UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAPLEBEAR INC. D/B/A INSTACART
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,454,748
`Filing Date: October 22, 2010
`Issue Date: September 27, 2016
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DATA MANAGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2025-00958
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES .................................................................................... viii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`II.
`THE ’748 PATENT OVERVIEW .................................................................. 2
`A.
`Summary ............................................................................................... 2
`B.
`Priority ................................................................................................... 3
`C.
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 3
`STATE OF THE ART ..................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 4
`B.
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 4
`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL .................................................................... 5
`V.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE .......................................................... 5
`VI. SOTERA STIPULATION ............................................................................... 6
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`VIII. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR UNPATENTABILITY ..................................... 9
`A. Ground A: Barbosa-Falls Renders Obvious Claim 7 ........................... 9
`1.
`Independent Claim 7 ................................................................... 9
`Ground B: Barbosa-Falls-Heath Renders Obvious Claim 7 ............... 28
`1.
`Barbosa-Falls and Barbosa-Falls-Heath each teaches [7a]
`and [7c]-[7f] .............................................................................. 28
`Barbosa-Falls-Heath renders obvious [7b] ............................... 28
`2.
`Grounds C-D: Barbosa-Falls-Short and Barbosa-Falls-Heath-
`Short Each Renders Obvious Claim 7 ................................................. 31
`1.
`Barbosa-Falls and Barbosa-Falls-Heath each teaches [7a]-
`[7e] ............................................................................................ 31
`Barbosa-Falls-Short and Barbosa-Falls-Heath-Short each
`renders obvious [7f] .................................................................. 31
`D. Grounds E-H: Barbosa-Falls, Barbosa-Falls-Heath, Barbosa-
`Falls-Short, and Barbosa-Falls-Heath-Short, Each Further in View
`of Torrance Renders Obvious Claim 8 ................................................ 34
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`

`E.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`1.
`Dependent Claim 8 ................................................................... 34
`Grounds I-J: Barbosa and Barbosa-Bandera Renders Obvious
`Claims 3, 4, 9-11 and 13-15 ................................................................ 37
`1.
`Collateral Estoppel Applies to the Issues Decided by the
`Starbucks IPR ............................................................................ 37
`Independent Claim 9 ................................................................. 38
`Dependent Claim 10 ................................................................. 49
`Dependent Claim 11: “The method for managing data
`according to claim 9, wherein said originating computer and
`said recipient computer are a same computer.” ........................ 51
`Dependent Claim 13: “The method for managing data
`according to claim 9, wherein said questionnaire comprises
`at least one question that requests location identifying
`information and at least one other Question.” .......................... 52
`Dependent Claim 14: “The method for managing data
`according to claim 13, wherein at least one of said at least
`one other question is selected from a group consisting of a
`food quality question, a service quality question, a waiting
`time question, a store number question, a location question,
`a time question, a date question, a temperature question, and
`a time of day question.” ............................................................ 52
`Dependent Claim 15: “The method for managing data
`according to claim 9, wherein step (a) comprises the step of
`establishing communications via a global computer
`network between said handheld computing device and said
`originating computer.” .............................................................. 53
`Dependent Claim 3 ................................................................... 53
`8.
`Dependent Claim 4 ................................................................... 56
`9.
`Grounds K-L: Barbosa-Heath and Barbosa-Bandera-Heath Each
`Renders Claim 6 Obvious ................................................................... 58
`1.
`Dependent Claim 6 ................................................................... 58
`G. Grounds M-N: Barbosa-Heath-Pinera and Barbosa-Bandera-
`Heath-Pinera Each Renders Obvious Claim 6 .................................... 62
`H. Grounds O-P: Barbosa-Morris and Barbosa-Bandera-Morris Each
`Renders Claim 12 Obvious ................................................................. 64
`
`7.
`
`F.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`1.
`Dependent Claim 12 ................................................................. 64
`Grounds Q-R: Barbosa-Hamlin and Barbosa-Bandera-Hamlin
`Each Renders Obvious Claim 3 .......................................................... 66
`IX. GROUNDS FOR STANDING & FEE PAYMENT ..................................... 68
`X.
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 68
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d) ..................................................... 69
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 70
`CLAIM LISTING APPENDIX ............................................................................... 71
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Ex. 1001:
`Ex. 1002:
`Ex. 1003:
`Ex. 1004:
`
`Ex. 1005:
`Ex. 1006:
`Ex. 1007:
`Ex. 1008:
`
`Ex. 1009:
`Ex. 1010:
`Ex. 1011:
`Ex. 1012:
`Ex. 1013:
`
`Ex. 1014:
`
`Ex. 1015:
`
`Ex. 1016:
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ʼ748 patent”)
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Henry Houh
`Excerpts of the Certified Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.
`9,454,748 (“the ’748 patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,961,586 (“Barbosa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,771 (“Falls”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,006,034 (“Heath”)
`PCT International Patent Publication No. WO 00/31666
`(“Short”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0107726 (“Torrance”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,332,127 (“Bandera”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,171,661 (“Pinera”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,460,138 (“Morris”)
`John R. Levine. et al., UNIX Programming Tools: lex & yacc,
`O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. (2d ed. 1995)
`Complaint, Maplebear, Inc., d/b/a Instacart v. Fall Line
`Patents, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-00137-MTS, Dkt. No. 2 (N.D. Okla.
`Mar. 25, 2025)
`Complaint, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Sprouts Farmers Market,
`Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-00182-RWS, Dkt. No. 1, (E.D. Tex.
`Nov. 25, 2024)
`Complaint, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Aldi Inc., et al., No. 5:24-
`cv-00172-RWS, Dkt. No. 1, (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Ex. 1017:
`
`Ex. 1018:
`
`Ex. 1019:
`
`Ex. 1020:
`
`Ex. 1021:
`
`Ex. 1022:
`
`Ex. 1023:
`
`Ex. 1024:
`
`Ex. 1025:
`
`Ex. 1026:
`
`Ex. 1027:
`
`Ex. 1028:
`
`Ex. 1029:
`Ex. 1030:
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate in Ex Parte Reexamination
`No. 90/012,829, canceling claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,822,816
`Petition, Unified Patents Inc. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC,
`IPR2018-00043
`Institution Decision, Unified Patents Inc. v. Fall Line Patents,
`LLC, IPR2018-00043
`Final Written Decision, Unified Patents Inc. v. Fall Line
`Patents, LLC, IPR2018-00043
`Petition, Starbucks Corp., et al. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC,
`IPR2019-00610
`Institution Decision, Starbucks Corp., et al. v. Fall Line
`Patents, LLC, IPR2019-00610
`Final Written Decision, Starbucks Corp., et al. v. Fall Line
`Patents, LLC, IPR2019-00610
`Final Written Decision on Remand, Starbucks Corp., et al. v.
`Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2019-00610
`Petition, Uber Technologies Inc., et al. v. Fall Line Patents,
`LLC, IPR2018-00535
`Termination Decision, Uber Technologies Inc., et al. v. Fall
`Line Patents, LLC, IPR2018-00535
`Claim Construction Order, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Zoe’s
`Kitchen, Inc., et al., No. 6:18-cv-00407-RWS, Dkt. No. 228
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2023)
`Order Granting Stay Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patent-
`In-Suit, Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc., No. 6:18-
`cv-00407, Dkt. No. 110 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2019)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,241,625 (“Epard”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,689,387 (“Mathews”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Ex. 1031:
`1031:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1032:
`1032:
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1033:
`1033:
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1034:
`1034:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1035:
`1035:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1036:
`1036:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1037:
`1037:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1038:
`1038:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1039:
`1039:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1040:
`1040:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1041:
`1041:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1042:
`1042:
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1043:
`1043:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1044:
`1044:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1045:
`1045:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1046:
`1046:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1047:
`1047:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1048:
`1048:
`Ex.
`
`Ex. 1049:
`1049:
`Ex.
`Ex. 1050:
`1050:
`Ex.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,588,105 (“Foster”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,588,105 (‘Foster’)
`Stifle, Jack (1972), The Plato IV Architecture, CERL Report
`Stifle, Jack (1972), The Plato IV Architecture, CERL Report
`(revised ed.), Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, X-20
`(revised ed.), Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, X-20
`Smith, Stanley G.; Sherwood, Bruce Arne (April 1976),
`Smith, Stanley G.; Sherwood, Bruce Arne (April 1976),
`“Educational Uses of the PLATO Computer System,” Science,
`“Educational Uses of the PLATO Computer System,” Science,
`192 (4237), 344-52, DOI: 10.1126/science.769165
`192 (4237), 344-52, DOI: 10.1126/science.769165
`U.S. Patent 7,016,417 (“Roman I”)
`U.S. Patent 7,016,417 (“Roman I’’)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0129523 (“Roman II”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0129523 (“Roman II’’)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,427 (“Krasner”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,185,427 (“Krasner”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,425 (“Hanson”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,546,425 (“Hanson”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0069192 (“Aegerter”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2002/0069192 (“Aegerter’’)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,156,074 (“Multer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,156,074 (“Multer’”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,767 (“Larkin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,003,767 (“Larkin’’)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,381,535 (“Durocher”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,381,535 (“Durocher’”)
`PCT International Patent Publication No. WO 00/49530
`PCT International Patent Publication No. WO 00/49530
`(“Parasnis”)
`(“Parasnis’’)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,522,076 (“Dewa”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,522,076 (“Dewa’’)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 (“Changanti”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,845,448 (“Changanti”’)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0052009 (“Desai”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2001/0052009 (“Desav’’)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,704,396 (“Parolkar”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,704,396 (“Parolkar’’)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,404,488 (“Kerrigan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,404,488 (“Kerrigan’’)
`Nick Ryan et al., “FieldNote: A Handheld Information System
`Nick Ryanet al., “FieldNote: A Handheld Information System
`for the Field” (1999)
`for the Field” (1999)
`Table Comparing Claims 1, 9, and 19 of the ’748 patent
`Table Comparing Claims1, 9, and 19 of the ’748 patent
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contention Charts Against Uber
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contention Charts Against Uber
`Techs., Inc.
`Techs., Inc.
`
`vi
`vi
`
`

`

`Ex. 1051:
`
`Ex. 1052:
`
`Ex. 1053:
`
`Ex. 1054:
`
`Ex. 1055:
`Ex. 1056:
`Ex. 1057:
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Contention Charts Against Choice
`Hotels Intl., Inc.
`Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 19-1956,
`Dkt. No. 127 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (decision affirming Final Written
`Decision in IPR2018-00043)
`Order Denying Request for Director Review, Unified Patents
`Inc. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2018-00043
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Fall Line Patents, LLC
`v. 7-Eleven, Inc., et al., No. 5:24-cv-00167-RWS, (E.D. Tex.
`Mar. 13, 2025)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,477,504 (“Hamlin”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0208573 (“Malden”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0075070 (“Merissert”)
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`MANDATORY NOTICES
`Real Parties in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest for this Petition is Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart
`
`(“Instacart”).
`
`No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this Petition for inter
`
`partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ’748 patent”), or otherwise
`
`has an opportunity to control or direct this Petition or Petitioner’s participation in
`
`any resulting IPR.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’748 patent was asserted against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and SFM,
`
`LLC d/b/a SF Markets, LLC (collectively “Sprouts”) and against ALDI Inc. and
`
`ALDI (Texas) L.L.C. (collectively “ALDI”) by Fall Line Patents, LLC (“Fall Line”)
`
`in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: Fall Line
`
`Patents, LLC v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-182 (E.D. Tex.) and Fall
`
`Line Patents, LLC v. ALDI Inc., No. 5:24-cv-172 (E.D. Tex.) (collectively, “Texas
`
`District Court Litigations”). Ex. 1015; Ex. 1016; Ex. 1054. Sprouts and ALDI are
`
`customers of Petitioner Instacart. The earliest date of service of a complaint for the
`
`Texas District Court Litigations on any of Petitioner’s customers was November 25,
`
`2024. Petitioner Instacart is not a party to any of the Texas District Court Litigations.
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petitioner has filed a declaratory judgment of non-infringement action against
`
`Fall Line in the United States District Court for the Northern District Court of
`
`Oklahoma (“Petitioner’s DJ Action”): Maplebear, Inc., D/B/A Instacart v. Fall Line
`
`Patents, LLC, No. 25-cv-00137-MTS (N.D. Okla.). Ex. 1014. The complaint in
`
`Petitioner’s DJ Action was served on March 25, 2025.
`
`According to the Office’s records, the ’748 patent is a continuation of
`
`Application No. 10/643,516, filed on Aug. 19, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,822,816
`
`(“the ’816 patent”), which claims priority to Provisional Application No.
`
`60/404,491, filed on Aug. 19, 2002. Also, Application No. 15/260,929, filed on Sept.
`
`9, 2016, now abandoned, claims priority to the ’748 patent.
`
`The ’748 patent has been the subject of the following district court cases:
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Grubhub Holdings, Inc. et al., 6-17-cv-00204
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc. et al., 6-17-cv-
`
`00203 (E.D. Tex.), which was terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. American Airlines Group, Inc. et al., 6-17-
`
`cv-00202 (E.D. Tex.), which was terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., 6-17-cv-
`
`00407 (E.D. Tex.), which was terminated.
`
`ix
`
`

`

`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 6-17-cv-00408
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc. et al., 6-18-cv-00407
`
`(E.D. Tex.) (“Zoe’s Kitchen case”), which was terminated. See also
`
`Ex. 1028.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Papa John’s International, Inc. et al., 6-18-
`
`cv-00415 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the Zoe’s Kitchen
`
`case and later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation et al., 6-18-cv-
`
`00412 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the Zoe’s Kitchen case
`
`and later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. et al., 6-18-
`
`cv-00413 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the Zoe’s Kitchen
`
`case and later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Starbucks Corporation, 6-18-cv-00411 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was consolidated with the Zoe’s Kitchen case.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 6-18-cv-00410 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was terminated.
`
`x
`
`

`

`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Boston Market Corporation, 6-18-cv-00409
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the Zoe’s Kitchen case and
`
`later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. et al., 6-
`
`18-cv-00408 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the Zoe’s
`
`Kitchen case and later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Pizza Hut, LLC et al., 6-18-cv-00406 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., 5:23-cv-
`
`00110 (E.D. Tex.) (“the 110 E.D. Tex. case”), which was terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Whatabrands LLC et al., 5:23-cv-00121 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and later
`
`terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Subway IP LLC et al., 5:23-cv-00119 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and later
`
`terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Wendy's International, LLC et al., 5:23-cv-
`
`00120 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and later terminated.
`
`xi
`
`

`

`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Sonic Franchising LLC et al., 5:23-cv-00118
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and
`
`later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., 5:23-cv-
`
`00117 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Panera, LLC et al., 5:23-cv-00116 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and later
`
`terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Dunkin Brands, Inc. et al., 5:23-cv-00114
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and
`
`later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc., 5:23-cv-
`
`00115 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 5:23-cv-00113
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and
`
`later terminated.
`
`xii
`
`

`

`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Chick-fil-A, Inc., 5:23-cv-00112 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and later
`
`terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Burger King Company, LLC, 5:23-cv-00111
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 110 E.D. Tex. case and
`
`later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Wingstop Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00089 (E.D.
`
`Tex.) (“the 089 E.D. Tex. case”), which is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Krispy Kreme, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00095
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D. Tex. case and is
`
`pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Raising Canes Restaurants, L.L.C. et al.,
`
`5:24-cv-00096 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D.
`
`Tex. case and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00092
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D. Tex. case and is
`
`pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Dine Brands Global, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-
`
`00097 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and later terminated.
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Jack in the Box, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00093
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D. Tex. case and
`
`later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Jersey Mikes Franchise Systems, Inc. et al.,
`
`5:24-cv-00094 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D.
`
`Tex. case and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Carl’s Jr. Restaurants LLC et al., 5:24-cv-
`
`00090 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00091
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 089 E.D. Tex. case and
`
`later terminated.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 5:24-cv-00167 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(“the 167 E.D. Tex. case”), which is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-
`
`00180 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00181
`
`(E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case and is
`
`pending.
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-
`
`00182 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00179 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case and is
`
`pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-
`
`00178 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. AutoZone, Inc., 5:24-cv-00173 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00174 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case and is
`
`pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Brookshire Grocery Company, 5:24-cv-
`
`00175 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Chili's, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case and later
`
`terminated.
`
`xv
`
`

`

`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. et al.,
`
`5:24-cv-00177 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D.
`
`Tex. case and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Academy, Ltd. et al., 5:24-cv-00169 (E.D.
`
`Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case and is
`
`pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-
`
`00170 (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case
`
`and is pending.
`
`• Fall Line Patents, LLC v. ALDI Inc. et al., 5:24-cv-00172 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`which was consolidated with the 167 E.D. Tex. case and is pending.
`
`The ’748 patent has also been the subject of the following U.S. Patent Office
`
`proceedings. Petitioner was not involved in any of these matters:
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2018-00043,
`
`challenging claims of the ’748 patent on different grounds from those
`
`presented herein, which resulted in a final written decision finding
`
`claims 16-19, 21, and 22 unpatentable.
`
`• Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2018-
`
`00535, challenging claims of the ’748 patent on different grounds from
`
`xvi
`
`

`

`those presented herein, which was terminated prior to an institution
`
`decision due to settlement.
`
`• Starbucks Corporation et al v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, IPR2019-00610,
`
`challenging claims of the ’748 patent on different grounds from those
`
`presented herein, which resulted in a final written decision finding
`
`claims 1, 2, 5, and 19-22 unpatentable. On remand, a second final
`
`written decision found that claim 7 had not been shown unpatentable.
`
`
`
`The ’748 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/643,516, filed
`
`August 19, 2003, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,822,816 (“the ’816 patent”).
`
`Claims 1-14 of the ’816 patent (all claims) were cancelled as a result of an ex parte
`
`reexamination proceeding (U.S. Serial No. 90/012,829). Ex. 1017. Additionally,
`
`claims 1-14 of the ’816 patent were the subject of an inter partes review petition
`
`(IPR2014-00140), which the Board instituted. Thereafter, the Board terminated
`
`IPR2014-00140 upon cancellation of the challenged claims in the aforementioned
`
`ex parte reexamination.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner designates counsel listed below. A power of attorney for counsel
`
`is being concurrently filed.
`
`xvii
`
`

`

`Lead Counsel
`John R. Hutchins (Reg. No. 43,686)
`jhutchins@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`C. Andy Mu (Reg. No. 58,216)
`amu@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Camille D. Sauer (Reg. No. 71,866)
`csauer@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Jonathan D. Peloquin (Reg. No. 80,501)
`jpeloquin@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Paul T. Qualey (Reg. No. 45,027)
`pqualey@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 824-3000
`Fax: (202) 824-3001
`
`Please address all correspondence to counsel at this address shown above.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service by email at the following address and the
`
`above emails: Instacart_748_IPR@bannerwitcoff.com.
`
`xviii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Maplebear Inc. d/b/a/ Instacart (“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review
`
`and cancellation of claims 3, 4 and 6-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ’748
`
`patent”) (Ex. 1001). The ’748 patent relates to the collection and management of
`
`information, particularly data from questionnaires. As the prior art and past IPRs
`
`demonstrate, technologies for collecting information via online questionnaires and
`
`managing that information were well-known long before the ’748 patent’s priority
`
`date. Indeed, claims 1, 2, 5, and 16-22 of the ’748 patent, as well as all claims in the
`
`parent patent subject to a terminal disclaimer with the ’748 patent, have already been
`
`found unpatentable. Ex. 1017; Ex. 1020; Ex. 1022; Ex. 1023; see also Ex. 1021; Ex.
`
`1052; Ex. 1053.
`
`This IPR challenges the remaining claims of the ’748 patent—claims 3, 4 and
`
`6-15 (“the Challenged Claims”). The Challenged Claims merely repackage many
`
`of the same concepts recited in the already-cancelled claims and should fare no
`
`better. All Challenged Claims are obvious in view of art combinations that were
`
`neither applied nor considered against these particular limitations. For example,
`
`Barbosa and Falls teach that executable questionnaires, tokenized questionnaires,
`
`and synchronization of data and program code were all well-known in the prior art.
`
`Other secondary references relied on herein demonstrate the trivial nature of these
`
`and the other features recited in the Challenged Claims.
`
`1
`
`

`

`The Board should institute review and cancel the remaining claims of a patent
`
`that attempts to claim foundational, well-understood practices in mobile data
`
`collection, using routine techniques applied to conventional hardware.
`
`II. THE ’748 PATENT OVERVIEW
`Summary
`A.
`The ’748 patent describes a method of automatically sending electronic forms
`
`to handheld computers via the Internet. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 10:28-36, Fig. 5. A
`
`client creates an electronic form via a web-based interface by entering questions and
`
`response types. Id., 8:40-53, 10:28-30, Figs. 2, 5. When creating the form, a server
`
`assigns tokens to each question or response. Id., 8:51-9:2. The completed form and
`
`associated tokens are sent to handheld devices so that device users may provide
`
`responses to the questions. Id., 8:25-30, 9:3-13, 9:29-57, 10:28-34, Figs. 2-3, 5.
`
`Responses are stored locally at the handheld device until the form is completed,
`
`and/or are transmitted immediately upon entry to a server for processing and storage.
`
`Id., 9:58-10:8.
`
`If a connection to the server is unavailable, transmissions to the server are
`
`delayed. Id., 10:6-8. According to the ’748 patent, handheld devices that are
`
`“tolerant of intermittent connections” are called “loosely networked” computer
`
`systems. Id., 7:59-8:2. The ’748 patent describes that such systems store
`
`2
`
`

`

`information in the handheld devices when a connection to a server is unavailable and
`
`transmit it (synchronize) when the connection is restored. Id.
`
`Priority
`B.
`For purposes of this proceeding, the priority date is assumed to be the earliest
`
`claimed priority date on the face of the patent: August 19, 2002.
`
`Prosecution History
`C.
`The ’748 patent’s prosecution history includes a double-patenting rejection
`
`over the ’816 patent1 and §§ 102 and 103 rejections based on various references.
`
`Applicant amended the claims to recite a questionnaire comprising “device
`
`independent tokens.” Ex. 1004, 416-428. The claims were also amended to require
`
`a question requesting “location identifying information” and that the remote
`
`computing device had a “GPS integral thereto.” Id., 570-603. The Notice of
`
`Allowance stated that “the prior art singly or in combination does not teach the
`
`totality of the independent claims” and the claims “recite[] the use of a GPS integral
`
`thereto.” Id., 607-619.
`
`
`
`1 This rejection indicated that the ’748 patent’s claims were not patentably distinct
`
`from its now-canceled parent, and a Terminal Disclaimer was filed. Ex. 1004, 65-
`
`67, 248-249.
`
`3
`
`

`

`III. STATE OF THE ART
`A. Technical Background
`All technical aspects of the claims were well-known, including Global
`
`Position System (GPS) technology and location identification, computer-based
`
`questionnaires, device independent tokens, loosely-networked computer systems,
`
`data synchronization, and providing data over the Internet. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 1-333.
`
`Prior Art
`B.
`The relied-upon prior art relates to electronic collection, processing, and
`
`transfer of information and therefore is analogous. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 69-86.
`
`Reference
`
`Qualifications
`
`Barbosa
`
`Filed Sept. 17, 2001; Issued Nov. 1, 2005
`
`Falls
`
`Heath
`
`Short
`
`Filed July 3, 1997; Issued Nov. 23, 1999
`
`Filed Sept. 5, 1996; Issued Dec. 21, 1999
`
`Published June 2, 2000
`
`Torrance
`
`Filed Dec. 21, 2001; Published Aug. 8, 2002
`
`Bandera
`
`Filed Jan. 28, 1999; Issued Dec. 18, 2001
`
`Pinera
`
`Morris
`
`Hamlin
`
`
`Filed Oct. 19, 2000; Issued Jan. 30, 2007
`
`Filed Oct. 5, 1998; Issued Oct. 1, 2002
`
`Filed Mar. 2, 1998; Issued Nov. 5, 2002
`
`4
`
`Basis
`(pre-AIA)
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§ 102(b)
`
`§§ 102(e),
`102(a)
`
`§§ 102(e),
`102(a)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`§ 102(e)
`
`

`

`IV. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of
`
`working experience developing applications for mobile devices. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 87-
`
`92.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`Petitioner requests review of claims 3, 4, and 6-15 on the following grounds.
`
`Ground
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls and Heath
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls and Short
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`J
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`7
`
`8
`
`8
`
`8
`
`8
`
`3, 4, 9-11,
`13-15
`
`3, 4, 9-11,
`13-15
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls, Heath, and Short
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls and Torrance
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls, Heath, and Torrance § 103(a)
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls, Short, and Torrance § 103(a)
`
`Barbosa in view of Falls, Heath, Short, and
`Torrance
`
`Barbosa
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`5
`
`

`

`K
`
`L
`
`M
`
`N
`
`O
`
`P
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`Barbosa in view of Heath
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera and Heath
`
`Barbosa in view of Heath and Pinera
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera, Heath, and
`Pinera
`
`Barbosa in view of Morris
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera and Morris
`
`Barbosa in view of Hamlin
`
`Barbosa in view of Bandera and Hamlin
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`6
`
`12
`
`12
`
`3
`
`3
`
`This petition is supported by the expert testimony of Dr. Henry Houh, who is
`
`at least a POSA, and Exhibits 1001-1057. Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 1-333; Ex. 1003.
`
`VI. SOTERA STIPULATION
`Pursuant to the USPTO’s March 26, 2025 Memorandum regarding “Interim
`
`Processes for PTAB Workload Management” and the “FAQs for Interim Processes
`
`for PTAB Workload Management”2, Petitioner does not address discretionary denial
`
`issues in this Petition. Petitioner reserves all rights to address any discretionary
`
`denial factors, whether raised or not raised by Patent Owner (“PO”) or the Board.
`
`
`
`2
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/faqs/interim-processes-workload-
`
`management.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Also in accordance with the above-referenced USPTO guidance, Petitioner
`
`stipulates not to pursue in district court (or the ITC) an