Lightspeed Commerce Inc v. CloudofChange LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00997
• Patent #: 10,083,012
• Filed: May 5, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Lightspeed Commerce Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): CloudOfChange, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Web-based Point of Sale (POS) Builder System
• Brief Description: The ’012 patent relates to a method and system for building and editing a point of sale (POS) system. The technology purports to improve upon the manual coding of POS interfaces by providing a web-accessible "POS builder interface" to programmatically access and modify "POS builder software" installed on a central web server.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Woycik

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Woycik (Application # 2007/0265935).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Woycik, standing alone, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Woycik describes a web-based "administrative tool" for building and editing user interfaces for self-service POS kiosks. Petitioner asserted this tool, installed on a central server and accessible via the web, is the claimed "POS builder software" on a "web server." The interactive menu screens generated by Woycik's tool for its kiosks are the claimed "POS terminals." The tool's graphical user interface, used by an administrator to create and edit menus, is the claimed "POS builder interface" that programmatically modifies the terminals in real-time. Woycik's disclosure of transmitting kiosk transaction data to the central server was argued to meet the data collection and transmission limitations.

Ground 2: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Olson in view of Woycik

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Olson (Application # 2008/0208696) and Woycik (Application # 2007/0265935).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Olson discloses a "point of sale system with a web-based back-office system," where POS terminals communicate with back-office software on web servers, but that it lacks a dedicated POS builder software. Woycik was argued to supply this missing element with its web-based administrative tool for creating and editing POS interfaces. The combination results in Olson's back-office system enhanced with Woycik's builder functionality.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Woycik's POS builder with Olson's back-office system to improve the usability, configurability, and efficiency of Olson's system. The combination would allow managers to remotely configure and manage POS terminals for multiple store locations, reducing the cost, time, and potential for error associated with manual configuration.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references. Both Olson and Woycik are directed to improving POS systems and share similar architectures that utilize a remote, web-accessible central server communicating with in-store POS terminals.

Ground 3: Claims 1-20 are obvious over Tengler

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tengler (Application # 2005/0049921).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tengler, a comprehensive "order processing system" for merchants, discloses all claimed features. Tengler describes a main server that runs system software, a database, and web server software. Its "user interface designer" allows a manager to remotely edit the user interface of register and self-service applications via a web interface. Petitioner mapped this "user interface designer" to the claimed "POS builder software" and "POS builder interface." The resulting register and self-service application interfaces, which are deployed to terminal devices, were argued to be the claimed "POS terminals" that are modified in real-time.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued the term "communications network" (claims 1, 14), which was added during prosecution, should be given its ordinary meaning: a group of devices interconnected by communication channels. Petitioner contended this term should not be limited to a specific protocol or medium. This construction was presented as significant because the challenged ’012 patent claims this broader term, whereas its parent ’640 patent explicitly required a network comprising the Internet, suggesting a deliberate broadening of scope.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors, asserting that the co-pending district court case ("Lightspeed Litigation") was in its infancy. At the time of filing, discovery had not commenced, and the trial was tentatively scheduled for more than a year later. To further mitigate concerns of overlap, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR was instituted, it would not pursue in the district court any invalidity ground that was raised or could have reasonably been raised in the petition.
• Petitioner also argued that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be improper. The primary references, Woycik and Tengler, were never considered by the patent examiner. While Olson was listed on the face of the ’012 patent, it was not applied in any rejection or substantively discussed during prosecution, making the grounds presented in the petition new and non-cumulative.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’012 patent as unpatentable.