Case 3:20-cv-04677-JD Document 259 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX INC,
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD
`
`
`ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs Broadcom Corp. and Avago Technologies
`
`(Broadcom) sued defendant Netflix, Inc. (Netflix) for infringement of twelve patents related to
`
`video streaming, including infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,183 (the ’183 patent). Dkt. No.
`
`208 (third amended complaint (TAC)); Dkt. No. 208-12 (’183 patent). The Court granted
`
`Netflix’s Rule 12(c) motion, and dismissed Broadcom’s twelfth claim in the second amended
`
`complaint, Dkt. No. 172, on the grounds that the ’183 patent was directed to patent-ineligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Dkt. No. 205. Broadcom was given leave to file the
`
`TAC, and Netflix asks again to dismiss the twelfth claim again for patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`Dkt. No. 215. The parties’ familiarity with the record, and the Court’s prior order in particular, is
`
`assumed. Dismissal is granted.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The Court’s prior order stated the governing law for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and patent
`
`eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the facts of this dispute. Dkt. No. 205. It is incorporated
`
`here. In summary, the Federal Circuit has determined that “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, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court set out a two-part test for
`
`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 3:20-cv-04677-JD Document 259 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Section 101 in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). First, the
`
`Court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” such as
`
`an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. Id. at 218. If a patent is directed to a
`
`patent-ineligible concept, the second step in Alice is to look 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.” Id. at 217-18.
`
`The parties agree that Claim 1 is representative. Dkt. No. 215 at 5. The Court will
`
`consequently treat Claim 1 as representative.
`
`I.
`
`THE ’183 PATENT IS DIRECTED TO AN ABSTRACT IDEA
`
`The Court determined that Claim 1 was directed to “the abstract idea of allocating tasks
`
`across a system of servers.” Dkt. No. 205 at 6. Nothing has changed in the TAC on that score.
`
`The TAC says that the ’183 patent teaches using rule statements and user-defined parameters to
`
`identify the best computer devices in a system to perform the job and to make decisions about how
`
`to distribute resources for different jobs. Dkt. No. 208 ¶¶ 363-64. Claim 1 recites this method of
`
`allocating resources and tasks across a system, and is a quintessential abstract idea. See
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
`
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 219).
`
`Broadcom’s main point against dismissal is that Claim 1 in the ’183 patent is directed to
`
`an improvement to computer functionality, akin to the claims sustained in Data Engine
`
`Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Dkt. No. 224 at 4. In Data
`
`Engine, the claims were directed to improvements in computer spreadsheets, which were
`
`complicated and required users to use complex and arbitrary operations to execute simple tasks.
`
`Data Engine, 906, F.3d at 1008. The patent at issue provided an improved, user-friendly and
`
`highly intuitive interface that allowed users to navigate spreadsheets with relative ease. Id. The
`
`Federal Circuit found that these claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they recited
`
`“a specific structure within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a specific function.” Id.
`
`at 1010-11 (cleaned up).
`
`2
`
`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 3:20-cv-04677-JD Document 259 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 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
`
`The same cannot be said of the ’183 patent. Although the specification teaches that the
`
`system can improve operational efficiency, Dkt. No. 208-12 at 1:20-23, the patent is still directed
`
`to the abstract idea of allocating tasks across the system. Broadcom did not identify any specific
`
`structures of the claimed system that perform and improve the operational efficiency of the system
`
`itself. Instead, Broadcom merely makes highly general references to the process of using criteria
`
`to determine what devices are suitable for a new job and then allocating the work to the devices
`
`based on availability. Dkt. No. 224 at 5. While the Court has concluded in other circumstances
`
`that “efficient computer processing” can be “indicative of patent-eligible subject matter,” Hybrid
`
`Audio, LLC v. Asus Comput. Int’l, No. 17-cv-5947-JD, 2019 WL 3037540, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jul.
`
`11, 2019), the ’183 patent is not directed to a specific improvement to computer processing.
`
`Rather, the efficiency that is gained from using the method of the ’183 patent comes from the fact
`
`that task management and allocation make tasks more efficient. The ’183 patent does not teach an
`
`improvement to computer processing but a general task management and allocation system that is
`
`implemented on computer systems. Consequently, Claim 1 of the ’183 patent is directed to an
`
`abstract idea.
`
`II.
`
`THE ’183 PATENT LACKS AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT
`
`The Court’s previous order determined that Claim 1 lacked an inventive concept because
`
`“Claim 1 simply recites ordinary steps, performed in a conventional order, on conventional
`
`computer technology.” Dkt. No. 205 at 8. That remains true.
`
`Broadcom points only to its allegations that the ’183 patent teaches a “funnel approach”
`
`which solves the problems of “poor system performance and system failures in a distributed
`
`computing system” as the inventive concept of the ’183 patent. Dkt. No. 224 at 8-9. The “funnel
`
`approach” is the sequential process of determining which computer devices in a distributed
`
`network system are available, suitable, and underutilized for a particular job. Dkt. No. 208 ¶ 369-
`
`70. Broadcom’s allegations state that the “funnel approach” was “an unconventional and novel
`
`method for provisioning job[s] in a large network of computer devices.” Id. ¶ 371. But these
`
`allegations are entirely conclusory and do not explain what is unconventional about the funnel
`
`approach. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Linquet
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-04677-JD Document 259 Filed 08/08/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Tile, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Broadcom does not point
`
`to any other non-conclusory allegations in the TAC or to portions of the ’183 patent that establish
`
`an inventive concept in Claim 1.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The twelfth claim of the TAC is dismissed. Because Broadcom has now had more than
`
`one opportunity to amend, and the guidance provided by the Court’s prior order, the dismissal is
`
`with prejudice.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: August 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES DONATO
`United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`