`
`
`
`M. Elizabeth Day (SBN 177125)
`eday@feinday.com
`Marc Belloli (SBN 244290)
`mbelloli@feinday.com
`FEINBERG DAY KRAMER ALBERTI
`LIM TONKOVICH & BELLOLI LLP
`577 Airport Blvd., Suite 250
`Burlingame, CA. 94010
`Tel: 650 825-4300/Fax 650 460-8443
`
`Brian N. Platt (Admitted pro hac vice)
`bplatt@wnlaw.com
`Brent P. Lorimer (Admitted pro hac vice)
`blorimer@wnlaw.com
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`60 East South Temple Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`Tel: 801-533-9800/Fax 801-328-1707
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Triller, Inc.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK INC., and
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No: 4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`DISMISSING SECOND, THIRD, AND
`FOURTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF IN
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`Date: October 8, 2021
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Courtroom: 5
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`i
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .........................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Independent Claim 31 of the ’132 Patent ................................................................3
`
`Other Independent Claims .......................................................................................6
`
`Dependent Claims ....................................................................................................6
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Law of Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................8
`
`It Is Permissible to Address 35 U.S.C. § 101 Eligibility on the Pleadings ............10
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid on Their Face Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............10
`
`1.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to Organizing Human Activity in
`a Computerized Social Network, Which Is An Ineligible Abstract
`Idea .............................................................................................................10
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Cases Involving Claims Directed to a Social Network ..................11
`
`The Specification’s Claimed Advance Over the Prior Art ............13
`
`Analysis of Claims in This Case ....................................................14
`
`2.
`
`There Is Nothing in the Asserted Claims That Transforms Them Into
`“Significantly More” Than a Patent on an Abstract Idea ..........................17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Group One Claims .........................................................................18
`
`Group Two Claims .........................................................................19
`
`Group Three Claims .......................................................................19
`
`Group Four Claims ........................................................................21
`
`Group Five Claims .........................................................................22
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`ii
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`Group Six Claims ...........................................................................23
`
`Group Seven Claims ......................................................................24
`
`Summary and Final Analysis .........................................................24
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`iii
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................10
`
`Accusystems, Inc. v. Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.,
`580 F.Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ...........................................................................................22
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Ahmed v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia,
`2008 WL 11319709 (N.D. Ga. 2008) ......................................................................................23
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC,
`792 Fed. Appx. 780 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................19
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC,
`915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................9
`
`Baeco Plastics, Inc. v. Inacomp Financial Services, Inc.,
`1993 WL 410066 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ...........................................................................................22
`
`Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................2
`
`Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................18
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`EpicRealm Licensing LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc.,
`2006 WL 3099603 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .......................................................................................22
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`iv
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`GolfSwitch, Inc. v. Incuborn Solutions, Inc.,
`2008 WL 3069005 (D. Ariz. 2008) ..........................................................................................23
`
`Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co.,
`896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................10
`
`Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc.,
`738 F.Supp.2d 522 (D. Del. 2010) ...........................................................................................22
`
`Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star Int’l Co.,
`2016 WL 4205356 (C.D. Cal. 2016)........................................................................................22
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .........................................................................................................9, 18, 21
`
`Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6043929 (D. Del. 2020) ...........................................................................................18
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC,
`838 Fed. Appx. 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................8, 11
`
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,
`1998 WL 397915 (N.D. Cal. 1998) .........................................................................................22
`
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,
`214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................22
`
`In re Reiffin,
`199 Fed.Appx 965 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .........................................................................................22
`
`Salwan v. Iancu,
`825 Fed. Appx. 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................8, 12
`
`In re Salwan,
`681 Fed. Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................8, 12, 15, 21
`
`Search and Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`346 F.Supp.3d 626 (D. Del. 2018) ...........................................................................................12
`
`Silver State Intellectual Technologies v. Facebook Inc.,
`314 F.Supp.3d 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (White, J.) ...................................................................10
`
`Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`252 F.Supp.3d 17 (D. Mass. 2017) ..........................................................................................12
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................8, 11
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`v
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................9
`
`Triller, Inc. v. Bytedance Ltd. et al.,
`No. 6:20-cv-693 (W.D. Tex.).....................................................................................................1
`
`TS Patents LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 731 F. App’x 978 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) ..................................................................................................................................19, 22
`
`United States v. Brown,
`925 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1991) ...............................................................................................22
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,
`887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................10
`
`ZKey Investments, LLC v. Facebook Inc.,
`225 F.Supp.3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ...............................................................................12, 13
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .........................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) .....................................................................................................................1, 10
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).....................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`vi
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`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 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`Defendant Triller, Inc. (“Triller”) hereby moves for judgment on the pleadings under
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) dismissing the Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief set forth in the
`
`Second Amended Complaint. This motion is noticed to be heard on October 8, 2021 at 9:00am in
`
`Courtroom 5.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`Triller seeks judgment on the pleadings dismissing the Second, Third, and Fourth Claims
`
`for Relief because the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,648,132 (“the ’132 patent”), 9,992,322
`
`(“the ’322 patent”), and 9,294,430 (“the ’430 patent”) are invalid on their face for claiming subject
`
`matter that is not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`12
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`On October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Bytedance Inc. (“BDI”) and TikTok Inc. (“TTI”) filed a
`
`Complaint in this action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Triller’s U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,691,429 (“the ’429 patent”). (ECF No. 1.) On November 11, 2020, BDI, TTI, and
`
`TikTok Pte. Ltd. (“TTPL”) filed a First Amended Complaint that restyled the declaratory judgment
`
`claim from its Complaint as a First Claim for Relief. (ECF No. 9, pp. 9-10.) Triller moved to
`
`dismiss that claim under the first-to-file rule on January 8, 2021. (ECF No. 33.) On March 30,
`
`2021, the Court declined to dismiss the First Claim for Relief but did stay it until resolution of the
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) transfer issues raised in Triller, Inc. v. Bytedance Ltd. et al., No. 6:20-cv-693
`
`(W.D. Tex.). (ECF No. 44.) After the Western District of Texas transferred its case here, this Court
`
`stayed that case pending inter partes review proceedings, at the request of the parties. (N.D. Ca.
`
`4:21-CV-5300, ECF No. 94.) The parties have also agreed that litigation of the First Claim for
`
`Relief should be stayed. (ECF No. 48, pp. 1, 2; ECF No. 50, p. 1.)
`
`The First Amended Complaint also added a Second Claim for Relief, a Third Claim for
`
`Relief, and a Fourth Claim for Relief by TTPL and TTI against Triller for infringement of claim
`
`31 of the ’132 patent, claim 30 of the ’322 patent, and claim 28 of the ’430 patent, all allegedly
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`1
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`owned by TTPL and exclusively licensed to TTI. (ECF No. 9, pp. 11-16.) On these three claims
`
`for relief, Triller moved for judgment on the pleadings, on grounds that the asserted claims of the
`
`patents were invalid on their face because they are directed to subject matter that is not eligible for
`
`patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (ECF No. 46.) On March 30, 2021, the Court stayed resolution
`
`of the motion (and the rest of the case) until resolution of the transfer issues in the Western District
`
`of Texas case. (ECF No. 44.) After the Western District of Texas transferred its case here, Plaintiffs
`
`sought to preclude Triller from proceeding with the motion for judgment on the pleadings, but the
`
`Court denied that request and set a briefing schedule for the motion. (ECF No. 51.)
`
`In response to the motion, Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint; Triller stipulated to
`
`10
`
`that request, and the Court granted it. (ECF No. 53.) Therefore, Plaintiffs have now filed a Second
`
`11
`
`Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint adds additional
`
`12
`
`factual allegations and asserts infringement of additional claims of the ’132, ’322, and ’430 patents
`
`13
`
`in an attempt to avoid judgment on the pleadings. But nothing added to the Second Amended
`
`14
`
`Complaint changes the conclusion that the patents are invalid on their face under 35 U.S.C.
`
`15
`
`§ 101—this is true of both the originally asserted and newly asserted claims of those patents.
`
`16
`
`Therefore, Triller has filed this motion to seek judgment on the pleadings once again.
`
`17
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`18
`
`The three patents are all related to one another. The ’322 patent indicates that it is a
`
`19
`
`“continuation” of the ’132 patent, and the ’132 patent indicates that it is a “continuation” of the
`
`20
`
`’430 patent. (ECF No. 54-4, pp. 2-3, 77; ECF No. 54-3, pp 2-3, 77.) All three patents have the
`
`21
`
`same figures and the same written description. (Compare ECF No. 54-3 with ECF No. 54-4 and
`
`22
`
`with ECF No. 54-5.) See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 792 (Fed. Cir.
`
`23
`
`2019) (“The four patents at issue...are continuations of one another and thus share substantially
`
`24
`
`the same specification.”). The Second Amended Complaint alleges that Triller infringes the
`
`25
`
`following twenty claims of the three patents: independent claims 1 and 31 (and dependent claims
`
`26
`
`2, 3, 6, 22, 26, and 27) of the ’132 patent, independent claim 30 (and dependent claims 31, 32, 35,
`
`27
`
`51, 55, and 56) of the ’322 patent, and independent claims 1 and 28 (and dependent claims 19, 23,
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`2
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`24) of the ’430 patent. (ECF No. 54, pp. 21, 22-23, 24-25; ECF No. 54-6.) The Second Amended
`
`Complaint does not specifically identify any other claims that are alleged to be infringed. (Id.)
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 31 of the ’132 Patent
`
`Independent claim 31 of the ’132 patent appears to be the broadest claim of the asserted
`
`claims and reads as follows:
`
`
`31. Software application embodied on a non transitory storage medium,
`wherein the software application is executable on a portable wireless computing
`device, wherein the software application enables an end-user to interact with other
`users and (a) in which the software application allows the end-user to, over a
`wireless connection, create on a remote server one or more user accounts with
`associated profiles for that end-user; and (b) the software application allows the
`end-user to, over the wireless connection, view profiles created by other users of a
`service; and (c) the software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`connection, interact with other users of the service; and (d) the software application
`allows the end-user to, over the wireless connection, send and receive messages to
`and from other users of the service; and (e) the software application allows the end-
`user to, over the wireless connection, link his or her user account on the remote
`server to user accounts on the remote server of other users of the same service or of
`other services.
`
`15
`
`(ECF No. 54-3, p. 120.)
`
`16
`
`17
`
`The specification of the ’132 patent (and of each of the patents) illustrates the functionality
`
`described in this claim. For example, Figure 135 shows the user interface for a software application
`
`18
`
`running on a mobile telephone that allows an end-user to create a user account with an associated
`
`19
`
`profile, as recited in claim 31:
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`3
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`(ECF No. 54-3, pp. 64, 114 (76:18-32).) In this example, the user is creating a user profile with
`
`the profile name “Billy Pepper.” Once a user has created his profile, the software allows a user to
`
`see his “profile” on a “My Profile” screen:
`
`(ECF NO. 54-3, p. 64.) The profile includes the user’s member name (here, “Murdock”), an image
`
`unique to the user, a rating indicating how other users have rated the user (here, with five stars),
`
`the number of times other users have listened to one of the user’s shared music playlists (here, 0),
`
`the number of friends that the user has (here, 1), and a “catchphrase” (here, “I knew it, I knew
`
`it…you had a plan!”). (ECF No. 54-3, p. 114 (76:34-60).)
`
`The specification further illustrates how a user can view profiles created by other users, as
`
`recited in claim 31:
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`4
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(ECF No. 54-3, p. 66.) The specification explains that in the screens shown in Figure 141, a user
`
`can see a list of the users that the user has added as a friend, and in the screen shown in Figure
`
`142, the user can view the member profile of other users (here, another user named “DJ Coldplay”).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`(ECF No. 54-3, p. 115 (77:39-67).)
`
`11
`
`
`
`The specification also illustrates how a user can link his or her user account to user accounts
`
`12
`
`of other users (via friend requests), can interact with other users (by sharing recommendations
`
`13
`
`about music), and can send and receive messages to and from other users, as recited in claim 31.
`
`14
`
`This functionality is illustrated in the Figures 146 and 148:
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`(ECF No. 54-3, pp. 68, 69.) In Figure 146, the user is sending a friend request to a user named
`
`22
`
`“Matt,” and in Figure 148, the user is sending a recommendation about a music track to another
`
`23
`
`user. (ECF No. 54-3, p. 92 (32:26-33), p. 115 (78:12-20, 78:31-43, 78:62-67).) In both figures,
`
`24
`
`the user is also sending messages to other users. In Figure 146, the user is sending the message
`
`25
`
`“Billy is ready to rock!” and in Figure 148, the user is sending the message “U know I’m a bit…”
`
`26
`
`A friend request or a recommendation causes a message to arrive in the other user’s “inbox.” (ECF
`
`27
`
`No. 54-3, p. 115 (78:18-20, 78:66-67), p. 116 (79:1-80:14), pp. 70-71 (Figs. 149-154).)
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`5
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`B.
`
`Other Independent Claims
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’132 patent is substantially identical to claim 31 of the ’132
`
`patent except rather than covering a “software application” that “is executed on a portable wireless
`
`computing device,” it covers “[a] portable wireless device comprising a hardware processor
`
`programmed with” the “software application” recited in claim 31. (Compare ECF No. 54-3, 86:32-
`
`49 with ECF No. 54-3, 88:46-64.)
`
`Independent claim 30 of the ’322 patent is substantially identical to claim 31 of the ’132
`
`patent except that (1) it requires “a smartphone device” instead of “a portable wireless computing
`
`device” and (2) states that the profiles associated with the end-user must be “editable.” (ECF No.
`
`10
`
`54-4, p. 121; see ECF No. 54-4, p. 115 (77:36-44), p. 65 (Fig. 137) (describing editing of profile).)
`
`11
`
`Independent claim 28 of the ’430 patent is also substantially identical to independent claim
`
`12
`
`31 of the ’132 patent except that it requires “a wireless HTTP connection” rather than “a wireless
`
`13
`
`connection” and further requires that “the software application is a music application” that “uses
`
`14
`
`track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer and defines attributes of tracks, the
`
`15
`
`meta-data being external to a music track to make sharing and browsing of track information
`
`16
`
`possible without needing to distribute the related music track files.” (ECF No. 54-5, p. 120.)
`
`17
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’430 patent is substantially identical to claim 28 of the ’430
`
`18
`
`patent except rather than covering a “software application” that “is executable on a portable
`
`19
`
`wireless computing device,” it covers “[a] portable wireless device comprising…a hardware
`
`20
`
`processor programmed with” the “software application” recited in claim 28. (Compare ECF No.
`
`21
`
`54-5, 85:54-86:11 with ECF No. 54-5, 88:1-25.)
`
`22
`
`23
`
`C.
`
`Dependent Claims
`
`The dependent claims add additional requirements to the independent claims from which
`
`24
`
`they depend, as follows:
`
`25
`
` Claim 6 of the ’132 patent and claim 35 of the ’322 patent add the additional requirements
`
`26
`
`(as set forth in claim 28 of the ’430 patent) that “the software application is a music application”
`
`27
`
`that “uses track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer and defines attributes of
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`6
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`tracks, the meta-data being external to a music track to make sharing and browsing of track
`
`information possible without needing to distribute the related music track files.”
`
`Claim 2 of the ’132 patent and claim 31 of the ’322 patent add the requirement that “the
`
`software application uses a multitasking architecture to balance the computational demands of
`
`network access; and the computational demands of a user interface of the software application.”
`
`Claim 3 of the ’132 patent and claim 32 of the ’322 patent add the requirement that “the
`
`software application uses/using the multitasking architecture to balance the computational
`
`demands of one or both of: a DRM [digital rights management] program; media operations.”
`
`Claim 27 of the ’132 patent, claim 56 of the ’322 patent, and claim 24 of the ’430 patent
`
`10
`
`add the requirement that “the software application uses/using a multithreaded architecture to
`
`11
`
`balance the computational demands of network access; and the computational demands of one or
`
`12
`
`more of: a user interface of the software application/application; a DRM [digital rights
`
`13
`
`management] program; media operations.”
`
`14
`
`Claim 22 of the ’132 patent and claim 19 of the ’430 patent add the requirement that “the
`
`15
`
`service provides over a wireless connection, recommendations to the user of people, media content
`
`16
`
`or any other items which the user might like, based on the user’s viewing, listening and/or
`
`17
`
`purchasing history, on the viewing, listening and/or purchasing history of any other users or on
`
`18
`
`any other criteria.” Taking into account all of the optional language, this boils down to a
`
`19
`
`requirement that “the service provides over a wireless connection, recommendations to the user
`
`20
`
`of…any…items which the user might like, based on…any…criteria.” Claim 19 of the ’430 patent
`
`21
`
`adds the same requirement except that the service provides such recommendations “over a wireless
`
`22
`
`HTTP connection” instead of “a wireless connection.”
`
`23
`
`Claim 26 of the ’132 patent and claim 23 of the ’430 patent adds the requirement that “the
`
`24
`
`software application communicates with the remote server wirelessly via one or more of CSD,
`
`25
`
`GPRS, 2G, 2.5G, 3G, WAP, SMS, Bluetooth, Infrared, Wi-Fi, WiMAX, the Global Mobile
`
`26
`
`Network or via any other wireless communications technology.” Similarly, claim 55 of the ’322
`
`27
`
`patent adds the requirement that “the software application communicating with the remote server
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`7
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`wirelessly via one or more of CSD, GPRS, 2G, 2.5G, 3G, WAP, SMS, a wireless technology
`
`standard using radio waves in a band from 2.400 to 2.485 GHz, Infrared, a wireless technology
`
`standard using a 2.4 GHz band or a 5.8 GHz band, interoperable implementations of wireless-
`
`networks, the Global Mobile Network or via any other wireless communications technology.”
`
`Again, taking all of the optional language into account, this language boils down a requirement
`
`that “the software application communicates with the remote server wirelessly…via any…wireless
`
`communications technology.”
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Law of Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`10
`
`The type of subject matter eligible for patenting is limited to “any new and useful process,
`
`11
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”
`
`12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has taught that there are also three important judicially-
`
`13
`
`created limits that preclude additional areas of subject matter from being eligible for patenting:
`
`14
`
`“laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303,
`
`15
`
`309 (1980). This case involves the law that precludes the patenting of “abstract ideas.”
`
`16
`
`Abstract ideas include “method[s] of organizing human activity.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS
`
`17
`
`Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 220 (2014); In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d
`
`18
`
`607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have applied the ‘abstract idea’ exception to encompass
`
`19
`
`inventions pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.”); NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group,
`
`20
`
`LLC, 838 Fed. Appx. 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he claimed invention...is an abstract idea
`
`21
`
`‘pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.’”); In re Salwan, 681 Fed. Appx. 938, 941
`
`22
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding that the claims “describe[] little more than the automation of a
`
`23
`
`‘method of organizing human activity’ with respect to medical information.”); Salwan v. Iancu,
`
`24
`
`825 Fed. Appx. 862, 865 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (same).
`
`25
`
`In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Supreme Court established
`
`26
`
`a two-step framework to determine whether claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`
`27
`
`effectively claiming an abstract idea. First, a court must determine whether the claims at issue are
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`8
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“directed to” an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. This determination inquires as to the type of
`
`problem the alleged invention purports to solve and/or the type of field in which the alleged
`
`invention purports to provide an improvement, i.e., whether the alleged invention purports to solve
`
`a problem / provide an improvement in a technical field (such as computer functionality) or
`
`whether it purports to solve a problem / provide an improvement in a non-technical field (such as
`
`human activity). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e
`
`find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality
`
`versus being directed to an abstract idea...at the first step of the Alice analysis.”); Trading
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (assessing whether the
`
`10
`
`claims “improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve
`
`11
`
`any technological problem”); Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, 915
`
`12
`
`F.3d 743, 750 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“To determine whether a claim is directed to an ineligible concept,
`
`13
`
`we have frequently considered whether the claimed advance improves upon a technological
`
`14
`
`process or merely an ineligible concept....”); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838
`
`15
`
`F.3d 1253, 1257, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to
`
`16
`
`look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.”) (“[T]he patent in this case is not
`
`17
`
`directed to the solution of a ‘technological problem.’”); see