throbber
Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 56 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket