PTAB

IPR2022-00779

Lightspeed Commerce Inc v. CloudofChange LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Web-Based Point of Sale Builder System and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’640 patent discloses a method and system for building and editing point of sale (POS) systems. The invention purports to improve upon manual coding processes by providing an online, web-based POS builder that allows non-expert business operators to assemble and manage their POS systems from any remote PC workstation with an internet connection.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-28 are obvious over Manno.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Manno (Application # 2004/0181454).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Manno discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Manno teaches a "web-based point of sale (WPOS) system" where web-enabled computers serve as POS terminals. These terminals connect to a web server via the Internet, and the server runs a WPOS application that allows managers at a remote "management location" to create or alter web pages for the store sites. Petitioner contended this WPOS application functions as the claimed "POS builder software." Manno further discloses that its system can be offered as a subscription service, with the server partitioned for different merchants, meeting the vendor subscription limitations of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: As a single-reference ground, the primary argument was that Manno itself teaches the claimed invention. To the extent Manno does not explicitly label its WPOS application as "POS builder software," Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to include such functionality to facilitate creating and editing web pages without needing to know HTML, which was a predictable and simple improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in implementing web page builder software on Manno's server with minimal effort, as such software was well-known in the art.

Ground 2: Claims 1-28 are obvious over Woycik.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Woycik (Application # 2007/0265935).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted Woycik discloses a computer-based ordering system comprising self-service client terminals (kiosks) and a central server, meeting the core system requirements. Woycik's "administrative tool," which is loaded on the central server and accessible via the web, functions as the claimed "POS builder software," enabling an administrator to create and edit interactive menu screens. The central server connects to the POS terminals over the Internet, and configuration changes made via the tool are automatically pushed to the kiosks, satisfying the "real time" editing limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: While this is a single-reference ground, Petitioner argued that to the extent Woycik does not explicitly teach a subscription service model, a POSITA would be motivated to provide the central server as a subscription service. This would allow a franchiser to monetize the technology, reduce costs for individual franchisees, and ensure consistency across multiple locations.
    • Expectation of Success: Providing hardware and software as a subscription service was a known business model. A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in offering Woycik's centralized system in this manner, particularly for franchisees and small merchants.

Ground 3: Claims 1-28 are obvious over Olson in view of Woycik.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Olson (Application # 2008/0208696) and Woycik (’935 application).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Olson teaches a POS system with a web-based back-office (BO) system implemented on remote web servers, which communicate directly with POS terminals via HTTP. This architecture eliminates the need for an in-store server. While Olson discloses remote system management, it does not explicitly disclose a "POS builder software." Woycik supplies this element with its web-based "administrative tool," which allows for the creation and editing of POS menus.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve the usability and configurability of Olson's system. By installing Woycik's user-friendly administrative tool on Olson's back-office server, managers could remotely configure POS terminal displays more easily and efficiently, reducing the cost and time associated with manual updates.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in adding Woycik's administrative tool to Olson's system. The combination represents the mere application of a known technique (Woycik's builder) to a known system (Olson's back-office) to achieve predictable results, given the similarity of their web-based architectures.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge based on the combination of Woycik and Manno, arguing Manno supplies a subscription service model and teaches against the need for an in-store server, thereby improving Woycik's system for small merchants and franchisees.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both §314(a) and §325(d).
  • Regarding §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, Petitioner contended that the co-pending district court case was in its infancy, with trial scheduled for more than a year after the petition filing date. Petitioner also noted that the IPR challenges a broader set of claims than those asserted in the litigation and stipulated not to pursue in district court any grounds raised or that could have reasonably been raised in the IPR.
  • Regarding §325(d), Petitioner argued the grounds were not cumulative of art considered during prosecution. Although Manno and Olson were listed on the face of the ’640 patent, the examiner never applied them in any rejection. Furthermore, the examiner never considered Woycik at all.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-28 of the ’640 patent as unpatentable.