Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:650
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Ekwan E. Rhow - State Bar No. 174604
` erhow@birdmarella.com
`Grace W. Kang - State Bar No. 271260
` gkang@birdmarella.com
`A. Howard Matz - State Bar No. 55892
` hmatz@birdmarella.com
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER,
`WOLPERT, NESSIM,
`DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW, P.C.
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
`
`Nicholas Groombridge (pro hac vice)
` ngroombridge@paulweiss.com
`Jenny C. Wu (pro hac vice)
` jcwu@paulweiss.com
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
`WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10019-6064
`Telephone: (212) 373-3000
`Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
`
`
`
`
`David J. Ball, Jr. (pro hac vice)
` dball@paulweiss.com
`J. Steven Baughman (pro hac vice)
` sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
`WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1047
`Telephone: (202) 223-7300
`Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
` CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT
`TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`
`
`Date: August 29, 2019
`Time: 8:30 a.m.
`Crtrm.: 9D
`
`
`Assigned to Hon. George H. Wu
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED, a Canadian
`corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`TWITTER, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:651
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................. 1
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 3
`I. The ’089 Patent ...................................................................................................... 3
`A. The ’089 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Flagging New
`Messages Until an Inbox Has Been Checked ................................................. 5
`B. The ’089 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept ...................................... 6
`II. The ’182 Patent ...................................................................................................... 7
`A. The ’182 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Inferring the
`Status of Messages in a Conversation ............................................................ 8
`B. The ’182 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept ...................................... 9
`III. The ’059 Patent .................................................................................................... 10
`A. The ’059 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Communicating the Availability of Content Through a Networked Hub .... 11
`B. The ’059 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 13
`IV. The ’777 Patent .................................................................................................... 14
`A. The ’777 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Screening
`Repetitive Content When It Becomes Excessive ......................................... 15
`B. The ’777 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 17
`V. The ’351 and ’929 Patents (the “Advertising Patents”) ...................................... 18
`A. The Advertising Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Assembling Targeted Advertising ................................................................ 20
`B. The Advertising Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept ........................ 22
`VI. The ’120 Patent .................................................................................................... 24
`A. The ’120 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Sorting,
`Analyzing, and Presenting New Messages ................................................... 27
`B. The ’120 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 28
`i
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:652
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`ii
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:653
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 18
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...................................................................................... passim
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 3
`Blackberry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-01844-GW(KSx), 2018 WL 4847053 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21,
`2018) .............................................................................................................. passim
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019), ECF No. 157 .................. 23
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 2, 3, 23, 24
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 13
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................. 2, 12, 17, 18, 20, 24
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 7
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 11, 13
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 2
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981) ...................................................................................... 2
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... passim
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`i
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:654
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Essociate, Inc. v. Clickbooth.com, LLC,
`No. 13-cv-01886-JVS(DFMx), 2015 WL 1428919 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
`11, 2015) ............................................................................................................... 24
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 6, 12, 18
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 29
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 3, 6, 27, 28, 29
`Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 2, 21
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................... 16, 17
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`14-cv-01622-HSG, 2015 WL 1535328 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) ........................ 14
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................... 21
`Prod. Ass’n Techs. LLC v. Clique Media Grp.,
`No. CV 17-05463-GW(PJWx), 2017 WL 5664986 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
`12, 2017), aff’d 738 F. App’x 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................. 1
`Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS,
`868 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 29
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... passim
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 24
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 17, 18, 20
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................ 1, 22, 27, 29
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`ii
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:655
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`iii
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:656
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Each of BlackBerry’s seven asserted patents is patent-ineligible under 35
`U.S.C. § 101. Four of these patents, which the Court has not previously considered,
`are all directed to age-old, fundamental concepts of communication. U.S. Patent No.
`8,286,089 (the “’089 Patent”) is directed to flagging new messages until the inbox has
`been checked. U.S. Patent No. 8,572,182 (the “’182 Patent”) is directed to inferring
`the status of messages in a conversation. U.S. Patent No. 9,021,059 (the “’059
`Patent”) is directed to communicating the availability of information through a
`networked hub. U.S. Patent No. 8,825,777 (the “’777 Patent”) is directed to screening
`repetitive content when it becomes excessive. Although this Court previously
`declined, without prejudice, to dismiss claims based on the other three patents, those
`are also all directed to mere abstract ideas, as the intrinsic evidence and additional
`Federal Circuit guidance establish. For example, just a few months ago, the Federal
`Circuit made clear that claims directed to displaying information, even as a new
`arrangement, are patent-ineligible when they merely improve how a user processes
`information. Such claims “do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it
`operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.” Trading Techs. Int’l,
`Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351
`(the “’351 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,676,929 (the “’929 Patent”) are directed to
`the fundamental practice of assembling targeted advertising. U.S. Patent No.
`9,349,120 (the “’120 Patent) is directed to sorting, analyzing, and presenting new
`messages. Twitter respectfully submits that this Court should review these patents
`again in light of Trading Technologies and other precedent. All asserted patents are
`directed towards general communications concepts, and the First Amended
`Complaint should be dismissed.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Dismissal of a patent complaint at the pleadings stage is appropriate where all
`of the asserted patent claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g.,
`
`1
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:657
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Prod. Ass’n Techs. LLC v. Clique Media Grp., No. CV 17-05463-GW(PJWx), 2017
`WL 5664986, at *9–*10 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017) (dismissing complaint where the
`only specifically identified patent claim in the complaint was found patent-
`ineligible), aff'd 738 F. App’x 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018). A patent is invalid if it claims
`patent-ineligible subject matter, such as laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
`ideas. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). In the computer context, subject-
`matter eligibility is evaluated under the two-step framework set forth in Alice Corp.
`Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014).
`Step one of Alice analyzes whether the “‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character
`as a whole,’” is directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citations omitted). And, as the Federal
`Circuit recently clarified, the “directed to” inquiry may also involve looking to the
`specification to understand “the problem facing the inventor” and, ultimately, what
`the patent describes as the invention. ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920
`F.3d 759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For example, it is indicative that a claim is directed
`to an abstract idea when the specification does not suggest an “improve[ment] from a
`technical perspective,” or that the claimed invention results in something “operat[ing]
`differently than it otherwise could,” or “that the invention involved overcoming some
`sort of technical difficulty.” Id. at 768.
`Courts have recognized various forms of abstract ideas, including: (1) activity
`that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper; (2) methods of organizing
`human activity, including the use of rules to take certain actions; (3) long-prevalent
`or fundamental practices; and (4) methods for organizing data, such as collecting,
`analyzing, and displaying data. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 219; Intellectual Ventures
`v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015); CyberSource
`Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A patent
`directed to an abstract idea does not become patentable simply by claiming the
`abstract idea within a narrow technological context or use case. BSG Tech LLC v.
`
`2
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:658
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`Step two of the analysis looks more precisely at whether the claim elements,
`individually or in their ordered combination, add an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether
`additional elements “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
`application” or “amount[] to significantly more” than a patent on the abstract idea
`itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. A claim fails step two if the additional elements are
`well-understood, routine, and conventional, requiring no more than “a generic
`computer to perform generic computer functions.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It also fails if the
`elements are themselves directed to an abstract idea, including those that “simply
`restate[] what . . . [is] already determined [to be] an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at
`1291; see also SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(claim details that “are themselves abstract” are not inventive concepts). Accordingly,
`the inventive concept often rests on a showing that the limitations “improve the
`functioning of the computer itself,” i.e., that they solve a technological problem. See
`Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315, 1318 (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 225).
`Importantly, the § 101 inquiry must remain focused on the claims. No
`deference is owed to a complaint’s unsupported recitations that a claimed element is
`non-routine. Blackberry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-01844-GW(KSx), 2018
`WL 4847053, at *8–*10 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) [hereinafter “Facebook/Snap”]
`(invalidating BlackBerry’s patent despite complaint’s allegations that the claims were
`non-routine and unconventional). Additionally, improvements disclosed in the
`specification can confer patent eligibility only “to the extent they are captured in the
`claims.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`The ’089 Patent
`The ’089 Patent describes a method for setting and unsetting new message
`indicators—specifically, displaying an indicator on a home screen when new
`
`3
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:659
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`messages have been received, and turning off that indicator after the user has viewed
`the inbox (or what the claims call a “message inventory display screen”). Claim 1,
`the only asserted claim identified in BlackBerry’s Complaint, is recited below with
`key portions bolded:
`1. A method of representing new electronic messages on a
`communication device having a display, the method comprising:
`receiving a new electronic message;
`setting a new message flag to indicate receipt of the new electronic
`message;
`representing, on a home screen displayed on the display, a new
`message indicator when the new message flag is set;
`receiving an invocation to switch the home screen displayed on the
`display to a message inventory display screen for viewing a listing
`including a plurality of electronic messages including the new
`electronic message, the message inventory display screen displaying
`a preview, for each listed electronic message, of either a subject line
`or of a portion of contents of the electronic message, the contents of
`an electronic message being accessible upon receipt of a request to
`open an electronic message from the list of messages;
`unsetting the new message flag in response to the invocation to
`switch the home screen displayed on the display to the message
`inventory display screen, the unsetting of the flag occurring without
`having received a request to open the new electronic message; and
`receiving an invocation to switch the message inventory display screen
`to the home screen, wherein the new message indicator represented
`on the home screen is not displayed as a result of the unsetting of
`the new message flag.
`The patent explains that switching between a home screen and other types of
`display screens was well-known. ’089 Patent, 7:30–32 (“Display screens may be
`invoked for display from the home screen or from other application screens as is well
`known”). And that inboxes that preview messages in list form were well-known too.
`Id. at 1:39–41 (“Messages are typically presented in a message list showing limited
`information pertaining to each message . . . .”). Nor does the patent purport to have
`invented home screen indicators. Id. at 1:48–57. Rather, the supposed invention is a
`
`4
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:660
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`way for users “to be informed that they have new messages as distinct from unopened
`messages on the device”—that is, setting a new message indicator based on whether
`the user knows about, as opposed to opens, a new message. Id. By its own terms, it
`solves no technical problem.
`A. The ’089 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Flagging
`New Messages Until an Inbox Has Been Checked
`Claim 1 is directed to nothing more than the abstract idea of flagging new
`messages until an inbox has been checked. This is a mailbox management practice
`that does not arise from a technological problem or offer a technological
`improvement—it simply implements the familiar curbside mailbox flag in an
`electronic mailbox setting. The curbside mailbox has on its side a flag that indicates
`that new mail is present when the flag is raised. This corresponds to (and is quite
`literally) a “new message flag” that sets off a “new message indicator” as claimed by
`the patent. The mailbox flag is visible from the outside of the mailbox, much like the
`claimed “new message indicator” is visible on a home screen. After one checks the
`inside of the mailbox, the new mail can be previewed by scanning the envelopes, and
`the mailbox flag can be reset to an unraised position, even if one has not actually
`opened any mail. This is no different from what claim 1 teaches—“unsetting the new
`message flag” such that the new message indicator is no longer displayed after the
`user has switched from the home screen to the inbox without opening any of the new
`mail. Indeed, the patent itself explains that switching to the inbox is a “proxy for the
`user’s awareness of the new messages,” confirming that the patent does not claim a
`technological improvement. Id. at 7:41–43.
`This same fundamental practice of mailbox management has been applied in
`other settings as well, such as digital answering machines that provide a new message
`indicator in the form of a blinking light or beeping sound until the user has checked
`the new messages. These machines turn off the new message indicator, even if all the
`user did was to retrieve information about the number of new messages, who sent the
`
`5
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:661
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`messages, and the time the messages were sent, without actually listening to the
`messages. So too here.
`B. The ’089 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept
`None of the elements of claim 1, whether individually or collectively, add an
`“inventive concept” that would transform the abstract idea here into a patent-eligible
`invention. The claim recites the use of a “communication device having a display,”
`which is wholly conventional and well-known, encompassing any device that can
`display messages on a screen, whether it be a desktop computer, mobile device, or
`digital answering machine. The acts of receiving a new message, setting and unsetting
`indicators in response to certain events, switching between a home screen and a
`message display screen, and displaying a list of messages with their contents
`previewed, are all routine acts of such devices. See ’089 Patent at 1:34–51, 7:30–32;
`Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316–20.
`Nor is there anything unconventional about unsetting a new message flag in
`response to a user switching from a home screen to the inbox instead of in response
`to a user opening mail. At most, the act of removing a new message indicator after a
`user has opened an inbox, even without opening individual mail, is just an application
`of a rule and does not transform the claim into something “significantly more.” But
`the Federal Circuit has held that implementing an abstract idea with a rule such as this
`remains an unpatentable abstract idea, particularly where the rule is not tied to a
`technological improvement. FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094–95 (finding no inventive
`concept where claimed rules asked “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with
`different words) that humans in analogous situations . . . have asked for decades, if
`not centuries” and did not “improve[] existing technological process[es]”);
`Facebook/Snap, 2018 WL 4847053, at *8–*10 (finding abstract a claim that applied
`a specific rule to time stamping where “there is nothing that ties the rule to a
`technological improvement”). And there is certainly nothing unconventional about
`taking action on new mail without opening that mail. As the Federal Circuit has
`
`6
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:662
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`already confirmed, “it was long-prevalent practice for people receiving paper mail to
`look at an envelope and discard certain letters, without opening them.” Symantec,
`838 F.3d at 1314. Limiting these concepts to electronic messages does not make them
`inventive.
`II. The ’182 Patent
`The ’182 Patent describes a way of reducing the amount of back-and-forth in
`an instant messaging conversation. Specifically, instead of receiving confirmation
`about the status of each message sent in a conversation (e.g., whether the message has
`been delivered or read by the recipient), the sender of the messages just receives a
`confirmation about the status of one of those messages—typically the last—and infers
`the status of other messages that were sent before that one. BlackBerry specifically
`asserts Claims 1 and 4. Compl. ¶ 178. Claim 1, which is merely Claim 4 drafted as
`a method claim, is recited below with key portions bolded:1
`1. A method in a first communication device for reducing
`communications in an instant messaging conversation between
`said first device and a second communication device, the method
`comprising:
`sending to said second device, a plurality of instant messages of
`said conversation;
`receiving from said second device, after sending said plurality of
`instant messages, at least a notification of the status of only a
`particular one of said plurality of instant messages sent by said
`first device to said second device without having previously
`received a notification of the status of any of said plurality of
`instant messages sent prior to said particular one of said plurality
`of instant messages; and
`
`
`1 The § 101 analysis may be performed using a representative claim that is
`“substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea,” Content Extraction &
`Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 226–27 (holding the system and computer-readable medium
`claims to be no different in substance from the method claims for the § 101
`analysis).
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`7
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:663
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`in response to receipt of said notification, a processor updating an
`internal record to reflect said status for said particular one of said
`plurality of instant messages and to reflect an inferred status for
`all of said plurality of instant messages of said conversation
`sent prior to said particular one of said plurality of instant
`messages.
`The specification defines an “instant message” (or “IM”) exactly as it is
`commonly understood—a short text message sent from one device to another,
`generally displayed as “part of a conversation.” ’182 Patent at 1:6–9. The patent does
`not purport to have invented IMs or notifications for IMs, stating that IM systems
`were known to provide users with a “notification of the status” of a message. Id. at
`1:22–23. These known IM systems “used notifications to provide users with ‘clues’”
`about the status of particular messages, such as whether a message was delivered to
`or read by the recipient. Id. at 1:22–29.
`The patent purports to use these “clues” to “reduc[e] the communications in an
`IM conversation” by “sending to the second device a single IM communication that
`confirms the most recent of events.” Id. at 2:12–16. The specification further explains
`that “[i]n some cases, [the status of] an earlier event can be inferred from the single
`IM communication.” Id. at 2:27–28. For example, upon notification that a particular
`IM has been read, the device that sent the IM “may infer that all previous instant
`messages in the conversation that were sent” have also been received and read. Id. at
`2:65–3:3. The sending device then “update[s] its internal record to reflect that the
`particular IM and all messages of the conversation sent prior to the particular IM were
`delivered and read.” Id. at 3:3–6.
`A. The ’182 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Inferring
`the Status of Messages in a Conversation
`Claims 1 and 4 of the ’182 Patent are directed to nothing more than the abstract
`idea of inferring the status of messages in a conversation, such as whether the
`messages have been delivered or read. The claimed method seeks to reduce the
`amount of back-and-forth in a conversation by relying on a single response in a
`
`8
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 39-1 Filed 06/25/19 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:664
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`conversation to infer the delivered or read status (or some other status of interest) of
`earlier communications in the conversation. But such use of inferences is a basic
`aspect of human conversation, one that merely involves “analyzing information by
`steps people go through in their minds.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. As an
`example, a father might convey a list of items to his son to pick up from the grocery
`store, but rather than repeatedly (and tediously) respond “I got it” to each item, the
`son can just say “I got it” in response to the last item his father lists. The father can
`then take mental note that the son has heard the entire list. This is not a technological
`solution to address a technological problem.
`The purely result-based, functional language to describe the purported
`invention further evidences its non-technological nature. “Sending” and “receiving”
`messages or notifications constitute the broken-down steps of a two-way
`conversation. “Updating an internal record” constitutes the act of keeping track of
`the conversation. These are all generic processes, not just in the instant messaging
`context, but also in the human context. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
`Commc’ns, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding a claim reciting “a method
`for transmitting message packets over a communications network” to be directed to
`the abstract idea of “(1) sending information, (2) directing the sent information, (3)
`monitoring receipt of the sent information, and (4) accumulating records about receipt
`of the sent information” and explaining that these are all examples of result-based
`functional language). Indeed, it is telling that other than the “first communication
`device,” “second communication device,” and arguably “proce