Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 1 of 27
`
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`A Limited Liability Partnership
`Including Professional Corporations
`STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Cal. Bar No. 135532
`MARTIN R. BADER, Cal. Bar No. 222865
`ERICKA J. SCHULZ, Cal. Bar No. 246667
`MICHAEL J. HOPKINS, Cal. Bar No. 326621
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
`San Diego, California 92130-4092
`Telephone:
`858.720.8900
`Facsimile:
`858.509.3691
`E mail
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`mhopkins@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok
`Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Ltd. and ByteDance Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`10TALES INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`BYTEDANCE LTD., and BYTEDANCE
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Date:
`
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`February 15, 2022
`2:00 p.m.
`1 – 4th Floor
`Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez
`Rogers
`
`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 No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 2 of 27
`
`b. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Procedural History ..................................................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`The ’030 Patent and Asserted Claim ......................................................................... 5 
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................... 7 
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 7 
`A. 
`Alice-Step One: Claim 1 is Directed to An Abstract Idea ......................................... 7 
`The Asserted Claim Is Generally Directed To The Abstract Idea of
`1. 
`Presenting Customized Media Based On User Attributes Contained
`in User Social Network Information ............................................................. 8 
`Substantial Similar Precedent Strongly Supports Finding Claim 1’s
`a. 
`Core Ideas are Abstract ..................................................................... 9 
`Claim 1’s Abstract Ideas Cannot Be Cured By Combining Them
`Together .......................................................................................... 11 
`Claim 1 Is Not Directed To A Specific Improvement To Computer
`Functionality Because it Recites Generic Computer Components and
`Results-Oriented, Functional Software Instructions ................................... 11 
`a. 
`Claim 1 Recites A Conventional Generic Environment ................. 11 
`b. 
`Claim 1 Recites Results-Oriented Functional Language ................ 14 
`Alice-step Two: Claim 1 Does Not Contain an Inventive Concept ......................... 15 
`The first set of programming instructions simply result in presenting
`1. 
`a generic composite digital media display .................................................. 16 
`The second set of programming instructions retrieve user social
`network information and select digital media based on the user
`information .................................................................................................. 17 
`The third set of programming instructions require monitoring the
`digital media display and performing an action when a condition is
`satisfied ........................................................................................................ 18 
`The fourth set of programming instructions require the same
`creating and presenting a composite digital media display ......................... 20 
`There Are No Factual Questions that Preclude Resolution of the Instant
`Motion under Rule 12 ............................................................................................. 20 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 22 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`C. 
`
`-i-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................... 21
`
`Aeritas, LLC v. Sonic Corp.
`No. 6:20-cv-103-ADA (W.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2020) ....................................................... 3
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 10, 19
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 14, 15
`
`Aftechmobile Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.
`853 F. App’x 669 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 15
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l .
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................. 2, 7, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 7, 21
`
`In re Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.
`989 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................... 13
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc.
`No. 17-CV-06112-VC, 2018 WL 10689659 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2018) ............... 10, 19
`
`Bote v. Derham-Burk
`No. 3:18-CV-02246-WHO, 2018 WL 5454150 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018) .......... 4, 5, 6
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.
`778 F. App'x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................... 9, 10
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`Coop. Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc.
`No. 5:20-CV-07273-EJD, 2021 WL 2531069 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) .................... 8
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................. 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 8, 19
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.
`No. 2019-1506, 2021 WL 1880931 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021) .................... 9, 10, 13, 14
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.
`818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA)
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................ 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 19
`
`Internet Pats. Corp. v. Gen. Auto. Ins. Servs., Inc.
`29 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................... 7
`
`In re Morsa
`809 F. App'x 913 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020) ................................................................. 10
`
`MyMail, Ltd. v. OoVoo, LLC
`No. 17-CV-04487-LHK, 2020 WL 2219036 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2020) ...................... 20
`
`MyMail, Ltd. v. OoVoo, LLC
`No. 2020-1825, 2021 WL 3671364 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2021) ............................. 10, 16
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.
`76 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ..................................................................... 11, 18
`
`Orcinus Holdings, LLC v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.
`379 F. Supp. 3d 857 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ......................................................................... 21
`
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC
`8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................... 11
`
`In re Rosenberg
`813 F. App'x 594 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................... 16
`
`Salwan v. Iancu
`825 F. App’x 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 19
`-iii-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v. Brightpearl, Inc.
`No. 6:20-cv-00114-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2020 Order) ......................................... 3
`
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prod., Inc.
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 12, 14
`
`In re Sturgeon
`839 F. App'x 517 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 16
`
`In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig.
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 8, 11, 12, 14
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................... 15
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 7, 10
`
`Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................... 2
`
`WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.
`854 F. App'x 367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 21
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 .............................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Local Rules 3-1 .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Rule 12 ............................................................................................................. 3, 4, 7, 20, 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 15, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the motion may be heard, in the courtroom of The Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, located at
`Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
`Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte.
`Ltd., ByteDance Ltd., and ByteDance Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) will and hereby do move
`this Court under Local Rule 7-1(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for an order to dismiss this case on
`the grounds that Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc.’s (“10Tales”) amended complaint fails to state a claim
`upon which relief can be granted. As explained further in the following memorandum of points
`and authorities, 10Tales’ claims must be dismissed because the asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030
`(“the ’030 patent”) fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“§ 101”)
`and is therefore invalid. The motion is based on this notice, the supporting memorandum of points
`and authorities, the pleadings and records on file in this action, all matters of which the Court may
`take judicial notice, and any other argument or evidence that may be presented in support of this
`motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Claim 1 of 10Tales Inc.’s asserted patent, the ’030 patent, is the “quintessential ‘do it on a
`computer’ patent.” Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). On its face, claim 1 is simply directed to an abstract idea of customizing digital
`media on a generic computer/server technology. It fails to provide any improvement to this
`technology, and fails to transform the abstract idea to an inventive concept. Defendants
`demonstrate below that claim 1 is therefore patent ineligible under § 101 based on the two-step
`analysis outlined in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l (“Alice”). 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354-2355
`(2014). Notably, many Federal Circuit decisions since Alice have applied the arduous two-step
`analysis on “do it on a computer” type claims that are strikingly similar to claim 1. Id.; see also
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Cap.
`One Bank”) (finding a patent claim directed to “customizing web page content as a function of
`navigation history [e.g., online activity] and information known about the user,” is an abstract idea
`that fails to recite an inventive concept.) This precedent provides a straightforward roadmap to the
`Alice analysis easily transferred to this case.
`To begin, under Alice-step one, claim 1 is generally directed to the abstract idea of
`customizing media content based on retrieved social network information containing user
`attributes (e.g., aspects, characteristics, and qualities of the user) associated with the presented
`media. In fact, the functional language of claim 1 parallels a process that can be performed by a
`human: selecting and creating a composite of images for a presentation, presenting it to a viewer,
`retrieving information about the viewer (e.g., he likes comedies) from the viewer’s social network
`(e.g., friends), selecting new images based on the information retrieved (e.g., depicting humor),
`substituting one of the original images with the new image, watching the display for an
`opportunity to change the display, and presenting the new composite (e.g., a comedy) to the
`viewer. This abstract idea is merely a variation of those that the Federal Circuit routinely finds to
`be abstract: “customizing information based on [] information known about the user.” See, e.g.,
`id. at 1369.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
` Moving onto Alice-step two, it is plain to see that claim 1 recites only generic computer
`technology (e.g., a server and memory) with result-oriented, functional limitations. Claim 1 fails
`to recite even a single improvement to the generic computer technology. Accordingly, claim 1
`fails to transform the abstract idea into an inventive concept and is thus invalid under § 101.
`Based on 10Tales’ amended complaint, Defendants anticipate that 10Tales will likely try
`to argue that two purported “significant improvements” transform claim 1 into patent eligible
`subject matter: (1) analyzing user interactions in an online social network, and (2) using a rule
`based algorithm to create a composite digital media display. However, this argument fails on its
`face, first, because claim 1 does not actually recite these features—i.e., (1) social network
`information is merely retrieved, not analyzed, and (2) the “rule based algorithm” is used to
`substitute an image, and is not used in the “creating” step. Second, even if these features were
`read into the claim limitations, each one is merely a result-oriented functional limitation,
`performed on a generic computer, that does not improve the functionality of the computer. Thus,
`these alleged “significant improvements” cannot legally transform claim 1’s abstract idea into an
`inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 of the ’030 patent is patent ineligible under § 101.
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Procedural History
`On September 2, 2020, 10Tales filed a patent infringement complaint in the Western
`District of Texas alleging that Defendant TikTok Inc. (“TTI”) infringes the ’030 patent (the
`“complaint”). (See ECF No. 1.) On November 20, 2020, TTI moved to dismiss the complaint for
`failure to state a claim and for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the
`Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1 (See ECF No. 24.) On December
`
`1 As discussed at this Court’s Initial Case Management Conference, dismissal based on § 101 was
`not addressed in the original motion because Judge Albright does not resolve § 101 eligibility at
`the Rule 12 stage and has denied such motions by text order just days after such motions are filed
`(i.e., before any opposition brief is filed). See Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v.
`Brightpearl, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00114-ADA (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2020 Order) (denying Section
`101 motion to dismiss just one day after the opening brief was filed); see also Aeritas, LLC v.
`Sonic Corp., No. 6:20-cv-103-ADA, (W.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2020) (same, just three days after the
`opening brief was filed). Accordingly, Defendants opted to conserve the parties’ resources and
`not force briefing on an issue that would not be decided at that time.
`-3-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`10, 2020, 10Tales amended its complaint to add three new defendants including ByteDance Inc.,
`ByteDance Ltd., and TikTok Pte. Ltd. See ECF No. 28 (the “amended complaint”). But 10Tales
`failed to amend its complaint to address the arguments set forth in TTI’s motion to dismiss. On
`January 27, 2021, the three new defendants joined TTI’s motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1404. On February 2, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to
`state a claim.2 (See ECF Nos. 46, 48.) Specifically, Defendants moved to dismiss on the basis
`that the amended complaint’s “infringement allegations lack sufficient specificity necessary to
`state a claim that satisfies the ‘plausibility’ standard set forth in Iqbal and Twombly and,
`accordingly, should be dismissed.” (See ECF No. 48 at 1.) On May 24, 2021, the case was
`transferred to this District. (See ECF No. 90.)
`At this Court’s Initial Case Management Conference on November 29, 2021, Defendants’
`motion to dismiss the amended complaint was orally denied without prejudice in light of the
`specificity that 10Tales was expected to provide in its infringement contentions.3 In the Joint
`CMC Statement, Defendants explicitly sought “permission to supplement [their] motion to dismiss
`to incorporate [an] additional Rule 12(b)(6) argument based on 35 U.S.C. § 101.” (ECF No. 121
`at 4, 11-12.) At the CMC, the Defendants reiterated this request, stating that the “second issue
`with regard to the motion to dismiss that we wanted to raise was to bring a Section 101 claim,
`which would eliminate the case.” (ECF 129 (“Hr. Tr.”) at 14:3-5.) The Court stated that
`Defendants’ then-pending motion to dismiss was, “in its current form, denied without prejudice,”
`and that the Court “will allow you [Defendants] to file your 101.” (Id. at 18:4 (emphasis added);
`see also id. at 20:4, 21:16-18, 19 21:19). Accordingly, Defendants filed the present motion to
`dismiss under 12(b)(6) based on § 101, as authorized by the Court pursuant to its general
`“inherent authority to manage [its] dockets.” See Bote v. Derham-Burk, No. 3:18-CV-02246-
`
`
`2 For purposes of this litigation only, Defendants withdrew their challenges based on lack of
`personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
`3 Defendants reserve the right to argue that 10Tales’ infringement contentions did not cure the
`pleading deficiencies in 10Tales’ amended complaint, which fails to state a claim upon which
`relief can be granted, and accordingly, Defendants’ initial 12(b)(6) motion would have been
`dispositive of this case.
`-4-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`WHO, 2018 WL 5454150, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018) (emphasis added) (quoting Dietz v.
`Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016)).
`On November 29, 2021, 10Tales re-filed its amended complaint, which asserts
`infringement of “at least claim 1 of the ’030 patent.” (See ECF No. 124 at ¶ 56.) On December
`13, 2021, 10Tales served its infringement contentions pursuant to this District’s Patent Local
`Rules 3-1. 10Tales’ infringement contentions only assert infringement of claim 1 of the ’030
`patent. Defendants now move to dismiss the amended complaint because claim 1 fails to recite
`patent-eligible subject matter under § 101, and is therefore invalid as a matter of law.
`B.
`The ’030 Patent and Asserted Claim
`The ’030 patent is entitled “Method, System and Software for Associating Attributes
`Within Digital Media Presentation.” Generally, the patent purports to relate to changing the
`content of digitally distributed media based on, for example, user affinities. See ’030 pat. at 2:12-
`14, 2:53-61. Specifically, as relevant here, claim 1 is directed towards a system that customizes
`media content based on retrieved user social network information containing user attributes. User
`attributes are defined by the ’030 patent as “aspects, characteristics, and qualities of the user that
`are useful for determining (matching, correlating, and selecting) digital media assets,” which “may
`include characteristics such as affinities, likes or dislikes as described outside of affinities,
`perceptions, experiences.” Id. at 6:32-38, claim 1, 20:62-22:15. Claim 1 also generically recites a
`server and a computer-readable storage medium that contains programming instructions. Id. at
`claim 1, 20:62-21:6. The recited instructions use functional, results-oriented language for
`selecting media and presenting a composite digital media display:
`1. A system for associating user attributes with digital media asset attributes and
`creating a user specific composite digital media display, the system comprising:
`
`a) a server;
`
`b) a computer-readable storage medium operably connected;
`
`c) wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains one or more
`programming instructions for performing a method of associating user
`attributes with digital media asset attributes and creating a user specific
`composite digital media display, the method comprising:
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`identifying a first set of digital media assets stored on the computer-readable
`storage medium,
`
`creating, from the first set of digital media assets, a first composite digital
`media display,
`
`presenting to the user via a display server, the first composite digital media
`display;
`
`retrieving user social network information from at least one source external to
`the presented first composite digital media display, wherein the user social
`network information contains one or more user attributes;
`
`selecting, based on the user attributes in the social network information, a
`second set of digital media assets, wherein the second set of digital media
`assets is associated with one or more user attributes found in the user social
`network information;
`
`monitoring the first composite digital media display for the presence of a
`trigger, wherein the trigger indicates a personalization opportunity in the
`first set of digital media assets;
`
`performing a rule based substitution of one or more of the digital media assets
`from the first set of digital media assets with one or more of the digital
`media assets from the second set of digital media assets to create a user
`specific set of digital media assets;
`
`creating, from the user specific digital media assets, a user specific composite
`digital media display; and
`
`presenting to the user via the display server, the second composite digital media
`display.
`
`’030 pat. at claim 1. In sum, claim 1 primarily recites, in functional language, the abstract idea of
`presenting customized media to a user based on retrieved user social network information that
`includes user attributes “associated” with digital media assets. Further, contrary to the preamble,
`no programming instruction limitation actually describes a “system for associating user attributes
`with digital media asset attributes” or explains how such associating is performed. Id. Rather, the
`“selecting” limitation merely recites the result. Id. (“the second set of digital media assets is
`associated with one or more user attributes”). Claim 1 fails to recite how the association is made,
`nor limit it to a specific claimed structure (i.e., the association could happen prior to reaching the
`claimed system). Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Courts analyze patent eligibility under a two-step framework. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
`2354-2355. At Alice-step one, the court determines whether the claims at issue are directed to a
`patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. See id. At Alice-step two, the court determines
`whether the claims, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” contain an
`“inventive concept.” Id. at 217-18. This second step is “a search for an inventive concept—i.e.,
`an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
`amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Id.
`Whether a patent is impermissibly directed to an abstract idea can be determined on the
`pleadings, under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or 12(c). See Berkheimer v. HP
`Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[A]ddressing section 101 at the outset of litigation
`[has] a number of salutary effects,” including to “conserve scarce judicial resources,” “provide[] a
`bulwark against vexatious infringement suits,” and “most importantly [it] protects the public” by
`“weeding out those patents that stifle innovation and transgress the public domain.” Ultramercial,
`Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718–19 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concurrence). As such, the Federal
`Circuit has “repeatedly recognized that in many cases it is possible and proper to determine patent
`eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
`818 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, a § 101 inquiry is properly raised, and
`determined, at the pleadings stage if the “basic character of the claimed subject matter” is apparent
`from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to eligible subject matter.
`Internet Pats. Corp. v. Gen. Auto. Ins. Servs., Inc., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1264, 1268 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
`In those situations, claim construction is not required to conduct a § 101 analysis. Bancorp Servs.
`L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“claim construction is not an
`inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101”).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Alice-Step One: Claim 1 is Directed to An Abstract Idea
`In determining whether claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court looks to the
`asserted claim’s focus. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir.
`-7-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 132 Filed 12/23/21 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`2018). Although oversimplifying must be avoided, “not every claim that recites concrete, tangible
`components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry.” See In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat.
`Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by
`limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the
`Internet.” See Cap. One Bank, 792 F.3d at 1366 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (limiting an
`abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as a computer, does not confer patent
`eligibility). In cases involving software, like this one, “this inquiry often turns on whether the
`claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a
`process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a
`tool.’” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Merely
`stating an ‘improved result’ to an otherwise abstract idea is insufficient; the patent must recite a
`‘specific means or method that solves a problem in an existing technological process.’” Coop.
`Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., No. 5:20-CV-07273-EJD, 2021 WL 2531069, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`June 21, 2021) (quoting Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1150
`(Fed. Cir. 2019)).
`1.
`
`The Asserted Claim Is Generally Directed To The Abstract Idea of
`Presenting Customized Media Based On User Attributes Contained in User
`Social Network Information
`Here, claim 1’s focus—presenting customized media content based on retrieved social
`network information containing user attributes—is abstract. It is strikingly similar to the abstract
`idea of customizing information presented to a user (digital media) based on information about
`that user (user attributes), which the Federal Circuit regularly and routinely finds to be patent-
`ineligible. See, e.g., Cap. One Bank 792 F.3d at 1369. For example, in Cap. One Bank, the
`Federal Circuit concluded that “information tailoring is a fundamental practice long prevalent in
`our system,” explaining that newspapers have long customized inserts based on information about
`the customer, for example, their location. Id. (c