Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES, CO, LTD, et
`al.,
`
`Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD., et
`al.,
`
`ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG'S
`MOTION TO DISMISS TWO OF
`HUAWEI'S PATENTS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Research America (collectively, “Samsung”) move to dismiss two of the 11 patent
`
`infringement claims of plaintiffs Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and
`
`Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (collectively, “Huawei”) because the two patents (U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,416,892 and 8,644,239) claim mathematical algorithms, and therefore fail to claim patent-
`
`eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Without the benefit of claim construction and
`
`accepting Huawei’s factual allegations in the Complaint, I find it plausible at this juncture that
`
`both patents’ claim applications of mathematical algorithms tied to specific technological
`
`improvements and a concrete structure, rather than to an abstract idea alone. Samsung’s partial
`
`motion to dismiss is therefore DENIED.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
` The ‘892 and’239 patents, which Samsung moves to dismiss, aim to reduce signal
`
`interference when a mobile device connects to a cellular network. Opp’n 1–2 (Dkt. No. 86). This
`
`process involves a series of steps, termed a “random access procedure.” Id. at 5.
`
`Cellular networks consist of cells ranging in size from 1 km to 100 km, and each cell may
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`contain thousands of mobile devices at a time. Compl. Ex. 7 (“’892 Patent”) at 2:66–67 (Dkt. No.
`
`1-7). Before a mobile device can receive and transmit data, it must establish a connection with the
`
`cell’s base station via the random access procedure. Opp’n 4.1 This random access procedure is
`
`initiated when a mobile device transmits a radio signal. Id. at 5. Signals from the base station to
`
`a device are called downlink signals, and signals from the device to the base station are called
`
`uplink signals. Id. Limited by the speed of light, signals take different amounts of time depending
`
`on the distance between the device and the base station, but the base station cannot tell the
`
`distance traveled when a signal reaches it. Id.
`
`“When multiple mobile devices attempt to use the random access process simultaneously,
`
`the uncertainty in round trip time causes interference between uplink signals transmitted by
`
`different mobile terminals.” Id. This uncertainty prevents the base station from differentiating
`
`between signals from mobile devices at different locations. Id. This phenomenon is called “signal
`
`interference.”
`
`To enable a base station to distinguish signals, a mobile device transmits a specific
`
`sequence of numbers called a “random access preamble” (RAP). Id. All mobile devices within a
`
`cell select one of 64 RAPs. Id. To minimize signal interference, each mobile device within a cell
`
`should transmit a different RAP. In addition to the 64 original RAPs, otherwise known as “root
`
`sequences, ”different RAPs are generated by “cyclically shifting” its digits by different
`
`increments. Id. Smaller shifts allow a mobile device to generate more distinct sequences from a
`
`single root sequence. Id. When two sequences do not interfere with each other, they have “zero
`
`correlation.” Id.
`
`The ’892 patent, titled “Method and Apparatus of Transmitting a Random Access
`
`Preamble,” reduces signal interference by cyclically shifting a RAP sequence with a particular
`
`“Zero Correlation Zone (ZCZ) length.” ’892 Patent at 9:28–12:24. The claims incorporate a
`
`cell’s size to generate ZCZ sequences that minimize interference while enabling the base station to
`
`
`1 Given the posture of this case, where discussion of the technological background is necessary for
`its resolution, I am relying on descriptions of the technology as characterized by the plaintiffs. I
`am not adopting these descriptions for any purpose other than ruling on the motion to dismiss.
`
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`distinguish signals from multiple devices. Opp’n 5. The patent discloses a method that limits the
`
`set of possible cyclic shift increments (NCS) to 16, thereby reducing the signaling between the
`
`mobile device and the base station, while still maximizing the number of distinct RAPs. Id.
`
`The patent’s background information describes the problem it aims to solve: “[c]urrently
`
`there is no feasible scheme for selecting an appropriate limited set of ZCZ lengths, in order to
`
`ensure a small and limited signaling overload.” ’892 Patent at 3:20–23. The ’892 Patent identifies
`
`a scheme in the prior art in which the random access procedure selects one of 64 preambles within
`
`a cell. Id. at 1:29–34. It also identifies prior art with a cyclic shift increment of NCS, but with no
`
`restriction on the values of NCS, thus leading to substantial signaling and inefficiency. Id. at 3:9–
`
`14. Another proposal limits the cyclic shift increments to 11 possible values of NCS, but does not
`
`describe how to select the lengths of ZCZ. Id. at 3:16–19.
`
`The ’892 Patent, comprised of 20 claims, attempts to fill this gap. Claim 1 is
`
`representative, and recites a method for a mobile device to select a RAP with a particular ZCZ
`
`length of NCS-1, where NCS is a cyclic shift increment selected from a pre-defined set of 16
`
`possible values. Id.
`
`The invention claimed is:
`1. A method of
`facilitating communication
`communication system, the method comprising:
`
`
`selecting, by a user equipment (UE), a random access preamble
`from a set of random access preambles; and
`transmitting, by a UE, the selected random access preamble,
`wherein the set of random access preambles is provided with
`Zero Correlation Zones of length NCS-1, where NCS is a
`cyclic shift increment selected from a predefined set of
`cyclic shift increments, the pre-defined set including all of
`the following cyclic shift increments of 0, 13, 15, 18, 22, 26,
`32, 38, 46, 59, 76, 93, 119, 167, 279, 419.
`
`in a mobile
`
`
`
`Id. at 9:29–41.
`
`Independent claim ten is an apparatus claim employing the method of claim one. Id. at
`
`10:21 – 37. Independent claims 19 and 20 include a step estimating the time of arrival of the
`
`uplink signal. Id. at 11:20–12:24. The remaining claims are all dependent. “As taught and
`
`claimed by the ’892 Patent, the inventor identified and selected particular cyclic shifts that would
`
`provide the greatest number of RAPs from a root sequence for a given cell size, thereby
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`minimizing the number of root sequences needed to generate the 64 RAPs.” Opp’n 7.
`
`The ’239 Patent, titled “Method and Apparatus for Allocating and Processing Sequences in
`
`Communication System,” similarly aims to reduce cell interference. Id. Its claims focus on
`
`interference between cells, and create sub-groups of highly correlated sequences, thereby
`
`preventing these sequences from appearing in other sequence groups, resulting in low correlation
`
`and low interference between subgroups. ’239 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`The ’239 Patent comprises 23 claims. Samsung focuses its analysis on claim one.
`
`What is claimed is:
`
`1. A method for allocating sequences in a communication system,
`comprising:
`
`dividing, by a communication system, sequences in a sequence
`group
`into multiple
`sub-groups,
`each
`sub-group
`corresponding to a mode of occupying time frequency
`resources;
`selecting, by the communication system, a sequence from a
`candidate sequence collection corresponding to each sub-
`group to form the sequences in the sub-group by:
`selecting, by the communication system, n sequences in the
`candidate sequence collection to form sequences in a sub-
`group i in a sequence group k, wherein n is a natural number,
`i is a serial number of the sub-group, k is a serial number of
`the sequence group,
`determining by the communication system, a value of a basic
`sequence index r, in the sub-group i in the sequence group k,
`the value of ri; is at least one of └k•Ni/N1┘, ┌k•Ni/N1┐,
`└k•Ni/N1┘+1 and ┌k•Ni/N1┐-1, wherein Ni is a length of a
`sequence in the candidate sequence collection, N1 is a length
`of a reference sub-group sequence;
`allocating, by the communication system, the sequence group to
`at least one of: a base station, a cell, a user equipment and a
`channel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 24:31–54.
`
`Huawei contends claim six is representative.
`
`6. A method for processing sequences in a communication system,
`comprising:
`
`obtaining, by a cell or a base station or a user equipment, a group
`number k of a sequence group allocated by the system;
`selecting, by the cell or the base station or the user equipment, n
`sequences from a candidate sequence collection to form
`sequences in a sub-group i in a sequence group k;
` wherein n is a natural number, i is a serial number of the sub-
`group, a value of a basic sequence index r, in the sub-group i
`in the sequence group k is at least one of └k•Ni/N1┘,
`┌k•Ni/N1┐, └k•Ni/N1┘+1 and ┌k•Ni/N1┐-1, wherein Ni is
`
`
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a length of a sequence in the candidate sequence collection,
`N1 is a length of a reference sub-group sequence;
`generating, by the cell or the base station or the user equipment,
`corresponding sequences according to the sequences in the
`formed sub-group; and
`communicated, by the cell or the base station or the user
`equipment, according to the sequences on time frequency
`resources corresponding to the sub-group i.
`
`Id. at 25:1–23.
`
`Zadoff-Chu (ZC) sequences are one type of sequence used in mobile communication
`
`systems. According to Huawei, “the ’239 Patent teaches how to create these ZC sequences so that
`
`they have reduced correlation (i.e., low interference) between groups, using one or more of four
`
`identified mathematical relationships… .” Opp’n. 8. The “mathematical relationships” use floor
`
`and ceiling functions (which round up and down, respectively) to group highly correlated
`
`sequences together into subgroups. Id. at 19 n.13.
`
`Samsung argues that the ’892 and ’239 patents “claim nothing more than mathematical
`
`formulas paired with generic and high-level post-solution steps,” and therefore cover only patent
`
`ineligible subject matter. 2 Mot. 1.
`
`I. MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint
`
`if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
`
`dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
`
`face.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). A claim is facially plausible
`
`when the plaintiff pleads facts that “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
`
`defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
`
`(citation omitted). There must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
`
`
`2 Although not directly requesting it, Samsung states that “[t]he Court may take judicial notice of
`USPTO public records, such as the file history of the ’892 patent’s application.” Mot. 7 n.4. In
`response, Huawei asks us to take judicial notice of the ’239 patent’s prosecution history. See
`Opp’n (Dkt. No. 86) 9 n.2. Although the court may take judicial notice of patent prosecution
`histories, see, e.g., Coinstar, Inc. v. Coinbank Automated Sys., Inc., 998 F. Supp. 1109, 1114 (N.D.
`Cal. 1998) (citing Fed. R. Ev. 201), the prosecution histories of the ’892 and ’239 patents are not
`relevant to my determination on the motion to dismiss, and the requests for judicial notice are
`DENIED.
`
`5
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`unlawfully.” Id. While courts do not require “heightened fact pleading of specifics,” a plaintiff
`
`must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” See Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. at 555, 570.
`
`In deciding whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the
`
`Court accepts the plaintiff’s allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`
`plaintiff. See Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the court
`
`is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
`
`fact, or unreasonable inferences.” See In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir.
`
`2008).
`
`To state a claim for patent infringement, “a patentee need only plead facts sufficient to
`
`place the alleged infringer on notice. This requirement ensures that the accused infringer has
`
`sufficient knowledge of the facts alleged to enable it to answer the complaint and defend itself.”
`
`Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., 203 F.3d 790, 794 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The
`
`Federal Circuit has “repeatedly recognized that in many cases it is possible and proper to
`
`determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Genetic Techs.
`
`Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In such circumstances where it is
`
`possible and proper, “claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
`
`determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d
`
`1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`II. PATENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Under Section 101 of the Patent Act, “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
`
`process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`
`thereof, may obtain a patent therefor… .” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court “has long held
`
`that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena,
`
`and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354
`
`(2014) (citing another source). The reason for the exception is clear enough—“such discoveries
`
`are manifestations of … nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) (citations and
`
`6
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`internal quotation marks omitted). The boundaries of the exception, however, are not so clear.
`
`
`
`The Alice court highlighted “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle as one of
`
`preemption.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (noting the delicate balance inherent in promoting
`
`progress, the primary object of patent law, and granting a monopoly, the means for accomplishing
`
`that goal). In other words, patents that seek to wholly preempt others from using a law of nature
`
`or an abstract idea—“the basic tools of scientific and technological work”—are invalid. Id.
`
`“Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the
`
`buildin[g] block[s] of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something
`
`more, thereby transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. (internal citations and
`
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`The Alice court then applied Mayo’s two-step framework for analyzing whether claims are
`
`patent eligible. Id. at 2355. First, “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
`
`those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. Subsequent federal circuit court opinions have clarified the
`
`importance of the first step. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (finding patent eligible subject matter in claims directed to improvements in computer
`
`software, under Alice step one). “[T]he first step of the inquiry is a meaningful one … and cannot
`
`simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept… .” Id. at 1335 (alteration in
`
`original). “Rather, the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light
`
`of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
`
`matter.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`“If this threshold determination is met, we move to the second step of the inquiry and
`
`consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine
`
`whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” Id. at 1334 (internal citations and quotations omitted). This step entails the “search
`
`for an inventive concept – i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure
`
`that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
`
`itself.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`Although not dispositive of the “inventive concept” inquiry, many courts use the
`
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`“machine-or-transformation” test as “a useful and important clue” to assess whether a claim is
`
`patent-eligible. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010). Under this test, a “claimed process is
`
`surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) tied to a particular machine or apparatus; or (2) it
`
`transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.” Id. at 600. “Beyond the machine-or-
`
`transformation test, a court is obligated to hew closely to established precedents in this area to
`
`determine whether an invention falls within one of the exceptions to § 101’s broad eligibility.”
`
`OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C-12-1233-EMC, 2012 WL 3985118, at *5
`
`(N.D.Cal. Sept. 11, 2012) (citation omitted).
`
`III. BURDEN OF PROOF
`
`No Supreme Court or Federal Circuit post-Alice decision has definitively ruled on whether
`
`the clear and convincing evidence standard applies when evaluating patent-eligible subject matter
`
`at the motion to dismiss stage. District courts are split as to the appropriate standard. “Several
`
`courts have concluded that a heightened burden of proof makes little sense in the context of a
`
`motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings, and therefore declined to apply the
`
`clear and convincing evidence standard.” Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc., No. 16-
`
`CV-00925-LHK, 2016 WL 3196657, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2016) (collecting cases). Other
`
`courts apply the clear and convincing standard since the Federal Circuit has endorsed that standard
`
`to determine validity at other stages of a proceeding.3 Id.; see also OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`5:15-CV-02008-EJD, 2016 WL 344845, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) (collecting cases).
`
`It is not necessary to decide whether the heightened burden of proof applies here because
`
`defendants fail to establish the invalidity of the patents at issue, even by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Samsung moves to dismiss both the ’892 and ’239 patents because (1) they are directed to
`
`mathematical equations; and (2) they do not contain any inventive concepts. Samsung focuses its
`
`
`3 The heightened standard derives from the presumption of validity that attaches to patents in other
`contexts, however “no equivalent presumption of eligibility applies in the section 101 calculus.”
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 721 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`analysis on claim one of each patent, while briefly addressing the remaining claims. See Mot.
`
`3:14–20; 5:11–21; 9:18–10:18; 11:23–24, 13. For purposes of this motion, I will focus on claim
`
`one as representative of each patent, because no side identifies significant differences between
`
`claim one and the other claims that would or should impact the analysis.
`
`“The courts have recognized that it is not always easy to determine the boundary between
`
`abstraction and patent-eligible subject matter.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790
`
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collecting cases and highlighting the court’s attention to patents
`
`that attempt to preempt use of the laws of nature or abstract ideas when determining the
`
`boundary). See also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589 (1978) (“The line between a patentable
`
`‘process’ and an unpatentable ‘principle’ is not always clear.”)
`
`In attempting to find that boundary, “the [Federal Circuit] and the Supreme Court have
`
`found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an
`
`abstract idea in previous cases.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1334. Here, however, the parties have
`
`presented few cases with claims pertaining to mobile communication systems. See, e.g., France
`
`Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc., 12-cv-04967-WHO, 39 F. Supp. 3d 1080 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2014) (finding method claims for correcting errors in telecommunication patent eligible); TQP
`
`Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:12-CV-180-WCB, 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)
`
`(denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of method claim for transmitting
`
`encrypted data over a communication link).
`
`A recent decision from the district of Delaware, however, analyzes nearly identical claims
`
`under a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., No. CV 15-542-SLR, 2016 WL 6440137 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2016). In Evolved Wireless, both
`
`patents dealt with “specific solutions to improve mobile device functionality over the prior art
`
`with faster, more reliable, and more efficient voice and data transmissions.” Id. at *1 (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). The patents accomplished this end by means of cyclic shifts, defined
`
`
`
`9
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`differently than those at play here.4 Id. at *2-3. The Evolved Wireless court concluded, “[b]ecause
`
`the ’916 and ’481 patents are directed to technological improvements resolving specific problems
`
`in a wireless communications system, the court finds that they claim patent-eligible subject matter
`
`under § 101. Id. at *7. Although not binding, the Evolved Wireless decision is directly on point
`
`and highly persuasive.
`
`I. THE ’892 PATENT
`
`Samsung argues that the ’892 Patent is directed to a mathematical equation because its
`
`claimed advance over the prior art is the inclusion of a specific set of 16 cyclic shift intervals,
`
`which Samsung deems “math.” Mot. 7. Huawei counters that the claims “do not preempt all uses
`
`of the mathematical concepts they implement, but rather apply them to very specific problems and
`
`technological contexts,” Opp’n 11, and “are specifically directed to a specific technological
`
`improvement with the technological goal of facilitating communication between a user equipment
`
`and cell of a mobile communication network.” Opp’n 13. As in Evolved Wireless, I find that the
`
`’892 Patent claims are directed to a specific improvement in cellular communications, and not an
`
`abstract idea or mathematical formula. Thus, the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concept under Alice step one, and the analysis ends there.
`
`Samsung contends that the ’892 Patent is invalid under Alice because it is directed to a
`
`mathematical formula, the claimed advance is a mathematical equation, and the generic post-
`
`solution steps were thoroughly conventional in the art. Mot. 7-9. But “a process is not
`
`unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm.” Flook, 437
`
`U.S. at 590. Rather, “[i]t is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
`
`mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
`
`protection.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981) (alteration in original). But, “[w]ithout
`
`additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
`
`information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech Image Techs., LLC
`
`
`4 It matters that the patents accomplish the precise improvement at issue here, but use different
`equations. It seems clear that the ’892 and ’239 patents are not claiming the abstract idea of
`improving the technological functioning and they are not claiming the mathematical formulas they
`employ because the formulas have no significance removed from the technological environment.
`10
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`A. The Claimed Advance is Not a Mathematical Equation
`
`Claim one of the ’892 Patent is a method claim comprised of two steps: selecting and
`
`transmitting a number (the RAP) ascertained by applying mathematical equations to a predefined
`
`set of values. ’892 Patent, 9:29-41. This process is meant to be performed via “user equipment.”5
`
`Id. at 9:32. Samsung and Huawei agree that claim one’s final element, limiting the cyclic shift
`
`increments to a predefined set of 16, is the claimed advance over the prior art. See Mot. 7; Opp’n
`
`6. Samsung’s reasoning, however, flounders at its next step. Samsung insists that “the specific
`
`technological improvement” is “just math.” Reply 4. But that contention is belied by the claims
`
`“considered in light of the specification.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. The improvement appears to
`
`also encompass the decreased interference resulting from low signal overload. See ‘892 Patent,
`
`3:4-8. While the improvement necessarily relies on math because the low signal overload depends
`
`on the limited set of cyclic shift intervals, itself derived from mathematical equations and variables
`
`dictated by a cell’s size, that reliance does not render it ineligible for a patent. See Digitech Image
`
`Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In determining
`
`whether a process claim recites an abstract idea, we must examine the claim as a whole, keeping in
`
`mind that an invention is not ineligible just because it relies upon a law of nature or mathematical
`
`algorithm.”).
`
`“The abstract idea exception has been applied to prevent patenting of claims that abstractly
`
`cover results where it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.”
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 2016 WL 4896481, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)
`
`(emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The ’892 Patent does not
`
`
`5 The particular apparatus “user equipment,” is not defined, but I preliminarily construe it as
`referring to a mobile terminal (i.e., device). See ’892 Background. Huawei does not argue that I
`must conduct claim construction prior to deciding this motion, and Samsung underscores this
`silence. See Reply 3 n.2. In my preliminary view, the claims here do not appear to be so
`“straightforward” that claim construction would not be helpful. See Boar's Head Corp. v.
`DirectApps, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01927-KJM, 2015 WL 4530596, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2015).
`Nonetheless, I will proceed to “adopt the meaning most favorable to the plaintiff when considering
`eligibility,” id. (citing another source), preliminary construe "user equipment" as referring to a
`mobile terminal, and decide this motion to dismiss prior to claim construction.
`
`
`11
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 103 Filed 11/21/16 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`attempt to claim a mathematical formula. It discloses a method that uses a predefined set of
`
`numbers—itself derived from an equation, but not occurring in the natural environment—to
`
`enable a mobile device to more efficiently synchronize with a base station. This advance entails
`
`more than an abstract idea or “just math.”
`
`In addition to arguing that the claimed advance is directed to a mathematical equation,
`
`Samsung contends that the “conventional post-solution activity” here, selecting and transmitting
`
`RAPs, “does not render a mathematical formula patent-eligible.” Mot. 8. It relies on Flook and
`
`Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 245 (2015) to support its position. But the
`
`Thales court found that the claims at issue were directed to “mathematical equations for
`
`determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame,” and, therefore,
`
`“incorporate[d] laws of nature governing motion… .” Thales, 122 Fed. Cl. at 252. And Flook’s
`
`algorithm enlisted a “scientific principle … that has always existed.” Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 n.15.
`
`Unlike in Flook and Thales, the equation of the ’892 Patent has no significance outside of
`
`decreasing interference between mobile devices—not “a building block of human ingenuity.”
`
`Thales, 122 Fed. Cl. at 252.
`
`B. The Patent is Apparently Limited To a Specific Technological Improvement and a
`
`Concrete Structure
`
`The improvement is more than merely a mathematical formula. The advance is the result
`
`of applying a mathematical formula to the specific context of a mobile communication system. It
`
`does not “simply provide a new and presumably better method of calculating” a number, such as
`
`an alarm limit, that exists as a law of nature. Flook, 437 U.S. at 594–95.6 See also Genetic Techs.
`
`Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1376 (“The claim is directed to a natural law—the principle that certain non-
`
`coding and coding sequences are in linkage disequilibrium with one another.”); Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]he claims are
`
`