Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan J. Lamberson (CA SBN 239107)
`lamberson@fr.com
`Meghana RaoRane (CA SBN 253531)
`raorane@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Indranil Mukerji (pro hac vice pending)
`mukerji@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, SW. Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070; Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`Ricardo Bonilla (pro hac vice pending)
`rbonilla@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070; Fax: (214) 747-2091
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`HYPERMEDIA NAVIGATION LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00670-HSG
`
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION’S RULE 12 MOTION TO
`DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
`CLAIM
`
`June 28, 2018
`DATE:
`2:00 p.m.
`TIME:
`JUDGE: Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2018, or as soon thereafter as
`
`counsel may be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., located at the
`
`Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301
`
`Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94162, Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) will and hereby
`
`does move the Court to dismiss the Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint filed by
`
`Plaintiff Hypermedia Navigation LLC (“Hypermedia”). [D.I. 41, hereinafter the “Second
`
`Complaint.”] This motion is made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, Federal Rule of Civil Procedures
`
`10
`
`8 and 12, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`
`11
`
`544, 570 (2007). It is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the supporting
`
`12
`
`Memorandum, the other pleadings and materials already on file in this matter, and upon such
`
`13
`
`further argument and evidence as may be presented at the hearing of this motion.
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`Dated: March 29, 2018
`
`
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jonathan J. Lamberson
`
`
`Jonathan J. Lamberson (CA SBN 239107)
`lamberson@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`2
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ...................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`Iqbal / Twombly .................................................................................................... 9
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Hypermedia’s Complaint Because the
`Asserted Patents are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Alice Step 1: The Hypermedia claims are directed to the
`abstract idea of displaying requested content in a linear
`format. ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`Alice Step 2: The Hypermedia claims contain no inventive
`concept amounting to significantly more than the abstract
`idea. ......................................................................................................... 14
`
`The Court Can Utilize Representative Claims in its
`Section 101 Analysis ............................................................................... 16
`
`a.
`
`The Independent Claims All Recite the Same
`Abstract Idea of Linearly Displaying Content ............................ 16
`
`b.
`
`The dependent claims are also abstract. ...................................... 18
`
`4.
`
`No Fact Discovery is Necessary to Resolve Microsoft’s
`Motion ..................................................................................................... 19
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for Induced
`Infringement (Count XIII)................................................................................... 20
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims With Respect to
`Yahoo Search ...................................................................................................... 22
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`25
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2018) ............................................................. 20
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 23
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................................................................................................ passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48012 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2016) ............................................................ 9
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................. 2, 7, 9
`
`Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60211at (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) .......................................................... 9
`
`Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3779 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018) ............................................................. 20
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 8, 15
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................. 2, 7
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ........................................................................................................... 7, 8, 10
`
`BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.,
`498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 15, 19
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Communs. Int’l,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 23
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 2, 20, 21
`
`EMG Tech. LLC v. Etsy Inc.,
`No. 6:16-cv-484, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28593 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2017) .................. 12, 13, 19
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 13, 14, 21
`
`Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Harper v. City of Monterey,
`No. 11-CV-02903-LHK, 2012 WL 195040 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2012) ..................................... 24
`
`Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`Case 4:17-cv-03188-HSG (Filed Jan. 18, 2017) ........................................................................ 23
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................ 12, 15
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Lyda v. CBS Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 23, 24
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ....................................................................................................... 8, 9, 18
`
`iii
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`
`Morales v. Square, Inc.,
`75 F. Supp. 3d. 716 (W.D. Tex. 2014) ....................................................................................... 10
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cellular, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-152-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1065938 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2017) ............................... 16
`
`Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8790 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) ............................................................ 22
`
`Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`Superior Industries, LLC v. Thor Global Enterprises Ltd.,
`700 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 22
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 206) ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 7, 14, 20
`
`United States v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`212 F. Supp. 3d 887 (C.D. Cal. 2016).................................................................................. 12, 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ......................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ..................................................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Patent Act Section 271 ..................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) .................................................................. 1, 2, 7, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Hypermedia patents take an idea that would be immediately familiar to any person—
`
`the linear display of content—and apply it in a Web-based environment. This linear display of
`
`content is an abstract idea that is ineligible for patent protection. Displaying desired content in a
`
`linear format is not a technological improvement, an inventive way of applying conventional
`
`technology, or even new (as the specification acknowledges). For millennia, textbook authors
`
`have combed through large bodies of knowledge to select a smaller subset of information to
`
`display to a reader. Textbooks utilize a “linear” display format, where a reader can easily navigate
`
`forwards or backwards simply by flipping a page. The Hypermedia patents merely take this age-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`old concept and place it on the World Wide Web.
`
`11
`
`None of the claims recites any specific hardware or software. The claimed networks,
`
`12
`
`remote information nodes, and subscriber stations are all generic computer equipment behaving
`
`13
`
`conventionally. In fact, the selection of what content to display to the user can be done
`
`14
`
`automatically or manually—that is, the core of the purported invention (the creation of the linear
`
`15
`
`program) is not even limited to a technological solution. [See Dkt. 35, Ex. A (’323 Patent) at
`
`16
`
`8:27-31.] Hypermedia’s patents do no more than withdraw a basic idea (linear display of content)
`
`17
`
`from the public domain without disclosing anything beyond generic computer implementation of
`
`18
`
`that idea. Therefore, the patents-in-suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim
`
`19
`
`patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`20
`
`Resolving these issues does not require fact discovery or formal claim construction. To
`
`21
`
`avoid waste of judicial and party resources unnecessarily litigating invalid patents, Microsoft thus
`
`22
`
`requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
`
`23
`
`Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`24
`
`In the event that the Court does not dismiss Hypermedia’s Second Complaint under
`
`25
`
`Section 101, Microsoft alternatively asks the Court to dismiss two specific allegations from that
`
`26
`
`complaint: Hypermedia’s allegation that Microsoft induces the infringement of end users, and its
`
`27
`
`allegation that Microsoft is purportedly liable for interfaces of third-party Yahoo.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`With respect to induced infringement, Hypermedia has alleged that Microsoft induces end
`
`users of the Bing search engine to perform various claimed method steps. For this allegation to be
`
`well pled, Hypermedia must allege that Microsoft end users carry out the claimed method steps.
`
`Hypermedia has not done so. Instead, Hypermedia has pled that Microsoft itself performs the
`
`claimed steps (including “receiving a request from the subscriber station,” “selecting a plurality of
`
`video media elements for presentation to the subscriber station,” and “transmitting the file to the
`
`subscriber station”). Because Hypermedia has not pled a valid claim for induced infringement, the
`
`Court should dismiss this allegation.
`
`With respect to the “Yahoo Search” and “Yahoo Video Search” accused instrumentalities,
`
`10
`
`Hypermedia has not pled facts sufficient to demonstrate why Microsoft (and not Yahoo) should be
`
`11
`
`held responsible for the operation of these websites. There is no dispute that Microsoft and Yahoo
`
`12
`
`are separate legal entities, and Hypermedia previously sued Yahoo individually for the very same
`
`13
`
`products it now raises in this litigation. To the extent Hypermedia is attempting to plead a “joint”
`
`14
`
`or “divided” theory of infringement, it has not pled all the required elements, and so its claim
`
`15
`
`should be dismissed.
`
`16
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Abstract ideas are ineligible for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, absent an
`
`inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The patents-in-suit are
`
`directed to the abstract idea of displaying requested content in a linear format. The patents-in-suit
`
`do not include a purportedly inventive concept beyond that idea. Thus the first issue presented is
`
`whether the Court should dismiss Hypermedia’s Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint
`
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
`
`2.
`
`In order to state a claim for induced infringement, Hypermedia must allege facts
`
`demonstrating that Microsoft knew of the asserted patents, and that it “actively and knowingly
`
`aided and abetted another’s direct infringement.” DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293,
`
`1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (emphasis added). Here, Hypermedia alleges that Microsoft
`
`induces its end users to infringe, but Hypermedia pled no facts explaining how end users even
`
`2
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`
`allegedly carry out the claimed method steps—indeed, to the contrary, it affirmatively pled that
`
`Microsoft, not end users, perform the claimed steps. Thus the second issue presented is whether
`
`the Court should dismiss Hypermedia’s Claim for Induced Infringement (Count XIII) for failure to
`
`state a claim.
`
`3.
`
`In its Second Complaint, Hypermedia identifies as accused products “Yahoo
`
`Search powered by Bing and Yahoo Video Search powered by Bing.” [See Second Complaint,
`
`¶ 32 (defining “Accused Instrumentalities”).] Hypermedia, however, previously accused Yahoo
`
`alone of infringing with respect to these instrumentalities. To the extent Hypermedia is now
`
`alleging a “joint” or “divided” theory of infringement, it has not pled any of the required elements
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`for such a theory. Thus the third issue presented is whether the Court should dismiss
`
`11
`
`Hypermedia’s infringement allegations with respect to “Yahoo Search powered by Bing” and
`
`12
`
`“Yahoo Video Search powered by Bing” for failure to state a claim.
`
`13
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff Hypermedia Navigation LLC (“Hypermedia”) filed a
`
`lawsuit against Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,383,323 (“the ‘323 Patent”), 7,383,324 (“the ‘324 Patent”), 7,424,523 (“the ‘523 Patent”),
`
`7,478,144 (“the ‘144 Patent”), 7,769,830 (“the ‘830 Patent”), 8,250,173 (“the ’173 Patent”),
`
`9,083,672 (“the ‘672 Patent”), 8,250,170 (“the ‘170 Patent”), and 7,216,155 (“the ‘155 Patent”).
`
`[See Dkt. No. 1.]
`
`Before Microsoft answered, on November 22, 2017, Hypermedia amended its complaint to
`
`add U.S. Patent No. 9,772,814 (“the ‘814 Patent”), which issued shortly after Hypermedia filed its
`
`original complaint. [See Dkt. No. 16.]
`
`On December 6, 2017, Microsoft filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for
`
`improper venue and for failure to state a claim. [D.I. 17 & 18.] Before Hypermedia responded to
`
`Microsoft’s motions, it voluntarily agreed to transfer venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`[D.I. 24.] The Court in Texas granted the transfer request on January 9, 2018. [D.I. 26.]
`
`3
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`On March 9, 2018, Hypermedia filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a second
`
`amended and supplemental complaint. [D.I. 34.] The Court granted that motion on March 16,
`
`2018 [D.I. 39], and Hypermedia filed its Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint (the
`
`“Second Complaint”) that same day. [D.I. 41.] The Second Complaint added yet another newly
`
`issued patent from the same family: U.S. Pat. No. 9,864,575 (“the ‘575 Patent”). Microsoft now
`
`moves to dismiss the Second Complaint.
`
`In its Second Complaint, Hypermedia accuses Microsoft of infringing claims 10-12, 17,
`
`and 28-30 of the ’323 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ’324 patent; claims 6, 7, 11, and 12 of the
`
`’523 patent; claims 40, 44, 45, 47, and 49 of the ’144 patent; claims 1-5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 24
`
`10
`
`of the ’830 patent; claims 1-9, 11, 15, 16, 20, and 24 of the ’173 patent; claims 14, 15, 18, and 19
`
`11
`
`of the ’672 patent; claims 14 and 16 of the ‘170 patent; claim 1 of the ‘155 patent; claims 14-18
`
`12
`
`and 20 of the ’814 Patent; and claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-17 and 20 of the ‘575 patent. [See id. at
`
`13
`
`¶¶ 32, 42, 49, 56, 64, 78, 94, 101, 106, 110, & 119.]
`
`14
`
`All patents asserted in this case are entitled, “System and Method for Creating and
`
`15
`
`Navigating a Linear Hypermedia Resource Program,” and their specifications are nearly identical.
`
`16
`
`The patents are directed to systems and methods that purportedly “address[] the need for creating
`
`17
`
`and navigating entertaining Web programs that filter unwanted information and present desired
`
`18
`
`information in a series of linearly linked websites.” [’323 Patent at 2:34-37.] The purported
`
`19
`
`inventions provide a user with a first site and then, based on selections by the user, guide the user
`
`20
`
`to successive sites displaying the content the user selected to view. [See id. at 2:37-44.] The steps
`
`21
`
`are encapsulated in the following flowchart:
`
`22
`
`/ / /
`
`23
`
`/ / /
`
`24
`
`/ / /
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`4
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`[Id. at Fig. 5.] As the user selects media to view, the purported invention downloads and displays
`
`14
`
`the selected content in a succession of displays. [See id.]
`
`15
`
`Hypermedia’s Second Complaint identifies method and systems claims that it asserts from
`
`16
`
`the patents-in-suit. As discussed below, Claim 10 of the ’323 Patent is representative of the
`
`17
`
`method claims:
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`10. A method for presenting video media elements to a subscriber station, the
`method comprising:
`
`receiving a request from the subscriber station to present at least one video media
`element to the subscriber station;
`
`selecting a plurality of video media elements for presentation to the subscriber
`station, the plurality of video elements including a first video media element
`and a plurality of second video media elements;
`
`creating a file for use by the subscriber station to create a user interface that
`includes:
`
`a viewing area in which the first video media element is presented; and
`
`a map area having a plurality of icons, each icon representative of a corresponding
`one of the plurality of second video media elements, the plurality of icons
`available for selection to access corresponding video media elements; and
`
`transmitting the file to the subscriber station.
`
`5
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`
`[Id. at Claim 10.] Claim 14 of the ’170 Patent is representative of the asserted system claims,
`
`which are directed to computer-readable media:
`
`14. A computer readable medium comprising a plurality of computer executable
`instructions that, upon execution by at least one digital computer, cause the
`at least one digital computer to create a linear Web tour, the plurality of
`computer executable instructions comprising instructions for:
`
`providing a hypermedia resource program of products:
`
`providing a segment of the hypermedia resource program for display in a map area
`of a user interface and a corresponding image for display in a display area
`of the user interface;
`
`receiving a selection of a media element displayed in the segment of the
`hypermedia resource program to produce a selected media element; and
`
`providing another segment of the hypermedia resource program for display in the
`map area based on the selected media element and a selected media element
`image for display in the display area.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`[’170 Patent at Claim 14.] These representative claims show that the system claims are drafted as
`
`13
`
`corollaries of the method claims.
`
`14
`
`The problem identified by the patents-in-suit is not a technical one. The applicants
`
`15
`
`described the problem as “a need for creating entertaining Web programs that appeal to a wide
`
`16
`
`cross section of potential viewers.” [’323 Patent at 1:49-51.] The purported solution is to “filter
`
`17
`
`out unwanted information and present desired information in a series of linearly linked websites.”
`
`18
`
`[Id. at 2:35-37.] For example, “a user starts with the first site and in a guided tour fashion, when
`
`19
`
`finished, is directed exclusively to the second site. When done with the second site, the user is
`
`20
`
`directed exclusively to the next site, etc.” [Id. at 2:37-41.]
`
`21
`
`The various components of the claimed solution are generic. The network, for example,
`
`22
`
`“may be the Web where the information nodes and common remote information node . . . are
`
`23
`
`servers, memory devices, personal computers, or the like that are capable of storing, processing,
`
`24
`
`and exchanging data with other information nodes.” [Id. at 2:55-59.] The claimed subscriber
`
`25
`
`station is similarly generic, as it “may be a personal computer or other device having capability of
`
`26
`
`communicating with the common remote information node 16 and presenting audio, video, or
`
`27
`
`tactile information received from the common remote information node 16.” [Id. at 2:59-63.] The
`
`28
`
`
`
`6
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`
`purported point of novelty of the claimed invention—the selection of media elements responsive
`
`to the user’s request that comprises the elements to be linearly presented to the user—may be
`
`performed automatically or manually: “[T]he step of evaluating the media elements may be done
`
`with an intelligent agent such as a search engine with artificial intelligence capabilities, or may be
`
`done manually by personnel at the Internet service provider.” [Id. at 8:27-31.]
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint
`
`that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
`
`complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
`
`plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts consider the
`
`pleadings, any documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint, and matters subject to
`
`judicial notice. See United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 907 (9th Cir. 2003). Although factual
`
`allegations are taken as true, legal conclusions are given no deference—those matters are left for
`
`the court to decide. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “[W]hen the allegations in a complaint, however
`
`true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency should be exposed at the
`
`point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court.” Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. at 558. “Although a district court should grant the plaintiff leave to amend if the complaint
`
`can possibly be cured by additional factual allegations, dismissal without leave to amend is proper
`
`if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729
`
`F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013).
`
`B.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal issue. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
`
`593, 602 (2010). Accordingly, the Section 101 inquiry is properly raised at the pleadings stage if
`
`it is apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to eligible subject
`
`matter. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718-19 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J.,
`
`7
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`Case No. 4:17-cv-03188-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-00670-HSG Document 48 Filed 03/29/18 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`
`concurring). In those situations, claim construction is not required to conduct a § 101 analysis.
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e
`
`perceive no flaw in the notion that claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
`
`determination under § 101.”)
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act sets forth four categories of patentable subject matter: “any
`
`new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Also, the law recognizes three exceptions to patent eligibility: “laws of nature, physical
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980) (emphasis
`
`added). Abstract ideas are ineligible for patent protec