Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`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.,
` Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`Plaintiff,
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`v.
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`BYTEDANCE LTD., and BYTEDANCE
`AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`February 15, 2022
`2:00 p.m.
`1 – 4th Floor
`Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez
`Rogers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`-i-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Page
`Alice Step One: Claim 1 is Directed to an Abstract Idea .......................................................1 
`The ’030 Patent’s “Personalizing Digital Media Content” is An Abstract
`A. 
`Idea .............................................................................................................................2 
`Retrieving User Social Network Information Containing User Attributes
`Does Not Save Claim 1 From Being Abstract ...........................................................3 
`The Alleged “Improvements” to Claim 1’s System of Personalizing Digital
`Media Content Do Not Qualify as Patent Eligible Subject Matter ............................5 
`Claim 1 Does Not Recite an Improvement That Invokes a Specific
`1. 
`Means .............................................................................................................5 
`Claim 1 Invokes Only Generic Machinery—Not Improved
`Technology .....................................................................................................7 
`10Tales’ Attempts To Import Additional Details Into Claim 1 Are
`Not Supported in the Specification And, Therefore, Must Be
`Rejected ..........................................................................................................8 
`10Tales’ Remaining Alice Step One Arguments Carry No Weight .........................11 
`D. 
`Alice Step Two: Claim 1 Lacks An Inventive Concept .......................................................12 
`There are No Claim Construction or Factual Issues that Prevent Resolution of the
`§ 101 Issue at the Rule 12(b)(6) Stage .................................................................................14 
`10Tales’ Request for Leave to Amend Should be Denied ...................................................15 
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................15 
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aftechmobile Inc. v. Salesforce
`853 F. App'x 669 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc.
`839 F. App'x 528 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America
`4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.
`778 F. App'x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 2, 3, 4, 9
`
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.
`2021 WL 5024388 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 29, 2021) ...................................................................... 6, 10
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.
`986 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................... 8, 11
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.
`815 F. App'x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Elec. Commc'n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC
`958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 3, 13
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................... 2, 3, 4, 5, 12
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`Mortg. Application Techs., LLC v. Meridianlink, Inc.
`2020 WL 1000581 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020), aff'd, 839 F. App'x 520 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......... 14
`
`MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC
`934 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc.
`193 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................... 4
`
`People.ai, Inc. v. SetSail Techs., Inc.
`No. C 20-09148 WHA, 2021 WL 5882069 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2021) .................................. 12
`
`Purepredictive, Inc. v. H20.AI, Inc.
`No. 17-CV-03049-WHO, 2017 WL 3721480 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2017) ................................ 8
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.
`931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`TriDim Innovations LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`207 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................. 15
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 11, 12, 13, 14
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Univ. Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................ 7, 10
`
`WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.
`854 F. App'x 367 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 21-812, 2022 WL 89391 (U.S.
`Jan. 10, 2022) .......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................... 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Alice Step One: Claim 1 is Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`Under Alice step one, Defendants correctly defined the ’030 patent claim 1’s (“Claim 1”)
`focus to include the patent’s general character along with what 10Tales alleges is Claim 1’s
`advancement over the conventional system: “presenting customized media content based on
`retrieved social network information containing user attributes.” Although this definition captures
`10Tales’ characterization of (1) the ’030 patent (e.g., “presenting improved personalized digital
`media content”), and (2) Claim 1’s “advancement” beyond the prior art (e.g., “retrieving user
`social network information”), 10Tales argues the “focus” is incomplete. However, Claim 1’s
`defined focus is complete and, indeed, the way Claim 1 is defined is consistent with and analogous
`to Federal Circuit case law cited in Defendants’ Motion.
`10Tales ignores these nearly indistinguishable cases and attempts to misdirect the Court’s
`attention to unrelated case law by arguing the Court should broaden Claim 1’s focus by adding
`two concepts. First, 10Tales argues the “retrieving user social network information” element
`should include “social network user profile information that the system learns based on the user’s
`interactions within an online community”. Second, 10Tales argues that Claim 1’s focus should
`incorporate generic hardware components (e.g., “server” and “computer-readable storage
`medium”) and functional elements relating to “performing a rule based substitution,” so that when
`it is combined with the “retrieving” element it creates a technological improvement. Both
`arguments fail because they are contrary to law.
`These extraneous concepts and additional elements cannot be incorporated into Claim 1’s
`focus because they are not actually recited in the claims, described in the specification, part of the
`alleged advancement over the prior art, and/or do not recite an improvement to computer
`technology. As a result, they do not and cannot provide any purported technological advance to
`the claim. 10Tales’ misdirection is also fatal because it moves down a path that ignores Claim 1’s
`distinct similarities with respective claims in numerous analogous cases the Federal Circuit
`routinely finds patent-ineligible under §101. Accordingly, pursuant to Alice step one, 10Tales
`failed to rebut Defendants’ clear and convincing showing that Claim 1 is patent ineligible because
`it is directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ’030 Patent’s “Personalizing Digital Media Content” is An Abstract Idea
`
`There is no factual dispute about the ’030 patent’s “general character.” 10Tales’
`Opposition and the patent’s specification establish that the patent is generally directed to
`presenting customized media content based on information known about the user. The Federal
`Circuit has already determined that a claim related to customizing media content or “information
`tailoring [based on a user’s personal characteristics] is a fundamental practice long prevalent in
`our system,” (e.g., a conventional system) which is directed to an abstract idea. Intell. Ventures I
`LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Cap. One”); see also Free
`Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Free Stream”).
`Specifically, 10Tales asserts that “[t]he ’030 patent describ[es] conventional systems for
`providing a digital media presentation to users,” and that Claim 1 is “directed to . . . presenting
`improved personalized digital media content in a network environment.” Opp. at 2, 19 (emphasis
`added). Likewise, the ‘030 patent describes the drawbacks that similar conventional systems have
`in the context of advertising or “ad-placement systems.” Opp. at 4. Indeed, the ’030 patent states
`that it aims to “attract individuals to content that is personally more relevant and impactful for
`them and which may contain an advertising message [.]” ’030 Patent at 2:1-7 (emphasis added).
`Accordingly, although 10Tales disputes Defendants’ definition of Claim 1’s focus (without
`providing an alternative), 10Tales’ Opposition establishes that the ’030 patent’s general character
`is directed to “personalized digital media content,” e.g., “targeted advertising.”
`Indeed, 10Tales certainly makes no effort to distinguish the ’030 patent from the vast line
`of cases Defendants cited involving “targeted advertising.” Opp. at 9, 10; see also, e.g., Cap. One,
`792 F.3d at 1369; Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1362-63; Bridge & Post, 778 F. App'x at 887. In Cap.
`One, the Federal Circuit analogized a claim directed to “customizing web page content as a
`function of navigation history and information known about the user” to the fundamental practice
`of providing newspaper inserts based on a reader’s location, and television advertisements based
`on the time of day. 792 F.3d at 1369. Because the claim was directed to conventional systems of
`“information tailoring,” the Court concluded that the claim was directed to an abstract idea. Id.
`Subsequently, in Free Stream, the court cited to Cap. One, and other similar cases to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`confirm that claims focused on “targeted advertising” are directed to an abstract idea. 996 F.3d at
`1362; see also Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 778 F. App'x 882, 887 (Fed. Cir.
`2019). 10Tales wholly ignores that the conventional systems in the ’030 patent are identical to the
`conventional “targeted advertising” systems in the prior cases, and are likewise abstract.
`B.
`Retrieving User Social Network Information Containing User Attributes Does
`Not Save Claim 1 From Being Abstract
`
`
`10Tales alleges that the primary advancement between Claim 1 and the conventional
`personalization digital media systems in the ’030 patent is the “retrieving user social network
`information” in claim element 1[g]. Opp. at 15-16. Indeed, 10Tales spends a substantial amount of
`space arguing that, given the prosecution history and post-patent proceedings, element 1[g] must
`be included when defining Claim 1’s focus (even though prior art “Herz [ ] teaches this
`limitation”). Opp. at 8. However, Defendants have included this element in Claim 1’s focus—and
`thus, there is no question of fact to resolve with respect to the prosecution history. Therefore, the
`parties agree that the “retrieving user social network information” element is properly captured in
`Defendants definition of Claim 1’s focus : “presenting customized media content based on
`retrieved social network information containing user attributes.” Mot. at 8.
`However, 10Tales’ attempt to argue that “retrieving user social network information” is an
`“improvement” over the prior art that renders Claim 1 patent-eligible fails as a matter of law.
`Opp. at 15. Defendants have shown, and 10Tales has failed to refute, that retrieving information
`about a user for use in customizing content, without more, and regardless of source, does not make
`an otherwise abstract idea patent-eligible. Mot. at 9 (quoting Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1363; Elec.
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“collecting information,
`including when limited to particular content . . . [is] within the realm of abstract ideas”); Cap.
`One, 792 F.3d at 1369. As shown in the Table 1 comparison (aided by color) of the Federal
`Circuit’s defined focus for the claims in Free Stream and Cap. One, merely adding “retrieving
`user social network information” does not, and cannot, elevate Claim 1’s focus of “targeted
`advertisement” beyond the realm of an abstract idea.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`
`Focus
`
`’030 Patent Claim 1
`presenting customized
`media content based on
`retrieved social network
`information containing
`user attributes
`
`Hardware
`Components
`
`a server, a computer
`readable storage medium
`
`Cap. One
`customizing
`information
`based on (1)
`information
`known about the
`user and (2)
`navigation data
`
`a display
`
`Table 1
`
`Free Stream Media
`(1) gathering information about
`television users’ viewing habits;
`(2) matching the information with
`other content (i.e., targeted
`advertisements) based on
`relevancy to the television viewer;
`and (3) sending that [tailored]
`content to a second device
`a television, servers, storage, and a
`mobile device.
`
`See Cap. One, 792 F.3d at 1369; Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1362–63.1
`10Tales did not, and cannot, distinguish Claim 1’s abstract idea of personalizing or
`customizing digital media content using user social network information from (1) Cap. One’s
`customizing web pages based on a user’s web page navigation data, (2) Free Stream’s
`customizing content based on a viewer’s television viewing habits, and (3) the additional related
`cases cited in Defendants’ Motion. Opp. at 20. Indeed, 10Tales’ feeble attempt to address
`Defendants’ cited case law is erroneous, and/or superficial at best. Id. For Cap. One, 10Tales uses
`the wrong claim to compare to Claim 1 (i.e., 10Tales failed to address the ’382 patent—analyzed
`on pages 1369-1371 of Cap. One—as cited by Defendants).2 Id.
`For the remaining cases, 10Tales merely quotes the reason why the claim was invalid,
`without distinguishing Claim 1’s customizing media system from those in each of the cited cases.
`Id. For example, although 10Tales quoted Free Stream’s finding that the claim required “nothing
`more than implement[ing] a computer to achieve the abstract idea of providing targeted
`
`
`1 The Federal Circuit conducted a similar analysis in Bridge & Post, wherein the claim at issue
`included “[1] receiving a user request to access a website, [2] retrieving a persistent device
`identifier from the user’s device, [3] gathering current and historical information about both the
`user and the device,” “[4] analyzing the information, and [5] placing directed media based on that
`analysis.” The Court concluded the claim was directed to “nothing more than computer-
`implementation of targeted marketing over the internet” and, accordingly, was an abstract idea,
`regardless of the claim’s focus of activity over a network.
`2 Notably, Defendants’ definition of Claim 1’s focus is as equally tethered to claims as other
`Federal Circuit cases, while properly excluding limitations “secondary to (and dependent upon) . .
`. the dominant concept to which the claims are directed” from the defined abstract idea. Papst
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 1069, 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
`
`-4-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`advertising to the mobile device user,” it completely ignores the highly relevant and striking
`similarities between Claim 1 and the Free Stream claim, including the fact that both claims
`targeted advertising systems based in a networked environment, with similar generic servers and
`storage components. See 996 F.3d at 1362–64 (finding that irrespective of the networked
`environment, the claim was not directed to a technological improvement). Therefore, “the only
`plausible reading of the patent must be that there is clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility.”
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original).
`C.
`The Alleged “Improvements” to Claim 1’s System of Personalizing Digital
`Media Content Do Not Qualify as Patent Eligible Subject Matter
`
`
`The improvement that 10Tales champions throughout its Opposition (i.e., claim element
`1[g]) as being the purported advancement over conventional systems does not elevate Claim 1
`from the realm of abstract ideas. In addition, 10Tales’ superficial mention of other purported
`“improvements” relating to the generic hardware limitations and the “rule based substitution”
`element also fail to elevate Claim 1 to a non-abstract idea. Neither the hardware or other elements
`transform the conventional system of customizing digital media content into patent eligible subject
`matter because the “improvements”: (1) fail to invoke a specific means or process; (2) invoke only
`generic machinery, and no technology is improved; and/or (3) are not recited in the claim, nor
`does the specification provide any direction on how to accomplish the “improvements.” Therefore,
`despite these alleged claim limitations, Claim 1 is still patent ineligible.
`1.
`Claim 1 Does Not Recite an Improvement That Invokes a Specific
`Means
`
`Element 1[g] is recited in such a result-oriented way that it encompasses a principle in the
`abstract no matter how implemented. See Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1363. In order to transform a
`conventional system to patent eligible subject matter, the improvement must be tangible. It must
`“focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology,” rather than simply
`being “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic
`processes and machinery.” Id.; see also Cap. One, 792 F.3d at 1369. The improvement will not
`transform an abstract claim “if it fails to recite a practical way of applying an underlying idea . . .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`and instead is drafted in such a result-oriented way that it amounts to encompassing the principle
`in the abstract no matter how implemented.” Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1363 (citation omitted).
`Such is the case here. Element 1[g] provides the non-specific function of “retrieving,” and
`fails to recite any explicit, practical or specific method of (1) how to retrieve the information, (2)
`where to retrieve the information from anywhere external to the display, or (3) what type of data
`satisfies “user social network information.” Indeed, rather than recite these specifics, Claim 1
`merely requires the abstract idea of retrieving user social network information that already
`“contains one or more user attributes.” Likewise, the specification fails to define “user social
`network information,” or any way to accomplish retrieving such a vague category of information.
`Ignoring this, 10Tales attempts to expand the scope of Claim 1 by arguing element 1[g]
`should be expanded to include “analyz[ing] how [a] user interacts with other users in an online
`social network in order to determine the user’s affinity for certain digital media content.” Opp. at
`15. 10Tales also alleges that Claim 1 is “drawn to this new type of personalized digital media
`presentation system that identifies digital media content . . . [based on] social network user profile
`information that the system learns based on the user’s interactions within an online community.”
`Opp. at 5. However, this purported improvement is a drastic departure from what is actually
`recited in Claim 1 and is not explained in the ’030 patent specification. For example, Claim 1 does
`not actually recite “analyzing” how a user interacts in an online social network, nor recite any
`practical way of retrieving user social network information. At best, element 1[g] only
`encompasses the principle of “analyzing” in the abstract. See e.g., CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic,
`Inc., 2021 WL 5024388, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 29, 2021) (abstract claim supplies no specific way to
`collect and process data or how to determine when to perform the process).
`In addition, the specification does not describe how the system “analyzes” a user’s online
`interactions, let alone how to translate them to user attributes.3 Thus, the purported “analyzing”
`
`
`3 The citations upon which 10Tales relies to support this “analyzing” improvement (see Opp. at 5)
`simply state that users have the ability to share experiences (’030 pat. at 4:15-23) and use
`“attributes related to an individual’s dynamics within the community.” Id. at 8:1-6. Neither
`explains how to analyze “user interactions in an online social network.” Opp. at 15. Instead, the
`specification presumes that the user’s affinity has already been determined.
`
`-6-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`improvement cannot be considered in the Alice step one analysis because it is neither recited in the
`claim nor explained in the specification.
`Finally, assuming, arguendo, that the purported “analyzing how a user interacts”
`improvement was recited in Claim 1 (it is not), it cannot constitute a patent-eligible improvement
`because it is indistinguishable from what the specification describes as conventional. Here, as
`pointed out in Defendants’ Motion, the specification explains that “[p]rofiling of users based on
`[web surfing characteristics,] interactions, viewing habits, and purchases is well understood by
`those skilled in the art.” See Mot. at 14 (citing ’030 patent at 6:21-31). 10Tales has failed to
`distinguish (1) the alleged “analyzing” user interactions “improvement” from (2) the
`specification’s “profiling” based on “interactions.” Therefore, even if considered part of Claim 1,
`this alleged improvement is still an abstract idea at Alice step one. Thus, because “[t]he
`specification [] discloses that this information is conventional” and “the claim[] broadly recite[s]
`generic steps and results—as opposed to a specific solution to a technological problem . . . the
`claim[] [is] abstract under Alice step one.” See Univ. Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th
`1342, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`2.
`Claim 1 Invokes Only Generic Machinery—Not Improved Technology
`
`10Tales attempts to qualify Claim 1 as an improvement to technology in order to avoid the
`Alice analysis. Its attempt fails. To qualify as a non-abstract idea, a technological improvement
`must actually improve the technology—i.e., improve a process of the machine upon which the
`system operates. The Federal Circuit has held that a claim does not qualify as a “technological
`improvement” for patentability if the result of the claim fails to “improve[] the operability of [the]
`devices beyond providing a user with targeted content using generic processes and machinery.”
`Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1365. This is true even where “a claimed invention results in [the
`hardware] devices operating with respect to each other in a [non-conventional] manner.” Id.
`Here, 10Tales argues that because Claim 1 “involves both a computer and a networked
`environment” it is “necessarily rooted in computer technology” and provides improvements
`thereto. Opp. at 14. Based on this, 10Tales appears to argue that the conventional system (i.e., the
`system for customizing digital media content) is improved by working in a networked
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO 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 137 Filed 02/01/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`environment, which now allows retrieving user social network information from an external
`source. Id. at 16. Yet, 10Tales’ argument is flawed because it ignores the fact that Claim 1 only
`uses the generic server and computer-readable storage memory in their ordinary manner—the
`alleged improved process does not affect the operability of these devices.
`The Federal Circuit rejected a similar argument in Free Stream. In Free Stream, the
`patentee argued that the networked system improved communication barriers between a television
`and a mobile device. See Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1363. The representative claim recited a
`number of hardware components including “a television,” “server[s]”, “storage,” and “a mobile
`device.” Id. at 1358-59. However, because the claim failed to identify or describe how those
`components are used to achieve the claim’s result, the Federal Circuit concluded that it “do[es] not
`recite an improvement in computer functionality.” See id. at 1363-64; see also Purepredictive, Inc.
`v. H20.AI, Inc., 2017 WL 3721480, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2017 (distinguishing DDR Holdings,
`LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) because the claims’ “passing references
`to computers only show that the method uses the computer as a tool for automation of its process”
`rather than “improve the functioning of a computer-related technology”).
`Thus, because 10Tales “has not demonstrated that [Claim 1] provides something more than
`a mere use of a computer as a tool,” the concepts of “a server” and “computer readable storage
`medium” do not qualify as “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.”
`Id. at 1363-65; cf. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
`2020). In Uniloc, the claimed invention changes the normal operation of the communication
`system itself to ‘overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.’” Id.
`By contrast, Claim 1 does not “change[] the normal operation of the communication system
`itself.” Thus, under Alice step one, Claim 1 squarely qualifies as an abstract idea.
`3.
`10Tales’ Attempts To Import Additional Details Into Claim 1 Are Not
`Supported in the Specification And, Therefore, Must Be Rejected
`
`
`10Tales’ attempts to incorporate extraneous details into Claim 1 are unsupported by the
`specification and should be rejected. Specifically, 10Tales argues that the following two purported
`advancements set forth in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) should be imported into the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPL