Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 1 of 29
`
`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
`JAMES YOUNG HURT, Cal. Bar No. 312390
`ZACHARY M. ALPER, Cal. Bar No. 339489
`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
`jhurt@sheppardmullin.com
`zalper@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok
`Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Ltd. and ByteDance Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`10TALES INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`BYTEDANCE LTD., and BYTEDANCE
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`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(C)
`AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`October 10, 2023
`10:00 a.m.
`2 – 5th Floor
`Hon. Virginia DeMarchi
`
`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-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................2
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................................4
`A.
`Procedural History ......................................................................................................4
`B.
`The Prior Decision Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 .........................................................4
`C.
`The ’030 Patent and Claim 1 ......................................................................................6
`D.
`The Claim Construction Order ...................................................................................7
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................9
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................10
`A.
`Alice-Step One: Claim Construction Confirms Claim 1 is An Abstract Idea ..........10
`1.
`Retrieving User Social Network Information Does Not Improve
`Technology ...................................................................................................12
`The “Rule Based Substitution” Simply Substitutes Content Based on
`Any Rule ......................................................................................................14
`The Generic Computer and Combined Steps Do Not Improve
`Technology ...................................................................................................15
`The Other Elements Do Not Save Claim 1 ..................................................16
`4.
`Alice-Step Two: Claim 1 Does Not Contain an Inventive Concept .........................17
`1.
`The first set of steps simply results in presenting a generic
`composite digital media display ...................................................................18
`The second set of steps retrieves user social network information
`and select digital media based on the user information ...............................19
`The third set of steps requires monitoring the digital media display
`and performing an action when a condition is satisfied ...............................21
`The fourth set of steps mimics the first set for creating and
`presenting a composite digital media display ..............................................22
`The combination of all steps lacks an inventive concept .............................23
`5.
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................23
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`-i-
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................... 17, 22
`
`Aftechmobile Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.
`853 F. App’x 669 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l.
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .................................................................................................. 2, 9, 10, 21
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc.
`No. 17-CV-06112-VC, 2018 WL 10689659 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2018) ........................... 17, 21
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.
`778 F. App'x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Chavez v. United States
`683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Coop. Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc.
`No. 5:20-CV-07273-EJD, 2021 WL 2531069 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) .............................. 10
`
`cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.
`986 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................... 16
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 16
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ passim
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 9, 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 22
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ passim
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`-ii-
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Internet Pats. Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................................... 9, 13
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 11, 14
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH
`942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Morsa
`809 F. App'x 913 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020) ............................................................................ 16
`
`MyMail, Ltd. v. OoVoo, LLC
`No. 2020-1825, 2021 WL 3671364 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2021) ..................................... 9, 17, 19
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.
`76 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................ 17, 20
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`In re Rosenberg
`813 F. App'x 594 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`Salwan v. Iancu
`825 F. App’x 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied ..................................................................... 22
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................... 13, 20, 22
`
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prod., Inc.
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Pat. Litig.
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... 10, 13
`
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.
`72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 17
`-iii-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 13, 16
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Rule 12(c) .................................................................................................................................... 4, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`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 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the motion may be heard, in the courtroom of The Honorable Virginia DeMarchi, located at
`Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
`San Jose Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, 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(c) 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, including the April 28, 2022 Order
`Denying [Defendants] Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and all related briefing, the Court’s
`August 14, 2023 Claim Construction Order, and 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`-1-
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`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 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendants hereby renew their motion to dismiss this action because claim 1 of the ’030
`patent fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
`Int’l., 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In response to Defendants’ first § 101 motion, Judge Gonzales
`Rogers analyzed claim 1 under Alice and found claim 1 is directed to “targeted information (i.e.,
`advertisements) that was deemed relevant to the user based on data gathered [about the user.]”
`ECF No. 156 at 4-5 (edits in original). Defendants agree and contend claim 1 is directed to an
`abstract idea under Alice-step one, and fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice-step two.
` However, given 10Tales’ new arguments introduced at the hearing for the first § 101
`motion, Judge Gonzales Rogers paused her analysis at Alice-step one. At the hearing, Judge
`Gonzales Rogers first pointed out that “the Federal Circuit routinely found that the collection,
`organization, and use of users’ information to provide services and features is typically patent
`ineligible.” See Ex. A to Declaration of Ericka Schulz (“Schulz Decl.”) at 8:2-7 (citing
`Intellectual Ventures, Affinity Labs, and Free Stream). Judge Gonzales Rogers then asked
`10Tales: “why don’t those cases control?” Id. 10Tales argued claim construction was required to
`finish the § 101 analysis. See id. at 19:10-22:2. 10Tales failed to identify any specific terms for
`construction in its papers, so Judge Gonzales Rogers asked 10Tales “what term do you think I
`need to construe to” decide the issue. See id. at 19:10-22:2. 10Tales argued that claim 1 recites an
`“improved system” because “it retrieves social network information about the user and analyzes
`how that user interacts with other users in an online social network in order to determine the user's
`affinity for certain digital media content.” Id. at 19:14-18, 20:4-8. Judge Gonzales Rogers then
`pressed 10Tales to identify where this alleged improvement was found in claim 1. Id. at 20:4-11
`(“[W]e can all see the claim language. You agree it’s not in the claims; right?”). 10Tales insisted
`that the court needed to construe two elements to arrive at its purportedly improved system:
`(1) “retrieving user social network information” and (2) “performing a rule based substitution.”
`Id. at 21:3-5, 23:13-24:14.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`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 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Judge Gonzales Rogers ordered that claim construction proceed to determine if these
`elements actually recited “a system for analyzing how a user interacts with others in a social
`network to determine a user’s affinity for content and the use of a rule based algorithm to create a
`personalized digital media display for a particular user.” ECF No. 156 at 6 (emphasis added).
`However, claim construction did not change the outcome of the § 101 analysis because 10Tales
`dropped both arguments that it alleged would have saved claim 1 from § 101 ineligibility.
`First, at the claim construction hearing, the Court confirmed 10Tales was no longer
`arguing that “analyzing” the user interactions in a social network is part of the claim. Schulz
`Decl., Ex. B at 109:6-21 (“I don’t think analyzing is part of the Claim. . . . As far as I understand,
`they’re not arguing that now.”). Subsequently, the Court construed the “retrieving user social
`network information” element to mean retrieving “information derived from a user’s interaction in
`an online community” from anywhere other than the first display. ECF 204 at 21-22. The Court
`opined that the “user social network information” term only “addresses the kind of information
`being retrieved.” Id. at 22 (emphasis in original). Second, the Court found that it is “clear from
`the claim language itself” that the “performing” element only recites a generic “rule” for
`substituting. Id. at 24-25. Therefore, claim construction confirmed these elements merely recite
`the general steps of retrieving user information and substituting content using a generic rule, they
`do not recite an improvement to technology.
`Accordingly, as Judge Gonzales Rogers suggested, claim 1 cannot be differentiated from
`the Federal Circuit cases finding the “the collection, organization, and use of users’ information to
`provide services and features” to be patent ineligible. See Ex. A at 8:2-7.
`Likewise, a similar analysis of claim 1 under Alice-step two follows directly from these
`cases. Not only did 10Tales fail to articulate a specific alleged inventive concept of claim 1 in its
`prior opposition to Defendants’ § 101 motion, claim construction did not reveal anything new. All
`the elements are generalized steps that recite a result without a specific mechanism for
`accomplishing the result—they are each abstract ideas themselves. The case law repeatedly states
`that combining abstract ideas is still abstract. Moreover, when performed in an anticipated or
`conventional order, the ordered combination of the steps cannot provide an inventive concept.
`-3-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Thus, because claim 1 is an abstract idea, does not improve technology, and recites no inventive
`concept, claim 1 is patent ineligible. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed with prejudice.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`II.
`Procedural History
`A.
`10Tales filed this case on September 2, 2020, in the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”).
`Upon Defendants’ motion, this case was transferred to the Northern District of California and
`initially assigned to Judge Gonzales Rogers. See ECF No. 90. At the Initial Case Management
`Conference on November 29, 2021, Judge Gonzales Rogers directed 10Tales to serve
`infringement contentions, and gave Defendants permission to file a motion to dismiss under Rule
`12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. § 101, which was argued on February 22, 2022. On April 28, 2022, Judge
`Gonzales Rogers denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew the motion
`after claim construction. See ECF No. 156. On May 12, 2022, Defendants answered the
`Amended Complaint. ECF No. 160. On June 15, 2022, this case was re-assigned to Judge
`DeMarchi for all purposes, and on July 29, 2022, Judge DeMarchi held a claim construction
`hearing. The claim construction order issued on August 14, 2023. ECF No. 204.
`Defendants now renew their motion to dismiss the amended complaint, this time under
`Rule 12(c), because claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 and is
`therefore invalid as a matter of law.
`The Prior Decision Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101
`B.
`In the prior motion to dismiss, Judge Gonzales Rogers determined claim 1 is akin to the
`abstract idea of targeted advertising:
`The ’030 Patent bears relevant similarities to the patent in Free Stream Media[, 996
`F.3d at 1359, 1362-65]. There, as here, the claimed invention related to a system that
`provided ‘targeted information (i.e., advertisements) that was deemed relevant to the
`user based on data gathered [about the user.]’ [Id. at 1359, 1362-65]. In Free Media
`Corp., the Federal Circuit found that the patent was directed at the abstract idea of
`targeted advertising, noting that the claims were ‘directed to: (1) gathering
`information about the [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 content to a second device.’ Id. at 1361-62. Further, as
`in Free Media Corp., Claim 1 also discloses the idea of targeted advertising using
`what appears to be generic computer technology. (See '030 Patent at Claim 1, 20:62-
`21:6) (disclosure of a ‘server’ and a ‘computer-readable storage medium’.)
`-4-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`ECF No. 156 at 4.
`Judge Gonzales Rogers stopped short of finding claim 1 patent ineligible because 10Tales
`argued that claim construction was required to save claim 1 from patent invalidity:
`Specifically, plaintiff argues that Claim 1 discloses a system for analyzing how a user
`interacts with others in a social network to determine a user’s affinity for content and the
`use of a rule based algorithm to create a personalized digital media display for a particular
`user. (FAC ¶¶ 59-60.) Whether these improvements save the ‘030 Patent from invalidity
`turns on the meaning of the terms used to describe the elements, including but not limited
`to “retrieving user social network,” and “performing a rule based substitution.” (‘030
`Patent at Claim 1, 21:13-22:7.)
`
`ECF No. 156 at 6. This followed from the complaint and motion to dismiss briefing and oral
`argument, where 10Tales consistently emphasized claim 1 included an assessment or analysis of
`the user’s behavior to determine a user’s affinity for content. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 59, 60; ECF 134 at 7,
`14, 15, 10, 19 (“the improved system retrieves social network information about that user, and
`analyzes how that user interacts with other users in an online social network in order to determine
`the user’s affinity for certain digital media content.”); see also Ex. A at 10:1-3 and 17-22 (“making
`an assessment based on that user’s behavior in a social network external to the system to
`determine better content for the user.”), 20:4-6 and 14-21.
`During oral argument for the motion to dismiss, Judge Gonzales Rogers repeatedly put
`10Tales to task to identify which claim elements specifically need to be construed to identify the
`improvement to the system that would change the outcome of the § 101 analysis. Ex. A at 19:13-
`26:4 (e.g., the Court asked “So what term do you think I need to construe[?]”). 10Tales only
`identified the “retrieving” and “rule based” limitations. Id. at 19:13-26:4. Judge Gonzales Rogers
`further asked 10Tales to identify specifically in the specification where the improvements exist.
`Id. at 22:3-4 (“[W]here is this described with specificity in the specification[]?”) 10Tales
`identified ’030 patent content at 2:53-61, 3:33-53, 17:17-43, 19:4-47, 15:10-34, 11:3-16, and 7:38-
`48 for the “retrieving” element; and 7:54-67; 15:10-34; 19:4-47, 17:17-43. Ex. A at 22:3-24:19.
`No other elements were identified.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`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 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`The ’030 Patent and Claim 1
`C.
`The ’030 patent relates to presenting digital media content selected based on user
`information. See ’030 pat. at 2:12-14, 2:53-61. Claim 1 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;
`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.
`
`10Tales argued that the goal of the ’030 patent is to “address 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.” ECF No.134 at 4 (citing ‘030 patent at 2:7-
`11). The ’030 patent lists the extensive kinds of user information that would allegedly improve
`the recommendations for relevant content: “cognitive states, emotional states, social placement
`and group interaction dynamics within an online community, and/or affinity for certain content
`-6-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`
`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 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`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 at 2:65-3:7. Claim 1 recites retrieving a specific type of user
`information to personalize content—“user social network information.”
`Although not used in the specification, the Court construed “user social network
`information” to mean “information derived from a user’s interactions in an online community.”
`ECF No. 204 at 21. The Court found support for this where the ’030 patent mentions online
`community. See ’030 patent at 3:1, 3:22, 9:57, 11:15, 12:11-13, 12:22-30. Notably, however, the
`specification does not provide any specific mechanism or computer technology for accessing an
`online community, observing or retrieving user’s interactions or behaviors in an online
`community, or assessing or analyzing user interactions in an online community to determine a
`user’s affinity for content. Id. at 13:36-14:14, 20:9-37, Figs. 7-9, 23. The ’030 patent’s goal was
`not to improve the technology involved, which was generically described as a server, memory,
`databases, and user devices. See Figs. 5A & B, and 13.
`The Claim Construction Order
`D.
`On August 14, 2023, this Court issued its claim construction for ten terms. ECF No. 204.
`As mentioned above, 10Tales argued the § 101 analysis relied on the construction of only two
`elements, the “retrieving” element and the “performing” element. See Section II.B. supra.
`First, the Court construed “user social network information” and “retrieving user social
`network information from at least one source external to the presented first composite digital
`media display.” With the constructions combined, the full element means:
`
`Retrieving information derived from a user’s interactions in an online community from
`at least one source other than the presented first composite digital display.
`
`ECF No. 204 at 21, 22 (combining two elements’ constructions, emphasis added). More
`specifically, “[t]he Court’s construction of the term ‘user social network information’ addresses
`the kind of information being retrieved . . . .” Id. at 22 (emphasis in original). Although 10Tales
`insisted the claim recited analyzing the user’s interaction during the first motion to dismiss (see
`Section II.B supra), the Court confirmed during oral argument that 10Tales dropped this
`-7-
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 206 Filed 09/01/23 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`argument. Ex. B at 109:6-21 (“I don’t think analyzing is part of the Claim. . . . As far as I
`understand, they’re not arguing that now.”) Moreover, the Court’s construction does not recite
`any specific mechanism, computer routine, or technology for accessing an online community or
`analyzing user interactions to determine a user’s affinity for content. It merely recites a type of
`user information retrieved.
`The Court’s construction also construes the source from where the user social network
`information is retrieved. Although 10Tales originally argued claim 1 makes an “assessment based
`on that user’s behavior in a social network external to the system to determine better content for
`the user,” 10Tales dropped this argument. Ex. A at 10:20-22. Thus, the Court found that “[i]n
`context, the plain and ordinary meaning of ‘source external’ simply means that the claimed
`information is retrieved from a source [that] is other than the presented first composite display.”
`ECF No. 204 at 22. This construction means that claim 1 did not recite a new or specific source of
`information (i.e., an online community external to system), it merely limited the source to be
`something other than the presented first composite digital media display. Accordingly, claim 1
`does not recite a new mechanism for retrieving the information, nor does it recite a new or
`improved source from where the results are retrieved.
`Second, the Court construed the “performing” element using the plain language of the
`claim. ECF No. 204 at 25. Like the “retrieving” element, 10Tales argued two different versions
`of the “performing” element—dropping the one version that 10Tales argued when briefing the
`prior motion to dismiss. Initially, 10Tales argued “[t]he system [of claim 1] uses a rule based
`algorithm to use the user’s social network information to create a user-specific digital