PTAB

IPR2024-01135

HECht Thomas v. Carver Edison Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and systems for maximizing share purchase under an employee stock purchase plan with limited payroll deductions
  • Brief Description: The ’833 patent discloses computer-implemented methods and systems for maximizing the number of shares an employee can purchase under an Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The system uses a combination of limited employee payroll deductions and supplemental funds from a third party to purchase the maximum allowable shares.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

The petition’s core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious over the combination of prior art that was before the Examiner during original prosecution, supplemented with additional art showing that the claim limitations added during prosecution to overcome a 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection were well-known, conventional computer technologies. The primary grounds focus on three specific modules added to the independent claims.

Ground 1: Obviousness of the Base Method with a "Volatility Calculation Module" - Claims 1, 6, and 11

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hecht (Application # 2016/0225081), Sullivan (Application # 2002/0194136), Grimes (a 2011 article on calculating volatility), Cao (a 2006 paper on implied volatility), and Gustav (a 2013 blog post with a Python module for volatility).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of Hecht and Sullivan taught the underlying financial method of the ’833 patent, including providing supplemental funds for an ESPP (Hecht) and using derivatives and rebalancing prices to manage stock positions (Sullivan). The "volatility calculation module," which processes contribution amounts and rebalancing prices in relation to stock volatility to define a "leverage value," was argued to be a straightforward application of well-known financial computing techniques. Grimes, Cao, and Gustav were cited to show that calculating historical and implied stock volatility and using it to determine leverage ratios were common practices in the financial arts, often implemented with simple computer programs (e.g., in Excel or Python).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) implementing the financial method of Hecht and Sullivan would combine it with the teachings of Grimes, Cao, and Gustav to automate financial risk analysis. Calculating volatility and leverage is a predictable and necessary step in managing a leveraged stock purchasing plan, making its computer implementation a matter of routine design.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing a standard volatility calculation on a computer, as the methods were well-documented and widely used in the financial industry.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Aggregating Employees into "Virtual Containers" - Claims 1, 6, and 11

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hecht and Sullivan as the base method, combined with Cloud Academy (a 2015 article on container virtualization), Kasireddy (a 2016 article on containers), and Wong (a 2016 article comparing containers and virtual machines).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: The petition asserted that the claim limitation of a "transaction module" that aggregates employees into a "plurality of virtual containers" was an obvious implementation detail. The Cloud Academy, Kasireddy, and Wong references were used to demonstrate that container virtualization was a well-known technology for isolating applications and their dependencies into self-contained units on a single host machine. Petitioner contended that using this technology to segregate and manage data for different employees in a multi-user system is a direct and analogous application.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing a server-based application for multiple users, such as the claimed ESPP system, would combine the financial method with containerization technology for known benefits like resource efficiency, scalability, and process isolation. This was presented as a standard choice in software architecture, not an inventive step.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying established containerization technology to a new software application was a routine practice with a predictable outcome and a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness of the "Share Disbursement Module" - Claims 1, 6, and 11

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hecht and Sullivan as the base method, combined with Stoll (a 2006 journal article on electronic trading), Panourgias (a 2015 article on securities settlement systems), Engel (a 2016 article on equity grants), and an SEC publication (describing securities transaction settlement).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the "share disbursement module" simply recites the functions of a standard, automated electronic trading and settlement system. Stoll and Panourgias were cited to show that the entire process of order entry, routing, execution, confirmation, and settlement via clearing agencies like the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) was fully automated and well-known. These references allegedly disclose all the substantive functions of the claimed module, including disbursing shares and proceeds to various parties (employees, third-party funders, counterparties).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the core ESPP method with the automated systems described by Stoll and Panourgias because these are the standard, required mechanisms for executing trades in modern stock markets. Interfacing with this existing infrastructure would be a necessary and obvious step to make the financial method operational.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in using established electronic trading platforms and settlement systems, as they are designed for precisely this type of integration.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "leverage value" (claims 1, 6, 11): Petitioner proposed this term should be interpreted to mean "a ratio of debt and equity." This construction aligns the claim language with standard financial terminology taught by prior art like Cao.
  • "plurality of virtual containers" (claims 1, 6, 11): Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "multiple own isolated user space to allow multiple containers to run on a single host machine." This construction links the claim language to the specific, known technology of container virtualization described in prior art like Cloud Academy and Kasireddy.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the ’833 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.