of calculating an index using pricing data, updating that index as the data changes, and displaying the result. This was framed as a fundamental economic practice and a method of organizing human activity—collecting information, analyzing it with mathematical formulas, and displaying the results. Petitioner asserted that the claims, stripped of their generic computer-implementation language, simply describe a long-standing business process. Functions like data transformation (mapping), mathematical calculations (index creation), and data organization (creating a new column) were all identified as abstract concepts.
  • Lack of Inventive Concept (Alice Step 2): Petitioner contended the claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. It was argued that each claim element, both individually and as an ordered combination, recites only conventional computer components (database, server, network, display) performing their well-understood, routine functions. The concepts of “dynamically updating” an index and using a “zoom function” were described as generic computer capabilities, not technological improvements. Petitioner argued that the only purported innovation was in the business method of analyzing pricing data, not in the underlying computer technology, which was admitted during prosecution to be generic. The preservation of underlying data by placing the index in a separate column was characterized as a basic accounting concept, not a technical solution.

Ground 2: Claims 1-18 are Unpatentable for Lack of Written Description under § 112

• Prior Art Relied Upon: This ground relies on the prosecution history of the ’198 patent and its specification.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Unsupported "Dynamically" Limitations: Petitioner asserted that the challenged claims are invalid because key limitations involving the term “dynamically” were added during prosecution without adequate support in the original specification. Specifically, the phrases “dynamically store changes to the transaction data” and “dynamically update the at least one index” were added via examiner amendment to distinguish over prior art.
  • Specification Lacks Disclosure: Petitioner argued that the term “dynamically” (or its variants) does not appear in the original specification. The process flowcharts in the patent’s figures allegedly depict a linear process that acquires data, loads it into a table, and then stops to await user input. Petitioner contended there is no disclosure of a loop or other mechanism for the continuous, automatic updating that the term “dynamically,” as construed by Petitioner, requires. The specification’s mention of “real-time” calculation was dismissed as a mere statement of a desired goal, not a disclosure of an enabled invention.

Ground 3: Claims 1-18 are Unpatentable for Lack of Written Description under § 112

• Prior Art Relied Upon: This ground relies on the prosecution history of the ’198 patent and its specification.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Unsupported System Architecture: Petitioner argued the claims are invalid for lacking written description support for the required system architecture. The claims recite three distinct elements: a “data source,” a “database” that stores data received from the data source, and a “server” coupled over a network to the “database.”
  • Specification Lacks Disclosure: Petitioner contended this three-part architecture, where the database is a distinct intermediary between the data source and the server, is not disclosed in the specification. The patent’s figures and description allegedly show a direct data flow from a “data source” to a transaction table populated by the server, with no intervening separate database. Petitioner noted that the terms “database” and “server” were introduced via amendment during prosecution and that the specification only uses the word “database” when referring to examples of “data sources” (e.g., Oracle databases), not as a separate architectural component.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• “dynamically”: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “continuously and automatically.” This construction is central to the argument in Ground 2, as Petitioner contended the specification provides no support for such continuous and automatic functionality, but instead describes a process that stops after data is loaded.
• “calculation parameter”: Proposed as “a mathematical operation.” This supports the §101 argument that the claims are directed to an abstract mathematical calculation.
• “mapping parameter”: Proposed as “a parameter to map data from one format or database to another.” This supports the §101 argument that the claims merely automate a conventional data-handling task.
• “zoom function”: Proposed as “a function that further limits a displayed data set.” This supports the argument that the zoom feature is a generic, conventional computer function rather than an inventive concept.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of a Covered Business Method patent review and cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’198 patent as unpatentable.