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 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 31
`
`Andrew M. Hutchison (SBN 289315)
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Tel:
`415-593-9625
`Fax: 415-692-3514
`Email: ahutchison@cozen.com
`
`Barry Golob (Pro Hac Vice)
`Thomas J. Fisher (Pro Hac Vice)
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 19TH Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel:
`202-912-4800
`Fax: 202-861-1905
`Email: bgolob@cozen.com
`
`tfisher@cozen.com
`
`William E. Davis, III (Pro Hac Vice)
`Rudolph (Rudy) Fink IV (Pro Hac Vice)
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Tel:
`903-230-9090
`Fax: 903-230-9661
`Email: bdavis@davisfirm.com
`
`rfink@davisfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`10TALES, INC.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`10TALES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` Case No.: 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ SECOND 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
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`BYTEDANCE LTD., AND
`BYTEDANCE INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED............................................................... 1
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`10Tales and the ’030 Patent .......................................................................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Digital Media Technical Field ................................................................... 4
`
`Conventional Systems in the Early 2000s ........................................................ 4
`
`10Tales’ Patented Solution ............................................................................... 5
`
`The Prosecution of the ’030 Patent ............................................................................... 8
`
`Defendants’ Denied Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’030 Patent .................... 8
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`IV.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: Defendants Fail to Prove By Clear and Convincing Evidence
`That Claim 1 is Directed to an Abstract Idea .............................................................. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants Improperly Generalize Claim 1 and Omit Key Limitations ........ 12
`
`A Proper Alice Step One Analysis Shows that Claim 1 is Patent
`Eligible ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`Alice Step Two: Defendants Fail to Prove a Lack of an Inventive Concept.............. 17
`
`Claim 1 of the ’030 Patent is Not a “Do it On a Computer” Claim ............................ 20
`
`Defendants’ Motion is Premature ............................................................................... 21
`
`In the Alternative, 10Tales Requests Leave to Amend its Complaint ........................ 25
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`3:21-cv-03868-YGR
`i
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................11, 25
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................12
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................19
`
`Alice Corp. Pty v. CLS Bank Int’l
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Arrhythmia Research Tech., Inc. v. Corazonix Corp.,
`958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................12
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................11, 22, 23
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................18, 20
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................12, 17, 24
`
`Cave Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-2177-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8395 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) ......................1, 22
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................10
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................10, 11, 22
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................16, 17
`
`Cosmokey Sols. GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC,
`15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................15, 16
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................14, 16
`
`
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`ii
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 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
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................21
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed Cir. 2016).................................................................................................13
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................21
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.,
`112 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................10
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................21
`
`Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................10, 20
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .......................................................................................................10, 11, 12
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`In re Morsa,
`809 Fed. Appx. 913 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................21
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Sys.,
`831 F. App’x 492 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................25
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................11
`
`Tec-Sec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................11, 17
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................16
`
`Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`iii
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`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 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 5 of 31
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ..............................................................................................................................23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(a) .........................................................................................................................10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ..........................................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).......................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`iv
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 6 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
`
`I.
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Have Defendants shown by clear and convincing evidence that it is not plausible that
`
`claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 (“the ’030 patent”) claims patent-eligible subject matter?
`
`
`
`2.
`
`If Defendants are correct that 10Tales’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) fails to
`
`adequately state a claim, should the Court grant 10Tales leave to amend its Complaint?
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Is Defendants’ second motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) premature given the
`
`undeveloped record and the parties’ substantial claim construction disputes?
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny Defendants’ Motion, as they have failed to carry their heavy burden
`
`here. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “whoever invents … a new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
`
`or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.”
`
`In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court undertook a statutory construction of § 101, and noted that “Congress
`
`intended statutory subject matter to ‘include anything under the sun that is made by man.’” Diamond
`
`v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980). “The Supreme Court has held that, by defining patentable
`
`subject matter with ‘such expansive terms … Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws
`
`would be given wide scope.’” Cave Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics, Inc., No. 15-
`
`cv-2177-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8395, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) (quoting Chakrabarty,
`
`447 U.S. at 308).
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step inquiry for a § 101 determination. At the first
`
`step, Defendants ignore controlling precedent and over-generalize the invention as being purportedly
`
`directed to an abstract idea. Under a proper step-one analysis, the challenged claim here is not directed
`
`to an abstract idea, and the § 101 inquiry ends. But even Defendants’ step-two analysis fails because—
`
`“for brevity”—they give short shrift to an analysis of the claim language, and ignore the prosecution
`
`history and the factual allegations in the First Amended Complaint, which precludes a finding of
`
`patent-ineligibility on the pleadings.
`
`Indeed, challenged claim 1 of the ’030 patent is directed to a patent-eligible technical solution
`
`to personalize digital media for a user in a network environment invented in April 2003, even before
`
`the launch of Facebook (February 2004) and YouTube (December 2005). Recognizing that it can be
`
`
`
`3:21-cv-03868-YGR
`1
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 7 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
`
`“difficult to keep the interest of individuals within [a] market segment” because a media presentation
`
`“may be so generic that the user cannot respond to or relate to the work,” inventor David Russek set
`
`out to devise an improved digital media presentation system. See Dkt. 124-1, U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,856,030 (“the ’030 patent”), 2:41-52. Mr. Russek recognized the great sway a person’s interactions
`
`with an online community can hold over a person’s self-identification. ’030 patent, 8:1-6, 9:53-59,
`
`13:16-17, 20:9-37. In other words, what we do in interacting with a community online, among our
`
`friends, helps us define for ourselves who we are and what our interests and inclinations are, both
`
`consciously and subconsciously. In turn, this realization set the stage for development of a system to
`
`add a “social” element for provision of media content that is “enhanced and more impacting for a
`
`user.” ’030 patent, Abstract; 12:11-62.
`
`Mr. Russek filed his patent application, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)
`
`agreed that the system described in claim 1 of the ’030 patent was an improvement over conventional
`
`systems. See Exhibit 1 to 10Tales’ Request for Judicial Notice (“Exhibit 1”), filed concurrently
`
`herewith, Excerpts from Prosecution History of ’030 Patent, June 4, 2014, Notice of Allowability
`
`(App. No. 10/819,514) at 10Tales848. In addition to this clear record, 10Tales’ First Amended
`
`Complaint alleges facts that show these technological improvements and solutions described and
`
`claimed by the ’030 patent were neither conventional nor generic 18 years ago (in 2003), and they
`
`show that conventional systems were improved by the claimed method of analyzing how a user
`
`interacts with others in an online social network to create user-specific digital media content. FAC,
`
`Dkts. 28, 124 at ¶¶ 58-60. Respectfully, this should be sufficient at this early stage to defeat
`
`Defendants’ Motion, especially where the alleged facts of the complaint must be accepted as true.
`
`Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
`
`Defendants’ § 101 analysis is backwards. Although there is Federal Circuit precedent that
`
`identifies claims where a classic manual “pen and paper” methodology (e.g., maintaining a patient
`
`chart, budgeting, or placing an advertisement) is being automated as potentially ineligible, that is not
`
`the case here. Indeed, the claim here is directed to a new field of technological solutions that did not
`
`exist in the “pen and paper” world—presenting improved personalized digital media content in a
`
`network environment. To try to avoid this reality, Defendants reverse the § 101 analysis, and try to
`
`
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`2
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 8 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
`
`analogize the claim to a hypothetical process that “can be performed by a human,” improperly
`
`concluding that claim 1 is nothing more than a conventional business practice that is now being
`
`performed on the Internet—despite facts to the contrary. Defendants then surmise that such a
`
`hypothetical process could have been done prior to 10Tales’ invention, and therefore, the ’030 patent
`
`provides no improvement over conventional systems. This is not the approach mandated by the
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`Defendants’ approach also fails for at least four more reasons. First, Defendants fail to identify
`
`any historic manual process that claim 1 purportedly preempts, so their reliance on § 101 cases dealing
`
`with “do it on a computer” claims is misplaced. Second, Defendants’ Motion continually ignores the
`
`technical nature of the claim in an effort to prop up their misguided analogy. Third, Defendants never
`
`analyze the language of claim 1 in its entirety as the law requires. Instead, Defendants separate the
`
`claim into groups of isolated limitations, which fundamentally prevents the proper analysis of the
`
`inventive system recited in the entirety of claim 1. Fourth, Defendants ignore the prosecution history
`
`of the ’030 patent where the examiner expressly found that claim 1 provides an improvement over
`
`conventional systems as set forth in the “closest prior art,” which was confirmed by the denial of
`
`Defendants’ recent inter partes review petition. Defendants’ shortcut “analysis” reduces to simply
`
`providing cherry-picked soundbites from § 101 cases that addressed claims including language similar
`
`to that recited in claim 1, but in doing so, Defendants have failed to address the inventive concepts
`
`recited in claim 1 and described in the ’030 patent. Properly considered, claim 1 of the ’030 patent is
`
`directed to a patentable technological solution to further personalizing digital media content, which
`
`provides an improvement over conventional systems.
`
`Defendants’ Motion under Rule 12(b)(6) is also premature. There are both significant claim
`
`construction issues that go to the heart of the challenged claim and unresolved factual issues that are
`
`necessary to properly conduct a patent eligibility analysis under Alice. In the alternative, 10Tales
`
`respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to amend the First Amended Complaint.
`
`26
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`A.
`
`10Tales and the ’030 Patent
`
`10Tales—and its founder, David Russek—pioneered innovative technology used to deploy
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`3
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 9 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
`
`advanced storytelling through the use of 10-second videos submitted by a network of friends that
`
`become shared experiences among the friend network. FAC at ¶ 2. 10Tales’ technology has received
`
`numerous accolades from the entertainment industry, including, for example, the Mobile Excellence
`
`Awards. Id.
`
`10Tales’ efforts led to a portfolio of patents, including the asserted ’030 patent. 10Tales’
`
`solution provides technological improvements upon systems for creating an improved user-specific
`
`composite digital media display over the state of the art in 2003. FAC at ¶¶ 58-59.
`
`1.
`
`The Digital Media Technical Field
`
`The ’030 patent relates to provisioning user-specific digital media content, a field rooted in
`
`technology. The ’030 patent has been cited by other technology companies such as Apple, Google,
`
`Microsoft, IBM, Facebook, Nokia, and Qualcomm in nearly 200 patent applications.1
`
`2.
`
`Conventional Systems in the Early 2000s
`
`The ’030 patent describes conventional systems for providing a digital media narrative to
`
`users. Before 10Tales’ invention, conventional systems had drawbacks in “attract[ing] individuals to
`
`content that is personally more relevant and impactful for them.” ’030 patent, 2:3-4.
`
`These drawbacks are described, e.g., in the context of shortcomings in conventional ad-
`
`placement systems that were being developed during the advent of the digital era. Id., 1:52-61. As
`
`technology was evolving, advertisers were confronted with the use of technology to avoid
`
`advertisements, e.g., by stopping pop-up ads or skipping over the ads. Id. None of these systems,
`
`however, addressed how technology could be used to understand the individual’s likes or dislikes or
`
`the individual’s current mood to more appropriately adapt the content for the individual. Id., 2:7-11.
`
`Showing his insight, the inventor recognized that none of the conventional systems could “change the
`
`content of the digital media narrative based on user demographics, psychodemographics, emotional
`
`states, affinities (cognitive, emotional, and social), self-narrating content classification, internal
`
`narrative traits preference topology,
`
`time sensitive, episodic expectation sequencing, and
`
`collective/collaborative attributes.” Id., 2:55-61.
`
`
`1 See https://patents.google.com/patent/US8856030B2/en?oq=8856030, “Cited By,” last accessed
`January 17, 2022.
`
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`4
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 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
`
`3.
`
`10Tales’ Patented Solution
`
`10Tales’ invention solves the drawbacks of those then conventional systems. 10Tales
`
`reimagined the provisioning of personalized digital media content. It improved upon the technical
`
`aspects of conventional systems such as ad placement systems with its teachings: by first analyzing
`
`how a user interacts with others in an online social network to determine that user’s affinity for certain
`
`digital media content; and then teaching the use of a rule-based algorithm to use this information to
`
`create a user-specific composite digital media display unique to that user. FAC at ¶ 60. The
`
`improvements described and claimed in the ’030 patent reflect technological improvements over the
`
`state of the art at the time. FAC at ¶ 59. The technological improvements and solutions described and
`
`claimed in the ’030 patent were neither conventional nor generic at the time of the invention. FAC at
`
`¶ 59. Instead, the invention set forth in the claims of the ’030 patent involved novel and nonobvious
`
`approaches to the problems and shortcomings prevalent in the art at the time. FAC at ¶ 59. The
`
`inventions claimed in the ’030 patent involve and cover more than just the performance of well-
`
`understood, routine, and/or conventional activities know to the industry prior to the invention of the
`
`methods, systems, and devices by the inventor of the ’030 patent, Mr. Russek. FAC at ¶ 59.
`
`The ’030 patent describes a system for “customizing and personalizing digital media content
`
`based on a combination of the user’s demographics, psychodemographics, cognitive states, emotional
`
`states, social placement and group interaction dynamics within an online community, and/or affinity
`
`for certain content elements (images, sounds, segments, graphics, video, text, dialog), self provided
`
`narrating content, internal narrative traits preference topology, and expectation level and temporal
`
`spacing of assets within the narrative.” ’030 patent, 2:66-3:7. The system personalizes the digital
`
`media content based not only on information provided to the system by the user, but also
`
`through the social dynamics of the user as learned by the system. ’030 patent, 3:24-32; 4:15-23.
`
`By way of example, the system may identify attributes related to an individual’s dynamics within the
`
`community and the potential for content to be defined within that dimension. ’030 patent, 8:1-6.
`
`These and other attributes are correlated with attributes of the digital media assets to match the assets
`
`to an individual in order to provide the highest level of impact. ’030 patent, 7:56-59.
`
`
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`5
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`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 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 11 of 31
`
`The correlation of a user’s attributes with attributes of the digital media assets is accomplished
`
`through rule-based techniques such as summing the number of matching attributes, identifying key
`
`attributes, or providing a true/false test for one or more assets. ’030 patent, 7:56-62. Relative
`
`weighting schemes may also be incorporated to give preference to or emphasize certain attributes.
`
`’030 patent, 7:62-64. The ’030 patent describes a number of algorithms through which the correlation
`
`is achieved. For example, artificial intelligence techniques based on look-up tables, neural networks,
`
`and fuzzy logic can be applied to determine the best digital media assets to present to a particular user
`
`based on the system’s stored attributes for that user. ’030 patent, 15:17-34.
`
`The ’030 patent describes a digital media asset personalization system—as depicted in
`
`Figure 5A above—that includes a server 590 that develops the personalized digital media presentation
`
`from content 531 and a digital asset repository 541. The ’030 patent describes that the server executes
`
`software algorithms that access user profile attributes 561 and online community user attributes 521
`
`to determine digital media assets that will have a strong impact on that user. ’030 patent, 12:17-30;
`
`15:10-34.
`
`The ’030 patent also describes the types of social network information that may be stored and
`
`inform the algorithms used to determine which assets will have a strong impact on the user. Such
`
`social information can include, inter alia, groups the user is affiliated with, a user’s on-line
`
`personality or alter ego, how others perceive the user, the user’s involvement with other users in a
`
`social network, and the user’s relationships with other users. ’030 patent, 13:50-62.
`
`The ’030 patent describes how the system identifies a digital media presentation based on the
`
`
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`6
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 12 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
`
`available user profile information. Separate from that digital media presentation, the system
`
`determines if the presentation should be changed to present other digital media assets that will result
`
`in the user feeling more personally connected to the digital media presentation based on the system’s
`
`identification of digital media assets based on the user’s updated profile information, including the
`
`user’s social network user profile information. ’030 patent, 17:17-18:3. Such personalization of the
`
`digital media presentation may be based on collaboration with other users by, e.g., sharing digital
`
`media content with other users. ’030 patent, 19:58-66.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’030 patent is drawn to this new type of personalized digital media presentation
`
`system that identifies digital media content based not only on information about the user—and from
`
`the user—itself, but also on social network user profile information that the system learns based on
`
`the user’s interactions within an online community. Claim 1 is directed to such a system, and recites:
`
`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:
`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;
`7
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 134 Filed 01/20/22 Page 13 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
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution of the ’030 Patent
`
`The PTO addressed eligibility during prosecution to its satisfaction. The original method
`
`claims were rejected in the first Office Action under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory
`
`subject matter. Exhibit 1, September 30, 2008, Non-Final Rejection at 10Tales727. In response,
`
`10Tales amended the claims, and argued that amended claims 1-4 were directed to statutory subject
`
`matter, but the PTO maintained its rejection under § 101. Exhibit 1, March 2, 2009, Amendment at
`