Case 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GINEGAR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
`
`Case No. 22-cv-00044-WHO
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 55
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Ginegar LLC (“Ginegar”) filed suit against defendant Slack Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Slack”), asserting that Slack infringed upon two patents owned by Ginegar related to instant
`
`messaging systems. Slack moves to dismiss, arguing that the claims are invalid because they are
`
`directed to ineligible subject matter and do not claim an improvement to instant messaging
`
`technology. Because the claims at issue recite an abstract idea and fail to include an inventive
`
`concept that elevates them to more than a patent on the abstract idea itself, Slack’s motion to
`
`dismiss is GRANTED, with limited leave to amend.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Ginegar is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent Numbers 9,367,521 (the “‘521 Patent”)
`
`I.
`
`
`
`and 9,760,865 (the “‘865 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents”). First. Am. Compl. (“FAC”) [Dkt.
`
`No. 27] ¶¶ 2, 15-16, 31-32 (citing Exs. A (‘521 Patent), B (‘865 Patent)). The Patents are directed
`
`to instant messaging systems, where “individuals can communicate with one another using text-
`
`based or other forms of communications over a network in substantially real time.” Id. at ¶ 17.
`
`These systems typically operate through programs installed on user devices (i.e., computers,
`
`phones, or tablets) that connect to at least one instant message server. See id. at ¶¶ 17-18. Instant
`
`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 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`messaging systems also enable users to communicate with each other in different ways; for
`
`example, users may converse via text or audio messages. See id. at ¶¶ 34-35.
`
`A. The ‘521 Patent
`
`
`
`The ‘521 Patent, entitled “Content and Context Based Handling of Instant Messages,” was
`
`issued on June 14, 2016, and claims a method of processing instant message transactions between
`
`users during an instant messaging session. See id. at ¶¶ 15, 23-24 (citing ‘521 Patent).
`
`
`
`The patent has two claims; Ginegar asserts both against Slack. See FAC at ¶ 53. The
`
`claims are directed to handling rules—stored on and obtained from an instant message server—
`
`that correspond to certain actions performed in response to receipt of an instant message. See ‘521
`
`Patent at 18:2-26. Claim 1 is independent and recites the following:
`
`
`1. A method of processing instant message transactions comprising:
`
`logging a first instant message client into an instant message server;
`
`obtaining from the instant message server, at least one handling rule that is
`evaluated in an instant messaging environment in response to receipt of a
`message, each handling rule defining a condition based upon at least one of
`identified content or identified context, and a corresponding event handling
`action to be performed within the instant message environment;
`
`identifying an instant message conversation within the instant message
`environment between a user and a correspondent;
`
`evaluating each handling rule;
`
`performing the corresponding event handling action of an associated
`handling rule if it is determined that the condition of that handling rule is
`satisfied; and
`
`conveying to the user participating in the instant message conversation, an
`indication that the corresponding event handling action was performed.
`
`Id. at 18:2-22.
`
`
`
`The ‘521 Patent’s specification explains that a “handling rule” defines a condition, based
`
`on content and/or context, and a corresponding “handling action” that occurs if that condition is
`
`met. See id. at 3:25-32. In other words, when a user receives an instant message, the handling
`
`rules are evaluated, and any corresponding handling action is performed. See FAC at ¶ 28. Those
`
`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 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`actions include “showing another user’s online status, filtering instant messages, generating
`
`notifications, generating messages, or limiting display screen interruptions.” See id. at ¶ 29.
`
`
`
`There are two types of handling rules, based on conditions in the instant messaging
`
`environment: (1) rules based on the content detected in an instant message; and (2) rules based on
`
`the context of user activity. See ‘521 Patent at 3:7-24. Content-based rules respond to
`
`information internal or external to the instant message system, such as designated words in a
`
`message. See id. at 3:20-24. Context-based rules pertain to events that “characterize user
`
`behavior, user activity, environment, setting, hierarchical prioritizations and/or other factors”—for
`
`example, detecting when the user is typing on her device by monitoring the number of keystrokes
`
`per unit of time. See id. at 3:16-19, 12:30-35. For both types of handling rules, once the
`
`appropriate condition is satisfied, the corresponding action is performed, and the user is notified
`
`that the action occurred. See id. at 2:11-16.
`
`
`
`The instant message system may include a presence and awareness server to “support
`
`instant messaging within a collaborative environment.” See id. at 4:9-16. This server can notify a
`
`user’s designated contacts when that user is “present” in the instant message system and available
`
`for conversation. See id. at 4:21-34. The server can also “execute components directed towards
`
`other collaborative objectives such as on-line conferencing, paging, person locating and
`
`contacting, [and] calendaring.” See id. at 4:17-21.
`
`Claim 2 is dependent on Claim 1 and recites the following:
`
`
`
`
`2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one handling rule is
`autonomically generated based upon a dynamic evaluation of at least one of
`a user or a community of instant message users.
`
`Id. at 18:23-26. Claim 2 thus recites the limitation of autonomically generating a handling rule in
`
`response to instant message transactions within an instant messaging system. See id. The patent’s
`
`specification explains that the instant message server software “may comprise an adaptive and/or
`
`autonomic behavior manager for providing dynamic autonomic features for instant message
`
`enhancement.” Id. at 6:66-7:2. For example, the manager may detect that a user quickly closes
`
`instant message windows during certain hours of the day but responds to messages during other
`
`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 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`hours, and can build a rule predicated on designated time frames. See id. at 11:61-12:6.
`
`B. The ‘865 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`The ‘865 Patent, entitled “Multi-Modal Transcript Unification in a Collaborative
`
`Environment,” was issued on September 12, 2017, and claims methods and systems related to
`
`multi-modal instant messaging systems, where users can communicate via text and audio in a
`
`single chat session. See FAC at ¶¶ 31, 33, 36 (citing ‘865 Patent).
`
`
`
`The patent has 16 claims; Ginegar asserts Claims 1, 8, and 10 against Slack. See FAC at ¶
`
`76. The claims all relate to a single instant messaging session between two users that
`
`“automatically log[s] a unified chat transcript that contains both audio messages and text
`
`messages.” Id. at ¶¶ 40-42. Claim 1 is directed to a method for generating a transcript that
`
`contains both message types exchanged in a session; Claim 10 is directed to a computer program
`
`product that essentially performs the method in Claim 1. See ‘865 Patent at Claims 1, 10. Claim 8
`
`is directed to a system that contains an instant messenger which maintains the multi-modal session
`
`and records the corresponding multi-modal transcript. See id. at Claim 8.
`
`Claim 1 of the patent is an independent claim and recites the following:
`
`
`
`
`1. A method for generating a unified chat transcript for a multi-modal
`conversation in an instant messaging session, the method comprising:
`
`establishing a single instant messaging session between two conversants;
`
`receiving text messages as part of a conversation between the two
`conversants, through the single instant messaging session;
`
`embedding in the instant messaging session a voice message received from
`one of the two conversants;
`
`classifying each one of the embedded voice message and the received text
`messages by type, the type of message being one of a voice message and a
`text message;
`
`determining if the one of the voice and text messages is classified as a voice
`message; and,
`
`logging the classified voice and text messages in a single transcript of
`conversation between the two conversants occurring in the single instant
`messaging session in response to determining that the one of the received
`voice and text messages is classified as a voice message.
`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 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 5:24-44. Creation of the unified transcript is automatically initiated when, after text
`
`messages are exchanged, one of the two users participating in the session sends a voice message.
`
`See id. at 5:29-39. The patent’s specification explains that automatically logging the unified chat
`
`transcript cures a deficiency in prior instant message systems, which lacked the ability to log
`
`multi-modal communication in one conversation. See id. at 1:38-43.
`
`Claim 8 of the patent is an independent claim and recites the following:
`
`
`
`
`8. A collaborative computing data processing system comprising:
`
` a
`
` processor;
`
`
`an instant messenger configured to maintain a multi-modal instant
`messaging session between first and second conversants; and
`
`multi-modal transcript unification logic, executing on the processor and
`configured to
`
`establish a single instant messaging session between two conversants,
`
`receive text messages as part of a conversation between the two
`conversants, through the single instant messaging session,
`
`embed in the instant messaging session a voice message received from one
`of the two conversants,
`
`classify each one of the embedded voice message and the received text
`messages by type, the type of message being one of a voice message and a
`text message,
`
`determine if the one of the voice and text messages is classified as a voice
`message, and
`
`log the classified voice and text messages in a single transcript of
`conversation between the two conversants occurring in the single instant
`messaging session in response to determining that the one of the voice and
`text messages is classified as a voice message.
`
`
`Id. at 5:65-6:25. Claim 8 differs from the other two asserted claims in that it claims the elements
`
`of a processor, an instant messenger, and a multi-modal transcript unification logic. See id.
`
`Within this system, the processor executes the logic to effect the method claimed in Claim 1; the
`
`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 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`instant messenger maintains the instant message session where the method of creating a unified
`
`transcript occurs. See id. at 6:1-5. The specification explains that the multi-modal transcript logic
`
`can function in the instant message environment; it can include program code to allow, receive,
`
`and record voice and text messages exchanged between users. See id. at 2:31-37.
`
`Claim 10 of the patent is an independent claim and recites the following:
`
`
`
`
`10. A computer program product comprising a computer usable storage
`medium that is not a transitory signal per se, having computer usable
`program code stored thereon for generating a unified transcript for a multi-
`modal conversation, the computer usable program code, when executed on
`a computer hardware device, causing the computer hardware device to
`perform the operations of:
`
`establishing a single instant messaging session between two conversants;
`
`receiving text messages as part of a conversation between the two
`conversants, through the single instant messaging session;
`
`embedding in the instant messaging session a voice message received
`from one of the two conversants;
`
`classifying each one of the embedded voice message and the received text
`messages by type, the type of message being one of a voice message and a
`text message;
`
`determining if the one of the voice and text messages is classified as a voice
`message; and,
`
`logging the classified voice and text messages in a single transcript of
`conversation between the two conversants occurring in the single instant
`messaging session in response to determining that the one of the received
`voice and text messages is classified as a voice message.
`
`
`Id. at 6:29-55. Claim 10 differs from the other two asserted claims in that it claims the elements of
`
`a computer usable storage medium and program code. See id. In other words, Claim 10 claims
`
`software code that, when executed by a computer hardware device, allows the hardware to
`
`generate a unified chat transcript. See id. at 6:33-35, 50.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`On February 19, 2021, Ginegar filed a complaint in the District of Colorado alleging patent
`
`infringement by Slack. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint was later amended and the case transferred to
`
`6
`
`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 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 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
`
`this district on January 4, 2022. See Dkt. Nos. 27, 46. On January 18, 2022, Slack filed this
`
`motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 55.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a 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.” Bell
`
`Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). There
`
`must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 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 her allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in her favor. 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.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`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 LLC., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, “plausible factual
`
`allegations may preclude dismissing a case under § 101 where, for example, nothing on the record
`
`refutes those allegations as a matter of law or justifies dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Aatrix
`
`Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal
`
`citations and modifications omitted). As the Federal Circuit stated in Aatrix:
`
`
`[P]atentees who adequately allege their claims contain inventive concepts
`survive a § 101 eligibility analysis under Rule 12(b)(6). . . . While the
`ultimate determination of eligibility under § 101 is a question of law, like
`many legal questions, there can be subsidiary fact questions which must be
`resolved en route to the ultimate legal determination. . . . Whether the claim
`elements or the claimed combination are well-understood, routine,
`
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`conventional is a question of fact.
`
`882 F.3d at 1126-28.1
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`Slack argues that because the Patents are directed to ineligible concepts (in the form of
`
`abstract ideas) and do not recite inventive concepts, they are invalid. See Mot. to Dismiss
`
`(“MTD”) [Dkt. No. 55] 1:4-9. Ginegar responds that the Patents are not directed to abstract ideas
`
`and that even if they were, they are patentable subject matter because they recite improvements to
`
`instant messaging systems. See Oppo. at 4:16-19, 9:24-26, 14:15-19, 15:28-16:2. I will address
`
`each point in turn, as they relate to both patents and the claims at issue.
`
`I.
`
`PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
`
`An invention must be directed to one of four statutory categories of subject matter that can
`
`be patented, known as eligible subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, and
`
`compositions. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Even when directed to an eligible category, the invention must
`
`also qualify as patentable subject matter. There are three judicially created exceptions that are
`
`considered ineligible subject matter and therefore are not patentable: laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980). Abstract
`
`ideas include “mental processes” and “intellectual concepts,” and are not patentable subject matter
`
`“as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
`
`U.S. 63, 67 (1972). The reason for the exceptions is clear enough—“such discoveries are
`
`manifestations of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Chakrabarty, 447
`
`U.S. at 309 (internal citation omitted).
`
`Considering these exceptions, the Supreme Court devised a two-step test for determining
`
`whether a claim recites patentable subject matter: (1) whether the claim is directed to an ineligible
`
`concept; and (2) if so, whether the claim recites additional elements beyond the ineligible concept.
`
`
`1 Ginegar contends that “Slack must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that each asserted claim of the patents-
`in-suit is invalid as directed to an abstract idea.” Oppo. [Dkt. No. 60] 2:26-27. In support, it primarily relies upon
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which was decided a week before Aatrix. See id. at 2:5-25. It
`is worth noting that Berkheimer was appealed after summary judgment, not a motion to dismiss, as in Aatrix. See
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1362; see also Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1123. The Federal Circuit also made clear in Berkheimer
`that “[p]atent eligibility has in many cases been resolved on motions to dismiss” and that “[n]othing in this decision
`should be viewed as casting doubt on the propriety of those cases.” 881 F.3d at 1368.
`8
`
`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 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 9 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
`
`See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77-78 (2012). The test
`
`was further explained in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014),
`
`where the Court described the second part of the test as “a search for an ‘inventive concept’” that
`
`adds “significantly more” to the ineligible concept.
`
`
`
`The first step in evaluating whether claims are patent eligible is determining what type of
`
`matter they are directed to and whether it fits within one of the four statutorily provided
`
`categories. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 713–14 (Fed. Cir. 2014). If the
`
`claims recite categories of eligible subject matter, the court must then determine whether they
`
`claim patentable subject matter by employing the Mayo/Alice test. See id.
`
`II.
`
`THE ‘521 PATENT
`
`In the ‘521 Patent, Claim 2 is dependent on Claim 1; therefore, the analysis is similar for
`
`each claim. See ‘521 Patent at Claims 1, 2. Both are method claims that fall within a patent-
`
`eligible category under section 101. See 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) (defining “process” as “process, art or
`
`method”); ‘521 Patent at 18:2 (“A method of processing instant message transactions . . .”).
`
`However, under the Mayo/Alice framework, both are directed to abstract ideas, and neither applies
`
`an abstract idea such that it elevates the claim to more than a patent on the idea itself.
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Whether The Claims Are Directed To An Ineligible Concept
`
`At step 1 of the Mayo/Alice test, the court must “determine whether the claims at issue are
`
`directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Both the Supreme
`
`Court and the Federal Circuit instruct courts to “compare claims at issue to those claims already
`
`found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
`
`F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). “[T]he ‘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. at 1335 (internal citation and
`
`quotation marks omitted). For claims that are purportedly directed to improvements in computer
`
`capabilities, the inquiry asks whether “the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to
`
`computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its
`
`ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1336.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 Page 10 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
`
`Slack argues that the ‘521 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of evaluating and
`
`responding to a message based on its content or context—an activity it contends “humans have
`
`long been doing manually since the pre-computer world”—and does not disclose any
`
`improvements to computer or instant messaging technology. See MTD at 6:22-24, 10:22-23.
`
`Ginegar insists that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and instead claim a
`
`“novel method of processing instant messages in a way that enhances or extends the functionality
`
`of existing instant messaging systems.” See Oppo. at 4:16-19. It contends that the invention
`
`“enhance[s] an instant message system using a specific type of server to send a specific class of
`
`handling rules to an instant message client.” Id. at 10:28-11:4.
`
`
`
`“The analysis of the claims’ character must start with the content of the claims
`
`themselves.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 714. Claim 1 involves responding in certain ways to the
`
`receipt of instant messages, based on pre-established rules that are stored on a server.2 See ‘521
`
`Patent at 18:2-22. Similar claims have been found to be directed to an abstract idea. For example,
`
`in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the
`
`Federal Circuit held “that receiving e-mail (and other data file) identifiers, characterizing e-mail
`
`based on the identifiers, and communicating the characterization—in other words, filtering files/e-
`
`mail—is an abstract idea.” The court went on to explain that
`
`
`it was long-prevalent practice for people receiving paper mail to look at an
`envelope and discard certain letters, without opening them, from sources
`from which they did not wish to receive mail based on characteristics of the
`mail. The list of relevant characteristics could be kept in a person's head.
`Characterizing e-mail based on a known list of identifiers is no less abstract.
`The patent merely applies a well-known idea using generic computers to the
`particular technological environment of the internet.
`
` Id. at 1314 (citation omitted).
`
`In other words, when an invention merely replaces human activity with a computer, it is
`
`still directed to an abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the focus of the claims is not on . . . an improvement in computers as tools, but
`
`
`2 The parties disagree on whether the claims are directed to handling rules or to the instant messages themselves. See
`MTD at 7:17-18 (“what is being evaluated is the context or content of a message”); Oppo. at 8:5-6 (“Evaluating a
`message is not required in order to practice the claims.”). Either way, the analysis is the same.
`10
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 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
`
`on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools”). Claim 1 does just that.
`
`Using rules to sort instant messages is an abstract idea, akin to filtering emails, and is also an
`
`activity that can be completed by humans. And as in Symantec, a person could keep the list of
`
`handling rules in her head—applying an instant message server to this abstract idea does not make
`
`it patentable subject matter. See 838 F.3d at 1314.
`
`
`
`Ginegar’s arguments based on the claim language fail to land. The fact that “[h]andling
`
`rules are not necessarily tied to message content or characteristics” does not change the analysis.
`
`See Oppo. at 6:1-2. People can just as easily respond to mail based on context as on content. Nor
`
`would the invention’s use of a specific class of handling rules change the analysis.3 Further, the
`
`benefits that Ginegar describe, of avoiding distractions and setting user preferences, result from
`
`performing abstract ideas in an instant message environment. See FAC at ¶¶ 21-22; cf. BSG Tech
`
`LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“These benefits, however, are not
`
`improvements to database functionality. Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an
`
`abstract idea in conjunction with a well-known database structure.”). Considering the elements in
`
`combination likewise does not change the analysis—the “claim’s character as a whole” is still
`
`directed to the abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing that information according to
`
`a set of rules. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839
`
`F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims reciting a method of collecting a specific
`
`type of information, applying predetermined rules to analyze the data, and providing notification
`
`of the results of the analysis were directed to an abstract idea).
`
`
`
`Ginegar also argues that Claim 1 is directed to an improvement in instant message
`
`technology: “a method of enhancing an instant message system using a specific type of server to
`
`send a specific class of handling rules to an instant message client.” See Oppo. at 10:28-11:4.
`
`This argument is not compelling. To be sure, claims “purporting to improve the functioning of the
`
`
`3 Nothing in the claim language indicates that the handling rules are special rules, as Ginegar alleged at oral argument.
`See Tr. [Dkt. No. 66] 20:13-17. Even if they were, that alone would not elevate the claim to patentable subject matter.
`In Electric Power, the Federal Circuit explained that collecting information with particular content, “analyzing
`information by steps people go through in their minds,” without more, and “presenting the results of abstract processes
`of collecting and analyzing information,” also without more, were all abstract ideas. See 830 F.3d at 1353-54.
`Therefore, it is immaterial whether the claims analyze particular content or apply a particular type of rule.
`11
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22 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
`
`computer or improving an existing technological process might not succumb to the abstract idea
`
`exception.” Enfish, 882 F.3d at 1335 (internal modifications omitted). However, the claim
`
`language of the ‘521 Patent is not directed to a specific improvement to instant message
`
`technology.
`
`
`
`Ginegar contends that the ‘521 Patent contains an inventive concept because it recites a
`
`presence and awareness server that “provides publication and/or notification of presence
`
`information for each user” and “allows the handling rules to be utilized to actively, adaptively,
`
`and/or dynamically enhance the instant messaging environment.” Oppo. at 5:13-23 (citing ‘521
`
`Patent at 4:9-34, 5:23-30). While Claim 1 recites an “instant message server,” there is no
`
`language in the claim that further describes the server. See ‘521 Patent at 18:4-5. Ginegar points
`
`to the specification, contending that “the server is described as a ‘presence and awareness server.’”
`
`See Oppo. at 5:16-17 (citing ‘521 Patent at 4:9-34 (“the illustrated system includes a presence and
`
`awareness server”)). While the specification describes a presence and awareness server, but this is
`
`only one type of instant message server. See, e.g., ‘521 Patent at 4:9-16. This much is apparent
`
`from the written description. For example, when describing the embodiment in Figure 4, the
`
`specification explains that “[e]ach handling rule may be created, stored and evaluated locally
`
`and/or via a corresponding server such as the presence and awareness server . . . depending upon
`
`the specific implementation.” See id. at 8:30-33 (emphasis added); see also id. at 9:35-40 (“on an
`
`instant message application server such as the presence and awareness server.”).
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit has “repeatedly held that features that are not claimed are irrelevant as
`
`to step 1 or step 2 of the Mayo/Alice analysis.” Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`
`967 F.3d 1285, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
`
`759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]ny reliance on the specification in the § 101 analysis must always
`
`yield to the claim language . . . the specification cannot be used to import details from the
`
`specification if those details are not claimed.”). Similarly, disclosing an improvement in the
`
`specification not recited in the claims does not convert an otherwise ineligible claim into
`
`patentable subject matter. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369 (stating that when improvements are
`
`described in the specification, “to the extent they are captured in the claims . . . we must analyze
`
`12
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00044-WHO Document 71 Filed 06/08/22