HighLevel, Inc. v. Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00235](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00235/6)
- Patent #: [11,361,047](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1001)
- Filed: December 3, 2024
- Petitioner(s): [HIGHLEVEL, INC.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/highlevel-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [CLICKFUNNELS](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00235/6)
- Challenged Claims: 1-20

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Method, System, and Computer Readable Medium for Creating a Customized Website
- Brief Description: The [’047 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1001) discloses a system for creating customized websites by first presenting a user with a plurality of "website types" (e.g., based on industry). Upon selection, the system provides website templates particular to that type, which include a pre-configured "series of directional webpages" designed to guide an end-user through a specific interaction sequence, such as a sales funnel.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 14-20 are obvious over Coursol in view of Karidi.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005) (Patent [9,147,004](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005)), [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006) (Application # [2007/0061412](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005) taught a website building tool that allows a user to select a business type (e.g., "spa") and then provides corresponding website templates with a default set of webpages (e.g., products, gallery, contact). [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006) was argued to teach the missing element of a "series of directional webpages" by disclosing a typical e-commerce user flow, showing a sequence of pages from product viewing, to adding an item to a cart, to checkout, and finally to a purchase confirmation page.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006)'s well-known e-commerce page sequence with [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005)'s website builder to create more effective, functional websites. The goal of enhancing the user's browsing experience and minimizing shopping cart abandonment would have provided the motivation to implement [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006)'s directional flow within [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005)'s template-based system.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success as both references operate in the predictable field of web design and e-commerce, using routine technologies like hyperlinks and shopping carts.

#### Ground 2: Claims 1-4, 9, 10, and 12-20 are obvious over Coursol in view of Karidi and Sayed.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005) (’004 patent), [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006) (’412 application), [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) (Patent [7,610,219](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground built upon the combination of [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005) and [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006), adding [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) to further teach the directional and sequential nature of the webpages. Petitioner asserted [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) explicitly taught a "parent-child relationship" for webpages, where a subsequent page (e.g., a shopping cart) presumes the existence of and action on a prior page (e.g., adding an item to the cart). [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) also taught configuring webpages to encourage an end-user to provide an email address during a checkout process.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would incorporate [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009)'s teachings to make the webpage sequences in the [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005)-[Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006) combination more robust and explicitly directional. Implementing [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009)'s parent-child logic and email capture techniques were described as known methods for improving user interaction and enabling e-mail marketing.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** Success was expected because [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) provided explicit details on how to structure sequential webpages using an "inheritance flag," a predictable software implementation.

#### Ground 3: Claims 5-8 are obvious over Coursol-Karidi-Sayed in view of Lyon.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005) (’004 patent), [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006) (’412 application), [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) (’219 patent), [Lyon](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1007) (Application # [2014/0282049](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1007)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground targeted dependent claims 5-8, which recite split testing functionalities. Petitioner argued that the base combination of [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005)-[Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006)-[Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) taught the foundational e-commerce website, while [Lyon](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1007) supplied the specific teachings for split testing. [Lyon](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1007) disclosed multivariate or A/B testing, including creating two or more versions of a webpage, presenting them to different percentages of users, and using UI elements like "slider controls" to configure the test parameters.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would be motivated to add [Lyon](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1007)'s split testing features to the e-commerce website designer of the primary combination. This would allow a website creator to test different designs and content to optimize conversion rates and finalize more transactions, a primary goal of e-commerce.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** The combination was asserted to be predictable, as implementing A/B testing was a common and well-understood practice for improving website performance.

#### Ground 4: Claims 10 and 11 are obvious over Coursol-Karidi-Sayed in view of Thomas.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Coursol](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1005) (’004 patent), [Karidi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1006) (’412 application), [Sayed](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1009) (’219 patent), [Thomas](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1008) (Application # [2011/0288924](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1008)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground addressed claims 10 and 11, concerning multiple browsing sessions and accessing a webpage via an email link. Petitioner argued that [Thomas](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1008) taught this functionality by disclosing a method of sending a direct link to a customer via email to notify them of new offers on a customized website. Accessing this link would initiate a second, distinct browsing session, and one of the webpages would only be accessible via the emailed link.
    - **Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds):** A POSITA would implement [Thomas](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1008)'s method of re-engaging customers via email to enhance the marketing capabilities of the website created by the primary combination. This provided a known technique to increase user interaction and drive sales by targeting previous visitors with tailored content.
    - **Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds):** The combination involved interchangeable and well-known software methods for email marketing and website navigation, ensuring a high expectation of success.

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- Petitioner argued that no express claim constructions were necessary. However, for the key term "a series of directional webpages configured to cause an end user interaction with a website," Petitioner contended its plain and ordinary meaning would be understood to encompass the examples disclosed in the [’047 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1001)’s own specification. These examples include webpages designed to cause a user to perform actions such as adding an item to a cart, completing a purchase, or opting into an email list.

## 6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under *Fintiv* is inappropriate. The petition asserted that at the time of filing, the co-pending district court litigation had not set a trial date, meaning the concerns regarding parallel proceedings and judicial efficiency that animate the *Fintiv* factors were not present.

## 7. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent [11,361,047](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00235/doc/1001) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Custom website patent challenged: all 20 claims argued as obvious over prior art combinations teaching sales funnels & split testing.