UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`_______________
`
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,041,805
`
`
`
`FILED VIA PRPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`_______________
`
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,041,805
`
`
`
`FILED VIA PRPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Disputed Claim Limitations ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Feedback being “provided by a user while the user remained at
`the particular web page” ........................................................................ 1
`1.
`CustomerSat expressly discloses the display of a
`“questionnaire” in a pop-up window. ......................................... 1
`2. Medinets and HTML Spec also disclose this limitation. ............ 3
`3.
`OpinionLab misstates the patent’s prosecution history. ............. 4
`
`“allowing the interested party . . . to identify . . . particular web
`pages for which the page-specific user feedback is notable”
`relative to others. ................................................................................... 5
`1.
`The “notable” limitation was obvious in view of
`Medinets. ..................................................................................... 5
`In any event, the “notable” limitation was obvious in
`view of CustomerSat and Medinets. ........................................... 7
`
`2.
`
`III. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine CustomerSat and
`Medinets. ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`IV. OpinionLab relies on an erroneous legal standard and an improper
`definition of a POSITA .................................................................................. 10
`
`V.
`
`Secondary considerations do not apply ......................................................... 12
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`OpinionLab’s Response (“Resp.”) misstates dispositive disclosure from the
`
`cited prior art, misconstrues the challenged claims, and even misrepresents the
`
`‘805 prosecution history. Moreover, while OpinionLab argues that the cited
`
`references, viewed in isolation, do not explicitly disclose certain claim limitations,
`
`OpinionLab fails to address the relevant issue: whether the claims would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). To the extent
`
`OpinionLab attempts to address obviousness, it does so based on an erroneous
`
`legal standard regarding POSITAs, which fatally undermines both OpinionLab’s
`
`Response and its proffered expert Dr. Shamos’ testimony on this issue.
`
`II. DISPUTED CLAIM LIMITATIONS
`OpinionLab argues that only two claim limitations would not have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA in light of the cited prior art: (1) feedback being “provided
`
`by a user while the user remained at the particular web page”; and (2) “allowing
`
`the interested party . . . to identify . . . particular web pages for which the page-
`
`specific user feedback is notable” relative to others. (See Resp., at 1-2.)
`
`A.
`
`Feedback being “provided by a user while the user remained at
`the particular web page”
`1.
`
`CustomerSat expressly discloses the display of a
`“questionnaire” in a pop-up window.
`
`OpinionLab now concedes that providing a survey or questionnaire in a pop-
`
`up window satisfies this limitation. (See Resp., at 48-49; Ex. 1028 (“Shamos
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`Dep.”), at 408:4-7; id. at 120:1-24; 122:2-15.) OpinionLab further concedes that
`
`Ex. 1003 (“CustomerSat”) “discloses a ‘pop-up window’ on the particular web
`
`page that presents an invitation to take a survey.” (Resp., at 18.) Nonetheless,
`
`OpinionLab argues that CustomerSat does not disclose “the resulting survey is also
`
`presented via a ‘pop-up window.’” (Id.) This is demonstrably false. CustomerSat
`
`discloses the use of both a “Pop!Up survey invitation,” (“By the time you have
`
`read this far, a Pop!Up survey invitation should have appeared on your screen.
`
`Give it a try!”), and a “Pop!Up questionnaire,” (“Pop!Up questionnaires can
`
`include one or more questions about . . .”). (CustomerSat, at 7.)
`
`Neither OpinionLab’s Response nor Dr. Shamos’ declaration discusses – or
`
`even acknowledges – this explicit disclosure of a “Pop!Up questionnaire.” At his
`
`deposition, Dr. Shamos conceded: “I think the ‘Pop!Up questionnaire’ is the
`
`questionnaire that results from the user accepting the invitation to take the survey.”
`
`(Shamos Dep., at 126:25-127:2.) He later claimed that due to its different spelling,
`
`“Pop!Up … [is] not the ordinary technical term ‘popup,’” and “the questionnaire
`
`itself is not a popup because of the word ‘Pop!Up,’” (id. at 129:4-8,18-19). But this
`
`ignores the fact that (1) the “Pop!Up survey invitation” – which OpinionLab
`
`concedes is displayed in a pop-up window – uses precisely the same spelling; and
`
`(2) the CustomerSat reference itself uses these terms interchangeably.
`
`(CustomerSat, at 7 (“Pop!UpTM Lets you Survey Web site Visitors Instantly! ….
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`For more information about pop-up, please email us”) (emphases added).)
`
`OpinionLab makes the puzzling argument that because Pop!Up users “‘can
`
`be taken to the survey immediately’ . . . this makes clear that the survey is provided
`
`on an entirely separate web page.” (Resp., at 19.) But the cited disclosure says
`
`nothing about how the resulting survey is displayed; it simply says that a user can
`
`be taken from the “Pop!Up survey invitation” to the “Pop!Up questionnaire”
`
`immediately. (CustomerSat, at 7.) (Ex. 1027 (“Chisholm Decl.”), ¶¶ 14-17.)
`
`Finally, OpinionLab argues that because the “target” of the survey invitation
`
`disclosed in the Pop!Up web page’s source code is “cssurvey.htm,” the survey
`
`could not have been displayed in a pop-up window. (Resp., at 19-20.) But
`
`OpinionLab’s own expert concedes this is untrue. (Chisholm Decl., ¶¶ 18-22
`
`(citing Shamos Dep., at 157:12-172:4).) Indeed, the unrefuted testimony of Mr.
`
`Chisholm is that Pop!Up questionnaires could be – and, in fact, were – displayed in
`
`a pop-up window. (Id.)
`
`2. Medinets and HTML Spec also disclose this limitation.
`Besides, this limitation was obvious in light of both Ex. 1004 (“Medinets”)
`
`and Ex. 1014 (“HTML Spec”), which the Board found “instruct a skilled artisan on
`
`the ability to view a smaller window within a larger window of a webpage.”
`
`(Institution Decision, at 8.) OpinionLab does not dispute that Medinets discloses
`
`“[y]ou can have more than one form per HTML document.” (Medinets, at 53.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`Instead, OpinionLab argues “there is no suggestion [in Medinets] that the author
`
`intended to use multiple HTML forms for providing feedback[.]” (Ex. 2002
`
`(“Shamos Decl.”), at ¶ 68.) This is demonstrably false. Medinets discloses creating
`
`both the “button” that summons the feedback form and the feedback form itself
`
`using HTML forms. (Medinets, at 61-64.) Placing both of these forms on the same
`
`page, as suggested by Medinets, would allow the user to enter feedback “while the
`
`user remained at the particular web page.” (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 184-87.)
`
`Regarding HTML Spec, Dr. Shamos concedes: “If your question is could
`
`one have implemented the invention of OpinionLab patents using HTML 4, the
`
`answer is yes.” (Shamos Dep., at 434:20-22.) He further testified “[i]t’s extremely
`
`common” to use HTML frames to display several windows simultaneously, (id., at
`
`433:1 (citing HTML Spec, at 192)), and that doing so was particularly useful in the
`
`context of soliciting user feedback, (id. at 120:7-11; 122:2-8). Dr. Shamos further
`
`concedes that HTML Spec was the governing “standard” for HTML programming
`
`(as of its publication on April 24, 1998), (id. at 187:24-188:5); that POSITAs were
`
`familiar with HTML Spec, (id. at 186:24-187:11); and that it was readily
`
`“accessible and somebody of that level of skill would certainly be able to find it,”
`
`(id. at 186:20-22). (Accord Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 152-60; Chisholm Decl., ¶ 33.)
`
`3. OpinionLab misstates the patent’s prosecution history.
`Finally, OpinionLab flatly misstates the patent’s prosecution history,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`claiming this limitation was a “distinguishing feature,” and “the references
`
`identified by the Examiner during prosecution [were] found to lack this important
`
`feature.” (Resp., at 27.) To the contrary, the Examiner allowed these claims only
`
`after amending them to add an unrelated limitation regarding user scrolling,1 (Ex.
`
`1002, at 12-20), and the prior art considered by the Examiner expressly discloses
`
`this limitation, as conceded by Dr. Shamos. (Shamos Dep., at 415:7-10; Chisholm
`
`Decl., ¶ 23.) Indeed, displaying surveys in pop-up windows was a common
`
`practice by 1998-99. In a May 2000 article submitted by OpinionLab, named
`
`inventor and OpinionLab founder Rand Nickerson distinguished the claimed
`
`invention from “traditional … methods like pop-up surveys.” (Ex. 2016, at 1.)
`
`B.
`
`“allowing the interested party . . . to identify . . . particular web
`pages for which the page-specific user feedback is notable”
`relative to others.
`1.
`This limitation (referred to herein as the “notable” limitation) was obvious in
`
`The “notable” limitation was obvious in view of Medinets.
`
`view of Medinets. Medinets discloses using a “Web Page Comment Form,”
`
`(Medinets, at 60), to solicit page-specific user feedback, (id. (feedback concerning
`
`
`1 OpinionLab does not contend in these proceedings that this scrolling limitation
`
`supports patentability. (E.g., Shamos Decl., at ¶ 78 (“I do not understand
`
`OpinionLab to assert that merely keeping material viewable during web page
`
`scrolling was novel to the ‘805 Patent. That is not the point.”).)
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`the “Eclectic Consulting Home Page”)), and storing a unique page identifier along
`
`with that user feedback, (e.g., id. at 61 (“VALUE = ‘HOME Page’”)). Medinets
`
`also includes a chapter on “creating reports,” (id. at 29-50; 57-59), and explicitly
`
`discloses “stor[ing] the feedback information into a database … to track the
`
`comments and see which Web pages generate the most feedback,” (id. at 64
`
`(emphasis added)).
`
`Measuring the amount of feedback for a given web page is one way for a
`
`POSITA to determine if feedback for that page is “notable.” (Chisholm Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 24-27.) The ‘805 Patent discloses tracking and reporting (among other things)
`
`the number of responses received for each web page, (e.g., ‘805 Patent, at 18:7-9),
`
`and contrary to OpinionLab, the challenged claims do not require that the
`
`“substance” of the feedback be “notable.” Indeed, Dr. Shamos agrees that pages
`
`receiving a large amount of feedback are “notable.” (Shamos Dep., at 180:20-23
`
`(“if you’re tracking user reaction to your site, if a lot of people comment on
`
`something, that means it probably ought to get your attention”); id. at 304:1-7
`
`(“Now, if I’m the complaint department at Walmart, I’m interested in looking at
`
`the pages that are generating the most complaints. I’m not interested in -- in web
`
`pages that generate one complaint. And so determining web pages that are notable
`
`with respect to other web pages is something that I would expect Walmart to want
`
`and use.”) (emphases added); see also id. at 183:24-184:1.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`Moreover, even if the “notable” limitation does implicate the “substance” of
`
`the user feedback, it does not require that the disclosed system perform any
`
`particular analysis of this feedback; it merely requires that an “interested party” be
`
`able to “access” the feedback, thereby “allowing the interested party” – not the
`
`system itself – “to identify one or more particular web pages for which the page-
`
`specific user feedback is notable,” (‘805 Patent, at 25:58-66), which Medinets
`
`clearly discloses. Finally, even if some form of page-specific analysis were
`
`required, a POSITA would have readily understood that the system disclosed in
`
`Medinets encompasses the ability to perform such analysis in light of Medinets’
`
`disclosure of storing both the page-specific user feedback and the corresponding
`
`page identifier in a database, as Dr. Shamos concedes. (Shamos Dep., at 180:8-9;
`
`183:10-12; Chisholm Decl., ¶ 27.)
`
`2.
`
`In any event, the “notable” limitation was obvious in view of
`CustomerSat and Medinets.
`
`In any event, the Board’s determination that the “notable” limitation was
`
`obvious in view of CustomerSat and Medinets is undeniably correct. (See
`
`Institution Decision, at 9-10.) OpinionLab’s sole argument in response is that
`
`CustomerSat does not anticipate this claim limitation, because it does not explicitly
`
`disclose reporting page-specific (as opposed to website-level) feedback. (Resp., at
`
`30-32.) But the relevant question is whether this limitation would have been
`
`obvious. OpinionLab’s expert concedes that the analytical tools disclosed in
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`CustomerSat – including, e.g., “Segmentation,” “Cross-tabs,” and “Correlations” –
`
`were “well-known ways to analyze data,” (Shamos Decl., at ¶ 57); that these tools
`
`are equally applicable to the analysis of page-specific and website-level feedback,
`
`(Shamos Dep., at 377:8-378:4); that programming a page-specific survey “doesn’t
`
`require any particular expertise that would be different,” (id. at 87:18-88:6); and
`
`that OpinionLab itself uses the very same tools disclosed in CustomerSat to
`
`analyze feedback on a page-specific basis, (id. at 373:12-20). Ultimately, Dr.
`
`Shamos conceded that implementing CustomerSat on a “page-specific” basis
`
`would, in fact, have been obvious to a POSITA, (id. at 402:18-25 (“I didn’t say it
`
`wasn’t”)), and that other claim limitations purportedly render the patent non-
`
`obvious, (id. at 403:1-4; accord id. at 382:8-16).
`
`III. A POSITA WOULD HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE
`CUSTOMERSAT AND MEDINETS.
`
`
`
`OpinionLab argues Medinets and CustomerSat do not address the “same
`
`problem,” because Medinets is directed to “web page feedback,” while
`
`“CustomerSat is directed to high-level, website-wide surveys.” (Resp., at 38.) But
`
`as discussed above, Dr. Shamos concedes that this difference is negligible. (See
`
`also Shamos Dep., at 18:24-19:1 (“The patents are related to the solicitation of
`
`feedback about web pages and websites.”) (emphasis added).) Dr. Shamos further
`
`concedes that CustomerSat and Medinets provide an extremely similar solution to
`
`this “problem”: “[T]here’s no difference between this [Medinets] and what
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`CustomerSat did, which is on every page there’s a feedback link. When you click
`
`the feedback link you get a form[.]” (Id. at 196:11-14.) Moreover, CustomerSat’s
`
`Pop!Up page explicitly discloses the use of a CGI script to implement its Pop!Up
`
`survey technology. (CustomerSat, at 7 (“cgi-bin/popupadmin”); id. at 67, line 243
`
`(source code for same).) Dr. Shamos concedes that PERL – the subject of the
`
`Medinets reference – was “the most commonly used language for this purpose [i.e.,
`
`CGI programming],” (Shamos Dep., at 191:10-12), and that the CGI script
`
`implementing CustomerSat’s Pop!Up solution may, in fact, have been written in
`
`PERL, (id. at 169:13-170:1). (Accord Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 132-51,152-60.)
`
`
`
`In addition, Medinets instructs: “There is no need for you to create Perl
`
`scripts to do all of the analyzing. Some programmers have already done this type
`
`of work and many of them have made their programs available on the Web for
`
`little or no cost.” (Medinets, at 65.) OpinionLab argues at length that this statement
`
`purportedly applies only to the analysis of server log files, (Resp., at 40-42), but on
`
`the very same page Medinets further instructs with respect to the analysis of page-
`
`specific user feedback: “You need to create a second CGI script to process the
`
`results of the feedback form.” (Medinets, at 65.) Medinets does not disclose the
`
`contents of this second script, and the unmistakable teaching is that a POSITA
`
`should look elsewhere – e.g., to CustomerSat’s Pop!Up technology (implemented
`
`using a CGI script) – for additional ways to analyze and report the page-specific
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`feedback disclosed in Medinets. (Chisholm Decl. ¶¶ 29-32.)
`
`
`
`Finally, Dr. Shamos testified that the only material difference between
`
`analyzing website-level feedback – which he admits is disclosed in CustomerSat –
`
`and page-specific feedback is that “you have to be able to make a record that
`
`identifies that particular page[.]” (Shamos Dep., at 91:25-92:14.) That is precisely
`
`what Medinets discloses. (E.g., Medinets, at 61 (“VALUE=‘Home Page”)). A
`
`POSITA simply could have plugged this page identifier into the extensive
`
`analytical and reporting capabilities disclosed in CustomerSat, and the unrefuted
`
`testimony of Mr. Chisholm is that numerous clients of CustomerSat did just that.
`
`(Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 68-70.) Indeed, the solicitation and analysis of page-specific user
`
`feedback was obvious as a “matter of common sense.” (Institution Decision, at 10.)
`
`IV. OPINIONLAB RELIES ON AN ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARD
`AND AN IMPROPER DEFINITION OF A POSITA
`
`OpinionLab’s Response is based upon a misapprehension of the law
`
`regarding POSITAs and the motivation to combine. OpinionLab argues that the
`
`“use of [Mr. Chisholm’s] declaration testimony to identify what [was] ‘well-
`
`known’” to a POSITA is “improper [because] Inter Partes Reviews can only
`
`proceed based upon patents or publications.” (Resp., at 26.) The PTAB rejected
`
`precisely this argument in Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00046,
`
`Paper 12, at 22-23 (holding such testimony is proper because “[i]t is not the
`
`disclosure of the prior art references that determines unpatentability, but how a
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`person of ordinary skill would interpret that disclosure”). OpinionLab further
`
`argues that the motivation to combine cannot be based on any evidence other than
`
`the prior art references upon which review was instituted. (See Resp., at 43.) But
`
`“[i]t has long been the law that the motivation to combine need not be found in
`
`prior art references, but equally can be found ‘in the knowledge generally available
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry.,
`
`Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`OpinionLab’s expert, Dr. Shamos, applied the same erroneous legal
`
`standard: “[I]n forming my opinions I have only considered the three references
`
`that were relied on by the Board in its Decision instituting this proceeding.”
`
`(Shamos Decl., ¶ 25.) In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, he failed
`
`to consider even these references. (Shamos Dep., at 70:21-25 (“It’s difficult for me
`
`to imagine how it would be relevant … [b]ecause the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is determined by reference to the patent.”).) But a POSITA “is presumed to be
`
`aware of all the pertinent prior art.” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan
`
`Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`
`
`Dr. Shamos’ failure to consider any additional evidence in forming his
`
`opinions is compounded by the fact that he has no relevant experience in the field
`
`of the purported invention. Instead, he is a licensed attorney and a professional
`
`“full-time” expert witness who has served in over 170 cases. (Ex. 2003, at 4-32;
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`Shamos Dep., at 43:9-13.) Dr. Shamos’s definition of a POSITA is demonstrably
`
`incorrect, and it is readily apparent that he failed even to consider the scope of the
`
`challenged claims in formulating this flawed definition. (Chisholm Decl., ¶¶ 5-13.)
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Shamos’ opinion should be “entitled to little or no weight.” See,
`
`e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`
`
`
`In contrast, Mr. Chisholm’s opinions are based on 16+ years’ experience in
`
`online surveys – including founding two online survey companies (Decisive in
`
`1992 and CustomerSat in 1997) – and are corroborated by extensive evidentiary
`
`citations. While they may disagree with his ultimate conclusions, neither
`
`OpinionLab nor Dr. Shamos materially dispute the factual basis of any of Mr.
`
`Chisholm’s opinions, (e.g., Shamos Dep., at 80:21-81:5 (conceding “[t]hey may be
`
`true” and “might be” important to “issues regarding motivation to combine”)).
`
`
`
`Because OpinionLab and its expert failed to apply the correct legal standards
`
`governing POSITAs, their arguments regarding what would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA, and whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the cited
`
`references in the claimed manner, are simply untenable.
`
`V.
`
`SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT APPLY
`
`Where the claimed subject matter is disclosed by the prior art, “the burden of
`
`production falls upon the patentee to come forward with evidence [of secondary
`
`considerations].” Galderma Labs. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`2013). OpinionLab fails to show that either (a) secondary considerations exist or
`
`(b) the required nexus with the claimed features of ’805 Patent exists.
`
`As an initial matter, OpinionLab has not shown that its products have
`
`achieved commercial success or industry recognition. OpinionLab makes no
`
`attempt to set forth its revenue, analyze what was generated due to the ’805 Patent,
`
`compare its market share with its competitors, conduct surveys to identify what
`
`patented features drove sales, or set forth relevant industry awards. (E.g., Shamos
`
`Dep., at 317:25–318:1; 319:23–320:12; 321:1–8.) In fact, OpinionLab has not
`
`achieved commercial success or industry recognition. (Chisholm Decl. ¶¶ 37–41.)
`
`OpinionLab also fails to prove a nexus between the claimed features of the
`
`’805 Patent and any secondary considerations. (Id. at ¶¶ 34–36.) First, no nexus
`
`can be presumed because the OpinionLab website list 20 patents (including the
`
`’805 Patent). (Id. at ¶¶ 42–44.) It mentions that “one or more patents” apply to
`
`“this site,” but does not identify any products embodying the ’805 Patent. (Id.) In
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, the Federal Circuit held that a nexus did not
`
`apply where the patentee’s device was marked by only two patents and the
`
`patentee failed to show that its commercial success was due to one patent or the
`
`other. 593 F.3d 1289, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, there is no evidence that any
`
`purported success is attributable to the claimed features of just the ’805 Patent—as
`
`opposed to the claimed features of the other 19 patents.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`Second, OpinionLab fails to show that its customers practice the specific
`
`claimed features of the ’805 Patent. Apart from a cursory discussion of Bank of
`
`America, OpinionLab provides no evidence that any other customers actually
`
`practice the ’805 Patent. Dr. Shamos testified that he did not review the websites of
`
`Bank of America, Wal-Mart, Ford, Dell, or IBM. (Id. at 291:10–292:20.) In fact,
`
`there is no evidence they practice the ’805 Patent. (Chisholm Decl. ¶¶ 45–46.)
`
`Instead of analyzing all the claimed features of the ’805 Patent, OpinionLab
`
`relies on the bald assertion that its customers practice “page specific feedback.”
`
`(Resp. at 51; Shamos Dep. at 296:9–14.) But page-specific feedback is in the prior
`
`art (id. at 381:21–23) and cannot be the feature driving secondary considerations.
`
`Tokai v. Easton, 2011 WL 308370, *8–*9 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial success
`
`is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”). OpinionLab must show
`
`page-specific feedback combined with the specific features of the ’805 Patent are
`
`responsible for secondary considerations. There is no such evidence in the record.
`
`Third, OpinionLab did not conduct any formal or informal customer surveys
`
`to establish a nexus for the ’805 Patent despite being in the survey business. (See
`
`Shamos Dep., at 313:18–24; 314:21–24.)
`
`Fourth, OpinionLab fails to explain how other factors did not contribute to
`
`its alleged commercial success or industry recognition, including:
`
`• OpinionLab’s other products and services unrelated to the ’805 Patent.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`(Shamos Dep., 298:16–299:6, 316:15–317:24; Chisholm Decl. ¶ 47);
`
`• OpinionLab’s trademarks and copyrights, including its [+] feedback
`
`symbol. (Shamos Dep., at 307:19–309:2; Chisholm Decl. ¶ 48); and
`
`• Other economic and commercial factors (Shamos Dep., at 317:25–321:22).
`
`
`
`Finally, OpinionLab fails to show copying, which “requires the replication
`
`of a specific product” and may be proven through direct evidence. Iron Grip
`
`Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). OpinionLab
`
`provides no such evidence, nor does it assert that Qualtrics copied after failing in
`
`its own attempts to solve the problem. Rather, OpinionLab’s main argument is the
`
`alleged subjective similarity of one Qualtrics comment card to an OpinionLab
`
`comment card. But OpinionLab admits the cards are different and has no actual
`
`evidence of copying. (See Shamos Dep., at 349:4–5, 348:18–21, 355:20–356:4).
`
`OpinionLab also tries to rely on its self-serving, attorney-generated infringement
`
`contentions from the related litigation. But such evidence is “unpersuasive,” and
`
`even a “stipulation of infringement, taken alone, is not probative of copying.”
`
`Tokai v. Easton, 2011 WL 308370, *9 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above and in the Petition, Qualtrics respectfully
`
`requests that the challenged claims be cancelled.
`
`Dated: January 9, 2015
`
`
`
`By: _/s/ Robert Steinberg___
`Latham & Watkins LLP, Counsel for Petitioner
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the parties’ agreement to electronic
`
`
`
`
`service on August 21, 2014, I certify that on this 9th day of January, 2015,
`
`a copy of:
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,041,805
`
`
`was served by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel, at the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`following addresses:
`
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`
`Timothy P. Cremen
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`timothycremen@paulhastings.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
` naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/ Robert Steinberg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Robert Steinberg
` Reg. No. 33144
` Neil A. Rubin
` Reg. No. 67030
` Jonathan M. Jackson (admitted pro hac vice)
` Philip X. Wang (admitted pro hac vice)
` Latham & Watkins LLP
` 355 South Grand Avenue
` Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
` 213.485.1234
` 213.891.8763 (Fax)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
