Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`10TALES INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`BYTEDANCE LTD., and BYTEDANCE
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`October 31, 2023
`10:00 a.m.
`2 – 5th Floor
`Hon. Virginia DeMarchi
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS 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:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 
`§ 101 Eligibility Does Not Turn on the “Novelty” of an Element or Process .......................1 
`10Tales’ Conclusory Allegations and Non-Plausible Allegations Should Be
`Rejected ..................................................................................................................................2 
`Alice-Step One ........................................................................................................................4 
`A. 
`Even Under 10Tales’ Proposed Characterization, Claim 1 is Abstract .....................5 
`B. 
`Claim 1 Does not Provide a Specific Technical Solution to a Specific
`Technical Problem ......................................................................................................6 
`Claiming a System Does Not Equate to Claiming a Non-Abstract Idea ..................10 
`C. 
`Alice-Step Two .....................................................................................................................11 
`10Tales’ Assertion that the Ordered Combination of Claim 1 is Inventive is
`A. 
`Not Supported ..........................................................................................................11 
`No Evidence Supports Claim 1 Has Another Inventive Concept ............................13 
`Preemption Is Not the Appropriate Standard to Apply ............................................15 
`10Tales’ Cursory Request for An Amended Complaint Should Not Be
`Considered. ...............................................................................................................15 
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................15 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`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-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED
`COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C)
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 1
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .................................................................................................................... 1
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................... 2
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 12
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 4
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.
`955 F.3d 1358 (Fed Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 5
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.
`927 F. 3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 3
`Chamberlain Grp. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 11
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................... 7
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P.
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 6, 7, 8, 9
`Diamond v. Diehr
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................... 2
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs.
`815 F.App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................ 3, 14
`Elec. Power, Group, LLC v. Alstomo S.A.
`830 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................................ 8
`Free Stream Media Corp., v. Alphonso, Inc.
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................... 4, 5, 6, 14
`In re Killian
`45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`In re Morsa
`809 F. App'x 913 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................ 12
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 10
`Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp.
`50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................ 3, 13
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 2, 11
`Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc.
`No. 2020-2320, 2021 WL 2944838 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) .................................................. 12
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 3
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 2, 15
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 6, 7
`Thales Visionix, Inc. v. U.S.
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 2
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v Covalent, Inc.
`72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................ 6, 8, 9, 10, 13
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 2, 12, 13, 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Despite this Court spending significant time and resources on claim construction—for
`which 10Tales pleaded was required for the Court to decide the § 101 motion—10Tales
`completely ignores the results. To avoid dismissal, 10Tales had previously relied on its First
`Amended Complaint (“FAC”) allegations to assert claim 1 includes “analyzing how a user
`interacts with other users in an online social network in order to determine a user’s affinity for
`certain digital media content” and a “rule based algorithm.” However, this issue was decided by
`claim construction, which confirms the allegations are meritless—claim 1 does not include
`“analyzing” nor a “rule based algorithm.” Thus, 10Tales’ basis for pleading patent eligibility has
`been rejected. Rather than concede, 10Tales resorts back to re-arguing the same meritless facts.
`10Tales also resorts back to the same misstatement of the law—claim 1 is not an abstract
`idea because the claim is an “improvement over the prior art.” However, that is not the test. Alice
`requires that a claim directed to an abstract idea be an “improvement to technology” or include an
`inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent eligible matter. However, none of
`claim 1’s limitations improve computer functionality or provide a specific inventive concept.
`Finally, 10Tales resorts back to its “claim as a whole” and “ordered combination” arguments to
`argue patent eligibility. However, 10Tales must do more than merely parrot back the claim
`elements for support. 10Tales arguments must be rejected because 10Tales fails to present any
`evidence that the order, arrangement, or combination of steps for claim 1 is unconventional or
`non-routine. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion should be granted.
`II.
`§ 101 Eligibility Does Not Turn on the “Novelty” of an Element or Process
`To begin, Defendants refute a misleading argument that permeates 10Tales’ brief. 10Tales
`repeats that claim 1 is “an improvement over the prior art,” and erroneously equates this to being
`an “improvement to technology” or an “inventive concept.” Opp. et seq. For a claim to be an
`“improvement to technology,” the claim must be directed to a technical solution to a technical
`problem, or “an improvement in computer or network functionality”—not merely an
`“improvement over the prior art.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
`1261-1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). For a
`
`-1-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`limitation to be “inventive,” it must be more than the application of the abstract idea. “That some
`of the [numerous] steps were not previously employed in this art is not enough—standing alone—
`to confer patent eligibility upon the claims at issue.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
`709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014).1 Thus, 10Tales’ arguments regarding an “improvement over prior art”
`should be rejected because they do not address the correct standard under Alice.
`Relatedly, 10Tales attempts to equate novelty with an “improvement to technology” or
`“inventiveness.” Opp. at 2, 9, 16, 17, 22 and 25. However, merely because claim 1 was allowed
`over the prior art does not establish that the claim is patent eligible. Id. Novelty and eligibility are
`distinct inquiries. And the PTO and PTAB statements on these issues are outside of the pleadings.2
`The law is well settled that “[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the
`process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within
`the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–
`89 (1981). Indeed, numerous claims have been rendered patent ineligible after having been
`allowed over the prior art in prosecution. “[A] new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The
`search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.” Synopsys,
`Inc. v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, 10Tales’ reliance on
`the PTO and PTAB’s statement regarding the “retrieving” step does not establish that claim 1 is an
`“improvement to technology” or an “inventive” concept—and should be disregarded.
`III.
`10Tales’ Conclusory Allegations and Non-Plausible Allegations Should Be Rejected
`10Tales relies on numerous legal conclusions and two factual allegations in an attempt to
`prove claim 1 contains an improvement to technology and an inventive concept to establish patent
`
`
`1 10Tales’ heavy reliance on at least two pre-Alice cases is questionable. See e.g., Ultramercial,
`Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (vacated in light of Alice) and Research Corp.
`Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (decided pre-Alice).
`2 10Tales’ reliance on Ariosa and Thales is misplaced. See Opp. at 17. Merely because a specific
`limitation is not practiced by the prior art does not mean that limitation is not conventional, and
`therefore, inventive. Indeed, the Ariosa court relied on statements made in the file history to find
`the relevant limitations were conventional and routine, and thus not inventive. Ariosa
`Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, Thales
`Visionix, Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017), never relied on the file history.
`
`-2-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`eligibility. The Court must “disregard conclusory statements when evaluating a complaint under”
`a motion to dismiss even if couched as factual allegations. Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods.,
`Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed Cir. 2020) (an allegation that a feature “improves” functionality is
`conclusory). Additionally, only “plausible and specific factual allegations that aspects of the
`claims are inventive are sufficient” to defeat a motion to dismiss. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow
`Grp., 50 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306,
`1314 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Moreover, “[a]ny allegation about inventiveness, wholly divorced from the
`claims or the specification does not defeat a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 1317.
`First, based only on its self-serving allegations in the FAC, 10Tales alleges in conclusory
`fashion that claim 1 reflects technological improvements, not conventional or generic solutions,
`and novel approaches. FAC ¶¶ 58-60.3 None of these statements are supported by citations to the
`specification. In Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., the court rejected similar allegations where
`they “never provide more support than a conclusory statement that ‘the inventions described and
`claimed . . . solved these problems,’ improved the art, ‘represented a significant advance over
`existing approaches[,] and were not well-known, routine, or conventional in the field’ at the time
`of patenting.” 815 F.App’x 529, 538 (Fed. Cir. 2020); cf. Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1316-17 (accepting
`specific factual details alleged about a technology covering a “two-step, two-device structure [that
`was] discussed throughout the shared specifications”). The rejected allegations in Dropbox are
`indistinguishable from the allegations in the FAC, and should be rejected as legal conclusions. 815
`F.App’x at 538.
`
`
`3 FAC ¶ 59 states: “The system in claim 1 of the ’030 patent reflects technological improvements
`upon the state of the art at the time. The technological improvements and solutions described and
`claimed in the ’030 patent were not conventional or generic at the time of their respective
`inventions. The inventions 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. The
`inventions claimed in the ’030 patent involve and cover more than just the performance of well-
`understood, routine, and/or conventional activities known to the industry prior to the invention of
`the methods, systems, and devices by the ’030 patent inventor.”
`FAC ¶ 60 states “one significant improvement over the prior art was the teaching of analyzing
`how a user interacts with other users in an online social network in order 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 for a particular user.”
`
`-3-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`Next, 10Tales alleges two facts in the FAC that claim construction confirms are meritless,
`i.e., that claim 1 includes “[1] analyzing how a user interacts with other users in an online social
`network . . ., [and 2] the use of a rule based algorithm . . ..” FAC ¶ 60. Courts consistently reject
`allegations of inventiveness where the alleged limitations are not in the claim. Berkheimer v. HP
`Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the alleged “analyzing” and “rule based
`algorithm” concepts are not in the claim language or specification, and should be disregarded in
`the Alice analysis.4 First, 10Tales never cites to the specification for these concepts—even though
`10Tales had several opportunities to explain how the specification supports importing these
`concepts into the claim (i.e., in response to the initial motion to dismiss and again during claim
`construction). See Br. at 2-3, 7-8. Second, this Court’s claim construction confirms the
`“analyzing” and “rule based algorithm” concepts are not in claim 1—and there is no evidence to
`suggests these allegations have any merit. ECF No. 204 at 18-22, 24-25.
`Therefore, the allegations set forth in the FAC paragraphs 58-60 are not plausible, should
`be rejected, and cannot be used to assert claim 1 is an improvement to technology or “inventive.”
`IV.
`Alice-Step One
`10Tales asserts that claim 1 is a system for providing digital media that “attracts
`individuals to content that is personally more relevant and impactful for them.” Op. at 15.
`Defendants have already shown how claim 1 is similar to numerous other claims found abstract by
`the Federal Circuit. Judge Gonzales Rogers already found, “as in Free Media Corp., claim 1
`discloses the idea of targeted advertising using what appears to be generic computer technology.”
`ECF No. 156 at 5; Free Stream Media Corp., v. Alphonso, Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1362-65 (Fed. Cir.
`2021). 10Tales virtually ignores the abstract nature of these claims (found abstract by the Federal
`Circuit) which are analogous to claim 1, and instead, blames 10Tales’ failure to analyze these
`patents on Defendant’s characterization of claim 1. 10Tales argues claim 1 should be characterized
`
`
`4 For clarity, the allegation that claim 1 includes a “rule-based algorithm to use this information to
`create a user-specific composite” should be rejected because the “rule-based algorithm” is not
`what is claimed. See ’030 patent at 22:7-14; see also ECF No. 204 at 24-25. The Court’s claim
`construction confirms that claim 1 requires a “rule-based substitution” of sets of assets— that
`happens by application of a generic rule—not a new or unconventional “rule-based algorithm.” Id.
`
`-4-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`differently because claim 1 allegedly improves the system by making content more impactful.
`However, even under 10Tales’ characterization (Opp. at 14), claim 1 still equates to the numerous
`analogized abstract ideas found abstract by the Federal Circuit. Free Stream Media, 996 F.3d at
`1361-62, 1365-66; Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1362, 1367. Additionally, the “improvements”
`alleged by 10Tales are not “improvements to technology” and should be rejected.
`A.
`Even Under 10Tales’ Proposed Characterization, Claim 1 is Abstract
`10Tales seeks to expand the characterization of claim 1 by looking at “the claim as a
`whole.” Opp. at 10-15. Although characterizing a claim’s focus need not list all elements of the
`claim, improvements to machinery of a device should be considered. CardioNet, LLC v.
`InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1371 (Fed Cir. 2020). However, the improvements must be to the
`machinery and more than just implementing generic machinery. Id. Here, claim 1 merely recites
`generic computer components and functional limitations for those components that do not change
`how that machinery functions. Thus, regardless of how much detail is added, the characterization
`of claim 1 is still similar to the targeted advertising claims in Free Stream Media. 996 F.3d at
`1359. Chart 1 compares 10Tales’ characterization of claim 1 to the Federal Circuit’s
`characterization of the claims in Free Stream and Trinity—the difference is indistinguishable:
`Claim 1 per 10Tales’ Description
`Trinity
`[a data processing
`1) cause server to present a first
`system, processor and
`personalized digital media
`memory]
`presentation to the user,
`(1) receiving user
`2) retrieve social network
`information;
`information about the user from a
`
`source external to the digital media
`(2) providing a polling
`presentation
`question;
`3) use the social network information
`(3) receiving and
`to select more personalized set of
`storing an answer;
`digital media assert for that user—
`(4) comparing that
`based on the retrieved social network
`answer to generate a
`information from an external source,
`"likelihood of match"
`with other users; and
`4) monitor the digital media
`
`presentation for a trigger that
`(5) displaying certain
`indicates an opportunity to perform a
`user profiles based on
`rule based substitution of one or more
`that likelihood.
`of those better assets into the
`[personalized] presentation.
`
`Free Stream
`[a television to generate
`fingerprint data]
`1) gather information about
`televisions users’ viewing
`habits
`2) matching the information
`with other content (i.e., targeted
`advertisements based on
`relevancy to the television view,
`[a mobile device for processing
`an embedded project and
`executing a sandbox
`application and processing the
`fingerprint data]
`3) sending that [tailored]
`content to a second device
`
`Chart 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`Opp. at 11-14; Free Stream Media, 996 F.3d at 1361-62; Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th 1355, 1362
`(Fed. Cir. 2022). As depicted in Chart 1, even 10Tales’ own characterization of claim 1 bares all
`“relevant similarities” to the “familiar class of claims ‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept” that
`are focused on “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results” in “a generic
`technical environment.” See Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1362, 1364; Free Stream Media, 996 F.3d at
`1361-62. Moreover, the “improvements” 10Tales alleges made in claim 1—such as analyzing
`users interactions, learning social dynamics, or using a rule-based algorithm—are not in claim 1,
`and do not change the claim’s characterization.
`B.
`Claim 1 Does not Provide a Specific Technical Solution to a Specific Technical
`Problem
`10Tales asserts “[a]s in DDR, claim 1 here is ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology
`in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,’ i.e., the
`desire to learn more about the user to identify content that will have a strong impact on that
`particular individual.” Opp. at 15 (citing DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). This argument should be rejected because the argument relies on multiple false
`premises. First, claim 1 does not recite a “learning” step. Second, the “desire to learn more about”
`a user is not a technical problem in computer technology (i.e., a person can desire to learn and,
`indeed, learn more about a person). Finally, identifying “impactful” content is a result of learning
`about the user (again not required by claim 1), which humans can also perform—so not a technical
`problem.
`The Federal Circuit in TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc. made two “significant” inquiries when
`determining whether a claim recites an “improvement to technology”: (1) “whether the focus of
`the claimed advance is on a solution to a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
`networks or computers”; and (2) “whether the claim is properly characterized as identifying a
`specific improvement in computer capabilities or network functionality, rather than only claiming
`a desirable result or function.” 978 F.3d 1278, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). In other words,
`the specification must identify (1) a specific technical problem and (2) the specific technical
`solution to the technical problem. Id. Here, 10Tales cannot identify either.
`
`-6-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`No Specific Technical Problem: 10Tales identifies “drawbacks” and “shortcomings” in
`conventional ad-placement systems—namely determining the user’s likes and dislikes for
`attracting individuals to content that is more personally relevant. Opp. at 2-3, 15. Said differently,
`10Tales suggests the problem is the desire to learn more about the user. However, this “problem”
`is present in every ad-placement system—whether physical (newspapers) or digital—thus, the
`problem is not specific to digital media (technology). Moreover, this “problem” is unrelated to any
`specific deficiency or issue with computers or networks.
`For comparison, in the DDR Holdings line of cases the “improvement to technology”
`corresponds to specific problems related to computer functionality or the Internet itself. 773 F.3d
`at 1248-1250 (the claim addressed a technical problem unique to the Internet—websites that
`would lose “views” when users clicked a link that redirected the user to a third party’s website);
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the
`claim addressed a technical deficiency in the display unit and interface technology); TecSec, 978
`F.3d at 1293 (the claim addressed a problem specific to computer data networks lacking security
`when disseminating information to a large group without uniform access). Here, claim 1 does not
`address a technical problem, but instead a problem inherent to advertising.
`No Specific Technical Solution: 10Tales argues that claim 1 improves technology
`because the claim requires (1) a specific “ordered combination,” (2) “analyzing” user interaction
`on a social network (or learned “social dynamics”) and “retrieving user social network
`information,” and (3) “a rule-based algorithm.” Like the purported “problem,” these solutions do
`not address specific computer or network functionality. Moreover, as Judge Gonzales Rogers
`pointed out in oral argument for the initial § 101 motion, these alleged “improvements” are not in
`claim 1. Thus, 10Tales’ failure to establish that these elements are indeed included in claim 1
`during claim construction is fatal to 10Tales’ patentability arguments.
`First, 10Tales argues that the “improvement to technology” is found “when the limitations
`of claim 1 . . . are taken together as an ordered combination,” because “the claim recites an
`invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.” Opp. at 16-17
`(emphasis removed) (quotation omitted). However, this “ordered combination” argument is never
`
`-7-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 216 Filed 10/17/23 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`addressed in Alice-step one for the cases on which 10Tales’ relies. See e.g., DDR Holdings, 773
`F.3d at 1259. Additionally, 10Tales never argued during claim construction claim 1 requires a
`specific order or arrangement of steps. Moreover, 10Tales fails to explain how the specific order,
`or combination, of the steps is a technical solution, how the specific order addresses a technical
`deficiency, or even how the steps provides an order that is different from what is found in
`conventional systems. Thus, there is nothing to refute in this respect.
`By contrast, the ’030 patent describes a conventional advertising system (’030 patent at
`2:35-40), which suggests the conventional order of steps for presenting an advertisement: first
`identify the users demographic (e.g., age 18-24), then create the advertisements based on that
`segment of audience, and then present that advertisement to the users. Id. Claim 1 follows this
`same order of steps: collects information about a user, uses that information to identify content,
`and presents that content to the user. ’030 patent, 21:1-22:18; see supra Chart 1. Thus, neither the
`order of steps nor specific combination of steps of claim 1 rises to the level of a specific technical
`solution, and must be rejected as an “improvement to technology” under Alice-step one.
`Second, even though the alleged concepts of “analyzing” user interaction on a social
`network or “learning” social dynamics are not in claim 1, 10Tales continues to argue patentability
`as if these concepts are present. Opp. at 15-16. 10Tales’ primary support for its allegation is the
`FAC, which alleges that claim 1 includes the “analyzing” user interaction concept, and although
`not mentioned in the FAC, 10Tales cites the specification when describing the learning social
`dynamics concept. Opp. at 4, 15, 16; FAC ¶¶ 59-60. However, as explained above, claim 1 does
`not include the “analyzing” or “learning” concepts.5 See supra §§ III, IV.B. During claim
`construction, 10Tales did not seek to import these concepts into claim 1, and claim construction
`confirmed that these concepts are not in claim 1. See id.; ’030 patent at 21:1-22:16; ECF No. 204
`
`
`5 Even if analysis or learning of information is in the claim, and could be a technical solution,
`numerous Federal Circuit cases have found similar “improvements” abstract: “gathering and
`analyzing inform