Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 361
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-01356-EJD
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 85
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-01358-EJD
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 78
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS
`
`Plaintiff PersonalWeb Technologies LLC owns a family of patents that claim methods for
`
`reliably identifying, locating, and processing data in a computer network. Plaintiff alleges that
`Defendants infringed three of these patents. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s patents are invalid
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court finds this motion suitable for consideration without oral
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`EMC CORPORATION, et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`argument. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the Parties’ papers, the Court
`GRANTS Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
`I.
`BACKGROUND
`A. Factual Background
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants (collectively or separately) infringed U.S. Patent No. (“the
`
`’310 patent”), No. 6,415,280 (“the ’280 patent”), and No. 7,949,662 (“the ’662 patent”). The three
`patents at issue are part of a larger family of patents that Plaintiff calls the “True Name” patents.
`The patents are aimed at combatting the problems of data storage on larger networks. As
`computer networking and storage systems evolve, files can be divided and stored across different
`devices in dispersed locations. This created problems—different users can unknowingly give
`identical names to identical files. The inventors of the “True Name” patents patented a solution;
`they developed a system that replaces conventional file names with unique content-based
`identifiers. This is done by applying a “hash function” (a mathematical algorithm) to the data in
`each file. For instance, as described in the ’310 patent, an item’s unique content creates a unique
`identifier. A myriad of data items can be used to create the unique identifier, which ensures
`duplicate copies are not created. See, e.g., ’310 patent, (2:18–21) (“[A] data item may be the
`contents of a file, a portion of a file, a page in memory, an object in an object-oriented program, a
`digital message, a digital scanned image, a part of a video or audio signal, or any other entity
`which can be represented by a sequence of bits.”). The three patents acknowledge that the “True
`Name,” i.e. the assigned identifier, is intended for use with “existing” operating systems and
`“standard” data-management processes. Id. (6:26).
`The ’310 Patent. The ’310 patent explains a method and apparatus for creating a unique
`
`data-identifier for each file based on the content of the data item. The identifier is independent of
`the data item’s user-defined name/location, which helps ensure duplicate copies are not created.
`The identifier for a particular data item is created by applying a cryptographic hash function to the
`data claim. The output of the hash function is the content-based identifier or “True Name,” which
`is “virtually guaranteed” to be unique to the data item. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 2
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`917 F.3d 1376, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The system uses the content-based identifier to
`determine whether a particular data item is present on the system. And, when the data item’s
`contents are changed, the content-based identifier is also changed. The identifiers are then used to
`determine if access to a data item is licensed or authorized. See, e.g., ’310 patent (claims 24, 81,
`86).
`Five claims of the ’310 patent are at issue. Plaintiff contends Defendant EMC/VMware
`
`infringed claims 24 and 31 of the patent. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Google/YouTube,
`Facebook, and EMC/VMware infringed claims 81, 82, and 86 of the patent. The relevant claims
`of the ’310 patent are as follows:
`
`24. A computer-implemented method implemented at least in part by hardware comprising
`one or more processors, the method comprising:
`
`(a) using a processor, receiving at a first computer from a second computer, a request
`regarding a particular data item, said request including at least a content-dependent name
`for the particular data item, the content-dependent name being based, at least in part, on at
`least a function of the data in the particular data item, wherein the data used by the function
`to determine the content-dependent name comprises at least some of the contents of the
`particular data item, wherein the function that was used comprises a message digest
`function or a hash function, and wherein two identical data items will have the same
`content-dependent name; and
`
`(b) in response to said request:
`(i) causing the content-dependent name of the particular data item to be compared
`to a plurality of values;
`
`(ii) hardware in combination with software determining whether or not access to
`the particular data item is unauthorized based on whether the content-dependent
`name of the particular data item corresponds to at least one of said plurality of
`values, and
`
`(iii) based on said determining in step (ii), not allowing the particular data item to
`be provided to or accessed by the second computer if it is determined that access to
`the particular data item is not authorized.
`31. The method of claim 211 wherein, for each particular data item of the plurality of data
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Claim 21 claims:
` computer-implemented method implemented at least in part by hardware comprising one or
`more processors, the method comprising:
`
`(a) obtaining a list of content-dependent names, one for each of a plurality of data items, wherein,
`for each particular data item of the plurality of data items, the corresponding content-dependent
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 3
`
` A
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`items, the corresponding content-dependent name for that particular data item was based
`on a function of all of the contents of that particular data item.
`
`81. A device operable in a network of computers, the device comprising hardware
`including at least one processor and memory, to:
`
`(a) receive, at said device, from another device in the network, a content-based identifier
`for a particular sequence of bits, the content-based identifier being based at least in part on
`a function of at least some of the particular sequence of bits, wherein the function
`comprises a message digest function or a hash function, and wherein two identical
`sequences of bits will have the same content-based identifier, and to
`
`(b) compare the content-based identifier of the particular sequence of bits to a plurality of
`values; and to
`
`(c) selectively allow said particular sequence of bits to be provided to or accessed by other
`devices depending on whether or not said content-dependent identifier corresponds to one
`of the plurality of values.
`
`82. The device of claim 81 wherein the particular sequence of bits represent data selected
`from the group comprising: a file, a portion of a file, a page in memory, a digital message,
`a portion of a digital message, a digital image, a portion of a digital image, a video signal,
`a portion of a video signal, an audio signal, a portion of an audio signal, a Software
`product, and a portion of a software product.
`
`86. A device operable in a network of computers, the device comprising hardware,
`including at least one processor and memory, to:
`
`(a) receive at said device, from another device in the network, a digital identifier for a
`particular sequence of bits, the digital identifier being based, at least in part, on a given
`function of at least some of the bits in the particular sequence of bits, wherein the given
`function comprises a message digest function or a hash function, and wherein two identical
`sequences of bits will have the same digital identifier; and
`
`(b) selectively allow the particular sequence of bits to be provided to or accessed by other
`devices in the system, based at least in part on whether or not the digital identifier for the
`particular sequence of bits corresponds to a value in a plurality of values, each of the
`
`
`name for that particular data item is based at least in part on a function of at least Some of the
`contents of the particular data item, wherein the function comprises a message digest function or a
`hash function, and wherein two identical data items have the same content-dependent name on the
`list of content dependent names;
`
`(b) receiving at a first location, and from a second location distinct from said first location, a
`content-dependent identifier corresponding to a particular data item, said content-dependent
`identifier being based at least in part on at least some of the contents of the particular data item;
`
`(c) at said first location, by a processor, in combination with software, determining, based at least
`in part on said content-dependent identifier for said particular data item, and using said list of
`content-dependent names, whether a requestor may access the particular data item; and
`
`(d) based on said determining in (c), if it is determined that the requestor may not access the
`particular data item, causing access to the particular data item to be denied.
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`plurality of values being based, at least in part, on the given function of at least some of the
`bits in a corresponding sequence of bits.
`The ’280 Patent. The ’280 patent addresses a method of identifying and requesting data
`
`in a network using content-based identifiers. Specifically, it covers a situation where data items
`are distributed across a network of servers and some of the data items are cached (stored) versions
`from a source server. The content delivery network (“CDN”) determines a “True Name,” i.e. a
`content-dependent identifier, for a particular data item (as in the ’310 patent). In response to a
`request for a particular data item, the CDN provides the particular data item from one of the
`servers in the network of servers.
`
`Four claims of the ’280 patent are at issue. Plaintiff contends Defendants Facebook,
`Google, and YouTube infringed claims 15 and 16. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Facebook infringed
`claims 31 and 31. The relevant claims of the ’280 patent are as follows:
`
`15. A method as in claim 102 further comprising:
`
`resolving the request for the particular data file based on a measure of availability of at
`least one of the servers.
`
`16. A method as in claim 15 wherein the measure of availability is based on one or more
`of:
`
`(a) a measurement of bandwidth to the Server;
`
`(b) a measurement of a cost of a connection to the server, and
`
`(c) a measurement of a reliability of a connection to the SCWC.
`
`31. A content delivery method, comprising:
`
`
`
`
`2 Claim 10 claims:
` content delivery method, comprising:
`
`distributing a set of data files across a network of servers;
`
`determining a data identifier for a particular data file, the data identifier being determined using a
`given function of the data, wherein said data used by the given function to determine the data
`identifier comprises the contents of the particular data file; and
`
`in response to a request for the particular data file, the request including at least the data identifier
`of the particular data file, providing the particular data file from a given one of the servers of the
`network of servers, said providing being based on the data identifier of the particular data file.
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 5
`
` A
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`distributing a set of data files across a network of servers,
`
`determining an MD5 hash of the contents of a particular data file; and
`
`in response to a request for the particular data file, the request including at least the MD5
`hash of the particular data file, providing the particular data file from a given one of the
`Servers of the network of Servers, Said providing being based on the MD5 hash of the
`particular data file.
`
`32. A method as in claim 31 further comprising: resolving the request for the particular
`data file based on a measure of availability of at least one of the servers.
`The ’662 Patent. The ’662 patent addresses the de-duplication of data in a data-
`
`processing system. The invention describes systems and methods for deleting a particular copy of
`a data item when at least one other copy of the copy of the data item is available. The presence of
`another copy of the data item is determined based on a content-dependent identifier for the data
`item, which is calculated using the methods described in the ’310 and ’280 patents. A duplicate
`copy may be deleted if it is determined another copy exists elsewhere on another processor in the
`system. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Google/YouTube infringed claim 33 of the ’662 patent.
`The relevant claim is:
`
`
`
`33. A file system comprising:
`
`(i) a plurality of servers to store file data as segments; and
`
`(ii) first data that includes file identifiers for files for which the file data are stored as
`segments; and
`
`(iii) second data that maps the file identifiers to the segments to which the file identifiers
`correspond; and
`
`(iv) location data that identifies which of the plurality of servers stores which of the
`segments; and
`
`(v) a table including file identifiers for files in the file system, said table including a
`corresponding status for at least some of the files in the file system,
`
`(vi) at least one computer comprising hardware in combi nation with software and
`connected to the plurality of servers, the at least one computer programmed:
`
`(A) to receive a request to delete a particular data item in the file system;
`
`(B) to ascertain, in response to said request, a digital data item identifier corresponding
`to said particular data item, said particular data item consisting of an arbitrary sequence
`of bits consisting of a sequence of non-overlapping segments, each of said segments in
`said sequence being stored on multiple servers of the plurality of servers in the file
`system, said digital data item identifier being based at least in part on a given function
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`of the data comprising the particular data item, said given function comprising a hash
`function;
`
`(C) to update an entry in said table corresponding to said particular data item to reflect
`deletion of said particular data item in the file system, said entry including at least said
`digital data item identifier of said particular data item.
`B. Procedural History
`In late 2013, after Plaintiff filed actions against Defendants in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, Judge Davis issued a claim construction order. Dkt. 178 (5:13-cv-01317-EJD). In the
`order, Judge Davis construed terms in the claims at issue as follows:
`1. Data items: “sequence of bits”
`2. Data files: “a named data item(s)”
`3. Substantially unique identifier, Data identifier, True Name, Digital identifier, Data item
`identifier: “an identity for a data item generated by processing all of the data in the data
`item, and only the data in the data item, through an algorithm that makes the identifier
`substantially unique”
`Id. at 47.
`The cases were subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California. Before
`transfer, EMC and VMware filed a series of petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of the ’280 and ’662 patents.
`The IPRs also challenged the validity of the ’791, ’539, ’544, and ’096 patents, which are relevant
`to this case because these patents have identical specifications and priority dates to the three True
`Name patents at issue. The PTAB found in six separate decisions that it was known in the prior
`art to use content-based identifiers, based on “hashes” of data items, for the kinds of data-
`management tasks that Plaintiff claims. The PTAB determined many claims in the “True Name”
`patents were not novel and were thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The PTAB determined:
`
`1. Claims 1–4, 29–33, and 41 of the ’791 patent were invalid because the prior art
`(Woodhill’s backup procedures) already disclosed a method for detecting and avoiding
`duplicate binary object identifiers. See Declaration of Marissa A. Lalli in Support of
`Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Lalli Decl.”), Ex. A at 39. The
`PTAB thus invalidated the claims in the’791 patent that patented a method of using
`content-based identifiers to identify and access data items because Woodhill already
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`outlined a method of using a binary hash3 algorithm to calculate a binary object identifier
`from the “content of the data” instead of “from an external or arbitrary source.” Id. at 15.
`Like Plaintiff’s claimed method, the identifier “changes when the contents of the binary
`object changes.” Id. at 16.
`
`2. Claims 36 and 38 of the ’280 patent were invalid because the prior art (Woodhill’s self-
`auditing procedure) disclosed a method of using content-based identifiers to identify and
`request a data item based on the “hash of contents” of the data item. Id., Ex. B at 17. As
`noted by Defendants’ expert, Dr. Clark, such an “operation was routine because it was old
`and well-known to identify and request objects using their identifiers.” Id.
`
`3. Claim 30 of the ’662 patent was invalid because the prior art (Kantor’s method of
`identifying duplicate files) disclosed a method of using content-based identifiers, based on
`hash functions, to identify duplicate files. Id., Ex. C at 9, 11, 15.
`
`4. Claims 10 and 21 of the ’539 patent were invalid because prior art (Langer) already
`disclosed a method of accessing files in a network of computers. Id., Ex. D at 20. Langer
`already disclosed a method of calculating a unique identifier for a file using an MD5 hash
`function on the contents of the component file, rather than the file’s location. Id.
`
`5. Claim 1 of the ’544 patent was invalid because prior art (Woodhill) already disclosed a
`system for distributed storage management on a computer network system using binary
`object identifiers. Id., Ex. E at 14. Claim 1 was invalid because it claimed a method of
`using content-based identifiers to compare files, which was already anticipated by
`Woodhill. Id. at 22.
`The Federal Circuit affirmed these PTAB decisions. Id., Ex. G. Accordingly, there is no
`
`dispute that it was known in the art to use content-based identifiers, based on “hashes” of data
`items, for data-management in multi-server computer networks.
`
`Apple (who is not a Defendant in this action) filed a separate IPR challenging the ’310
`patent. The PTAB held the asserted claims unpatentable as not novel. The Federal Circuit,
`however, reversed the PTAB’s findings and accepted Plaintiff’s argument that the prior art (the
`Woodhill system) did not inherently disclose comparing one content-based identifier with a
`plurality of identifiers. PersonalWeb, 917 F.3d at 1382–83. Rather, the prior art only disclosed a
`one-to-one comparison. Id. at 1382. Thus, Plaintiff could claim a method of comparing one
`content-based identifier with multiple identifiers without violating 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`
`3 The True Name patents use the terms “hash” and “message digest” interchangeably. ’310
`(40:12). “Message digest” functions (like MD5) are a type of hash function. 12:43–46).
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`While the Federal Circuit held that the claims in the ’310 patent were novel, the court
`
`acknowledged that many claims in Plaintiff’s True Name patents were invalid since the prior art
`disclosed a system for (1) using content-based identifiers, (2) calculated using the contents of a
`data item,4 (3) which are stored with certain other information, in a binary object identification
`record, (4) to perform file-management functions, like backing-up files or restoring systems, (5)
`which check to see if binary objects have changed since the system’s most recent backup, and (6)
`control access to data items stored in a repository by granting authorization to digital works via a
`“digital ticket” that identifies whether a user is entitled access to a file. PersonalWeb Techs. v.
`Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Defendants now argue that the asserted claims of the ’310, ’280, and ’662 “True Name”
`patents are abstract and not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendants’
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Mot.”), Dkt. 361; see also Reply in Support of
`Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Reply”), Dkt. 364. Plaintiff argues in
`opposition that the asserted claims are not abstract and are protected under Section 101. Plaintiff’s
`Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Opp.”), Dkt. 362. Because
`Section 101 challenges are not available in IPRs, the True Patents’ eligibility on this ground has
`not yet been decided. Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Co., 921 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`2019); 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (stating that in an IPR, a petitioner is limited to grounds that “could be
`raised under section 102 or 103”). The Court now decides whether the asserted claims are
`protected by Section 101.
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is a
`
`“means to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint after an answer has been filed.” New.Net,
`
`
`4 Dr. Clark explained that content-based identifiers are created by “hashing” the contents of a data
`item so that identical items have the same identifier. Dr. Robert Dewar conceded in his deposition
`that this concept was disclosed in the prior art that was the focus of the IPRs. Declaration of
`Marissa A. Lalli in Support of Reply (“Lalli Reply Decl.”), Ex. H at 136.
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 9
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1115 (C.D. Cal.2004). The standard is functionally
`identical to a motion to dismiss. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th
`Cir. 1989). On a Rule 12(c) motion, disputed material facts preclude judgment. Hal Roach
`Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.1990) (“Judgment on
`the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that
`no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`law.”). In deciding such a motion, the Court may consider the pleadings, documents incorporated
`by reference in the pleadings, and matters of judicial notice. Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor
`Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When considering a motion for judgment on the
`pleadings, this court may consider facts that ‘are contained in materials of which the court may
`take judicial notice.’” (citation omitted)).5
`B. Conversion
`Plaintiff argues the Court should convert Defendants’ motion for judgment on the
`
`pleadings into one for summary judgment. This would allow the Court to consider the
`concurrently filed Declaration of Dr. Samuel Russ, Ph.D. Defendants object and argue, in the
`alternative, that if the Court converts the motion into one for summary judgment, it should defer
`deciding the motion until Defendants can depose Plaintiff’s expert, present their own evidence,
`and brief an argument under the summary judgment standard. Reply at 15 n.11.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that a motion for judgment on the
`pleadings may be filed “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial[.]”
`“Conversion to summary judgment is generally not appropriate where . . . only the nonmoving
`party has introduced evidentiary exhibits in response to . . . a motion for judgment on the
`pleadings.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 2016 WL 4373698, at *4
`(D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016) (collecting cases). Generally, a district court should give parties notice of
`its intent to convert a motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment.
`
`
`5 The IPR materials cited by Defendants and Plaintiff are subject to judicial notice. See Atlas IP
`LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 2016 WL 1719545, at *1 n.1.
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 10
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`James v. Poole, 2013 WL 132492, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2013).
`
`Plaintiff argues that, in the interest of fairness and timing, the lengthy duration of the
`litigation and the fact that discovery is nearly closed support converting Defendants’ motion into
`one for summary judgment. Opp. at 9. In Plaintiff’s view, the Court should not sanction
`Defendants’ “tactical” use of a Rule 12(c) motion. Opp. at 10–11. Plaintiff also argues that
`because genuine issues of material fact exist, judgment on the pleadings is improper.
`
`Defendants object to conversion and contend that Plaintiff’s use Dr. Russ to “manufacture
`a factual dispute.” Reply at 14, 15. They point to the fact that despite the length of litigation, Dr.
`Russ has never been involved in the case. Defendants also argue Dr. Russ’s declaration does not
`create a genuine issue of material fact because the declaration is directly contrary to multiple
`PTAB findings and Federal Circuit rulings. Hence, the purported disputes are not genuine and do
`not preclude a Rule 12(c) motion.
`
`The Court declines to convert the motion into one for summary judgment. Conversion to
`summary judgment is generally not appropriate when, as here, only the nonmoving party has
`introduced evidentiary exhibits in response to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Two-
`Way Media Ltd., 2016 WL 4373698 at *4. Only Plaintiff, the nonmovant, has introduced
`evidence not subject to judicial notice. Furthermore, conversion is only appropriate where a party
`has notice. See James, 2013 WL 132492 at *2. Here, Defendants did not have notice of
`conversion. At a joint conference, the Court instructed Defendants to file a joint motion for
`judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff neither objected to this nor indicated it intended to convert
`the motion into one for summary judgment. See Transcript of Proceedings, Dkt. 133 (parties only
`discussed a Rule 12(c) motion with the Court). Reneging on this discussion and converting the
`motion into one for summary judgment would produce waste—the Court would have wasted its
`time in discussing a Rule 12(c) motion with the Parties and Defendants would have wasted their
`time preparing Rule 12(c) briefing. See Reply at 15 n.11.
`
`Plaintiff’s timeliness argument is unconvincing. The fact that these cases have been
`pending for nearly six years is obviated by the multiple IPRs and Federal Circuit appeals. Indeed,
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-01317-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
` 11
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:13-cv-01358-EJD Document 82 Filed 01/29/20 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`once these IPRs and appeals concluded, Defendants immediately filed their Rule 12(c) motion.
`See Richter, 2018 WL 6728515 at *6. Given this timeline and the fact that no trial date is set, the
`motion was filed “early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(C). The motion is thus
`timely. The Court thus fails to see how Rule 12(c) is being “tactically used” when Defendants
`brought the motion at the earliest opportunity.
`
`Finally, to the extent factual disputes exist, neither the summary judgment nor motion for
`judgment on the pleadings standard allow this Court to find for Defendants. Accordingly,
`Plaintiff’s request for conversion is DENIED and Dr. Russ’s declaration will not be used.
`III. DISCUSSION
`Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that may contain underlying
`
`issues of fact. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see
`also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Hence, when the
`“basic character of the claimed subject matter is readily ascertainable from the face of the patent,”
`courts may determine patent eligibility at the motion for judgment on the pleadings stage. See
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Gen. Auto. Ins. Servs., Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1264, 1268 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the scope of patentable subject matter includes “any new and
`useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`improvement thereof.” The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an
`important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
`patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quotation marks
`and citation omitted). These three exceptions are “the basic tools of scientific and technological
`work” and monopolization of these tools “might tend to impede innovation more than it wo