Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 35590
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-770-JDW
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS THAT THE ’538 PATENT IS INVALID
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Wirtgen America, Inc.
`
`v.
`CATERPILLAR INC.,
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 21, 2024
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Ryan D. Levy
`Seth R. Ogden
`William E. Sekyi
`Mark A. Kilgore
`PATTERSON INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY LAW, P.C.
`1600 Division Street, Suite 500
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 242-2400
`rdl@iplawgroup.com
`sro@iplawgroup.com
`wes@iplawgroup.com
`mak@iplawgroup.com
`
`
`- and -
`
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Paul A. Ainsworth
`William H. Milliken
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1101 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`painsworth@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 35591
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’538 PATENT ................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Alice step one: claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea of selecting the
`operating conditions of a machine to optimize fuel efficiency while
`maintaining rotor speed. .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Alice step two: claim 13 lacks an inventive concept because it merely
`recites implementing the abstract idea using generic hardware and
`computer functionality. ......................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 35592
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................11
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`AGI Suretrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc.,
`No. 8:22CV275, 2024 WL 1578164 (D. Neb. Apr. 11, 2024) ..................................................8
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .............................................................................................................5, 11
`
`American Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................1, 6, 10, 13
`
`Atos, LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`No. 20-cv-06224, 2021 WL 6063963 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2021) ................................................8
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................6
`
`BoardActive Corp. v. Foursquare Labs, Inc.,
`No. 22-cv-597-JDW, 2023 WL 2587688 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2023) .......................................5, 6
`
`Certain Road Construction Machs. & Components Thereof,
`Comm’n Op., Inv. No. 337-TA-1088, 2019 WL 6003332 (July 15, 2019) .............................14
`
`Certain Road Construction Machs. & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1088, 2018 WL 2459016 (May 24, 2018) ...................................................14
`
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................8, 9, 10, 13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 35593
`
`
`Chewy, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`94 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.,
`304 U.S. 364 (1938) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`iLife Techs., Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`839 F. App’x 534 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................8
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................11
`
`Le Roy v. Tatham,
`55 U.S. (14 How.) 156 (1852) ...................................................................................................1
`
`MG Freesites Ltd. v. ScorpCast LLC,
`651 F. Supp. 3d 744 (D. Del. 2023) ...........................................................................................4
`
`Money Suite Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`No. 13-1748-GMS, 2015 WL 436160 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2015) .................................................5
`
`Riggs Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Cengage Learning, Inc.,
`No. 2022-1468, 2023 WL 193162 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2023) .....................................................6
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................8, 9, 13
`
`Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc.,
`No. 2020-2320, 2021 WL 2944838 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) .................................................12
`
`Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co.,
`416 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................4
`
`T-Jat Sys. 2006 Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc. (DE),
`No. 16-cv-581-RGA, 2019 WL 3944014 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019) ...........................................3
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 35594
`
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`University of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. General Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................8
`
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................11, 12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................................................................................................5, 6, 8, 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ........................................................................................................................4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 35595
`
`
`Introduction
`
`I.
`
`
`
`“The Supreme Court has long held that claims that state a goal without a solution are
`
`patent ineligible.” American Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285, 1295
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020). That is because “claiming a concept without the particular steps of carrying it
`
`out ‘would prohibit all other persons from making the same thing by any means whatsoever.’”
`
`Id. at 1295–96 (quoting Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 174–75 (1852)). That is
`
`precisely what Caterpillar’s ’538 patent attempts to do.
`
`Claim 13—the only remaining asserted claim—covers a machine with (i) an engine, (ii) a
`
`variable transmission, (iii) a rotor, (iv) a clutch, and (v) a controller that is “configured to” adjust
`
`the engine speed and gear ratio to both maintain the desired rotor speed and maximize fuel
`
`efficiency. The physical components of the claim—engine, transmission, rotor, clutch,
`
`controller—are all indisputably conventional. The purportedly novel aspect of the claim is a
`
`result—the machine is operated in a more fuel-efficient manner by adjusting engine speeds and
`
`gear ratios. But the claim does not describe any concrete means by which that result is achieved
`
`(nor does the specification). Claims like this—that “simply instruct[] the reader to” adjust certain
`
`variables “to achieve a claimed result, without limitation to particular ways to do so”—are not
`
`patent-eligible. Id. at 1298. Wirtgen therefore requests that the Court grant judgment on the
`
`pleadings that claim 13 of the ’538 patent is invalid.
`
`II. Overview of the ’538 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,975,538 “generally relates to milling machines,” and more specifically
`
`to “controlling the rotor speeds of cold planers and rotary mixers with optimized performance
`
`and fuel efficiency.” D.I. 62, Ex. 3 (’538 patent) 1:6–9. The patent states that “changes in engine
`
`speed and engine load throughout the operation can cause unwanted variations in the rotor
`
`speed” of the machine, but acknowledges that the prior art solved this problem via “variable
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 35596
`
`
`transmissions which allow for variations in the engine speed without affecting rotor speed.” Id.
`
`1:28–37.1 “However,” the patent explains, “these conventional systems do not further address
`
`
`
`fuel efficiency.” Id. 1:37–38. “Accordingly, there is a need for improved solutions for controlling
`
`and maintaining a desired rotor speed of a milling machine, which also takes fuel consumption or
`
`efficiency into consideration.” Id. 1:41–44. The patent purports to meet this need by disclosing
`
`“a controller-implemented method of controlling a machine having a rotor coupled to an engine
`
`through a variable transmission” that includes “receiving a desired rotor speed, determining an
`
`engine load of the engine, adjusting an engine speed of the engine based on the engine load and
`
`one or more predefined efficiency points, and adjusting a gear ratio of the variable transmission
`
`based on the engine speed and the desired rotor speed.” Id. 1:52–60.
`
`The specification’s description of this method, however, is result-oriented and functional.
`
`A generic controller “communicates with the engine to adjust engine speed based on changes in
`
`the engine load and predefined efficiency points for better fuel economy,” and “further
`
`communicates with the [transmission] to adjust the gear ratio based on changes in the engine
`
`speed for more consistent rotor speeds.” Id. 4:31–37; see id. 3:21–29 (controller “may be
`
`implemented using one or more of a processor, a microprocessor, a microcontroller, an electronic
`
`control module (ECM), an electronic control unit (ECU), and any other suitable means” for
`
`receiving inputs and controlling the milling machine). The “predefined efficiency points” are
`
`described as “combinations of engine speed and engine load expected to provide relatively better
`
`fuel economy,” id. 4:16–18, but the patent does not identify any such combinations or explain
`
`how they should be determined. The patent states that the controller “may be configured to
`
`
`1 As the Court’s Markman opinion observed, the “technical understanding” of variable
`transmissions as transmissions that “can change to provide varying speeds or ratios” “is so
`common, it has made its way into common dictionaries, not just technical ones.” D.I. 167 at 17.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 35597
`
`
`control rotor speeds and optimize fuel efficiency based on algorithms or sets of instructions
`
`
`
`programmed therein,” id. 4:37–40, but provides no details of any such algorithms or instructions.
`
`Instead, the patent simply discloses a high-level block-diagram that recites the functions of an
`
`exemplary algorithm without specifying how those functions are achieved. See id. Fig. 5.
`
`Particularly telling on this score is the patent’s use of the passive voice when describing the crux
`
`of the claimed method (i.e., actually calibrating the relevant parameters to maximize fuel
`
`efficiency): “Once the optimum engine speed, or the engine speed expected to provide the
`
`optimum fuel efficiency has been determined for the given engine load, the controller … may
`
`compare the actual engine speed to the optimum engine speed.” Id. 5:12–17 (emphasis added).
`
`The patent does not explain how that “determin[ation]” is actually made. Cf. T-Jat Sys. 2006 Ltd.
`
`v. Expedia, Inc. (DE), No. 16-cv-581-RGA, 2019 WL 3944014, at *6 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019)
`
`(“It is a well-known danger of functional claiming that the patentee ‘uses conveniently functional
`
`language at the exact point of novelty.’”) (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance
`
`Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)).
`
`Although the embodiments disclosed in the ’538 patent are milling machines, the claims
`
`are not so limited: they cover any machine having any type of rotor coupled to an engine and a
`
`variable transmission. And, because a “rotor” could be any rotatable component (for example, a
`
`shaft) driven by an engine, including a vehicle drive axle, the claims are broad enough to cover
`
`not just road-construction machines but road vehicles as well—cars, trucks, buses, or even a
`
`snowplow. Claim 13 depends from claim 6. Those claims recite as follows:
`
`6. A machine, comprising:
`an engine;
`a variable transmission operatively coupled to an output of the
`engine;
`a rotor operatively coupled to an output of the variable transmission;
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 35598
`
`
`
`
`
`and
`a controller in electrical communication with one or more of the
`engine, variable transmission, and the rotor, the controller being
`configured to determine an engine load, adjust an engine speed
`based on the engine load and one or more predefined efficiency
`points being based at least partially on predetermined fuel
`consumption rates and proving optimum engine speeds for different
`engine loads, and adjust a gear ratio of the variable transmission
`based on the engine speed to maintain a desired rotor speed.
`13. The machine of claim 6, further comprising a clutch disposed
`between the engine and the rotor, the controller being configured to
`selectively disengage the rotor from the engine through control of
`the clutch.
`
`In plainspoken terms, claim 13 covers any machine with (i) an engine, (ii) a variable
`
`transmission, (iii) a rotor, (iv) a clutch, and (v) a controller that can adjust the engine speed based
`
`on the engine load and “predefined efficiency points” to optimize fuel efficiency and then adjust
`
`the gear ratio of the transmission based on the engine speed to maintain a constant rotor speed.2
`
`III. Legal Standard
`
`Judgment on the pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(c) is appropriate if “the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of
`
`fact, and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Sikirica v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
`
`214, 220 (3d Cir. 2005). “In deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may only
`
`consider the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as
`
`undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents.”
`
`MG Freesites Ltd. v. ScorpCast LLC, 651 F. Supp. 3d 744, 751 (D. Del. 2023) (cleaned up). Rule
`
`
`2 This brief focuses on claim 13 because it is the only asserted claim from this patent. In any
`event, however, claim 13 is representative of all claims of the patent. Independent claim 1 is a
`method claim with limitations largely mirroring the limitations of machine claim 6, and the other
`dependent claims add trivial limitations such as, for example, that the machine receives a desired
`rotor speed “though an operator interface of the machine” (claim 2). See Intellectual Ventures I
`LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 35599
`
`
`12(c) motions are analyzed under the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule
`
`12(b)(6). Money Suite Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 13-1748-GMS, 2015 WL
`
`
`
`436160, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2015).
`
`Patent eligibility. “An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a ‘new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’” BoardActive Corp. v. Foursquare Labs, Inc.,
`
`No. 22-cv-597-JDW, 2023 WL 2587688, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2023) (Wolson, J.) (quoting 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101). But the Supreme Court “has long interpreted Section 101 to contain an implicit
`
`exception: ‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas’ are not patentable.” Id.
`
`(quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)). “[T]he concern that
`
`drives this exclusionary principle [i]s one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. “Laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the basic tools of scientific and technological
`
`work.” Id. (cleaned up). And the patent laws should “not inhibit further discovery by improperly
`
`tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id.
`
`To determine whether claimed subject matter is patent-eligible, the Court applies the two-
`
`step Alice framework. Id. at 217–18. First, the Court “determine[s] whether the claims at issue
`
`are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea or natural law. Id. at 218. If
`
`so, the Court “examine[s] the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an
`
`‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” Id. at 221. The Federal Circuit has explained that step one looks at the “focus of the
`
`claims [and] their character as a whole,” while step two looks “more precisely at what the claim
`
`elements add—specifically, whether … they identify an inventive concept in the application of
`
`the ineligible matter to which … the claim is directed.” Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`
`830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). “[C]laims that state a goal without a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 35600
`
`
`solution” are often deemed ineligible under this framework. American Axle, 967 F.3d at 1295.
`
`
`
`“Patent validity under Section 101 is a question of law suitable for resolution on a motion
`
`to dismiss” or a motion for judgment on the pleadings. BoardActive, 2023 WL 2587688, at *3.
`
`Indeed, “[f]ailure to recite statutory subject matter is the sort of ‘basic deficiency’ that can, and
`
`should, ‘be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and
`
`the court.’” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718–19 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J.,
`
`concurring) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007)). While the eligibility
`
`inquiry may sometimes involve underlying issues of fact, such as “whether a claim element or
`
`combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional,” Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`
`881 F.3d 1360, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the patent itself will often demonstrate that the claims
`
`involve only well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See, e.g., Riggs Tech. Holdings,
`
`LLC v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. 2022-1468, 2023 WL 193162, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17,
`
`2023) (affirming grant of motion to dismiss and noting that, “where the specification admits …
`
`claim elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, it will be difficult, if not
`
`impossible, for a patentee to show a genuine dispute”). Thus, “in many cases it is possible and
`
`proper” to determine patent eligibility on the pleadings. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`
`839 F.3d 1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, in analyzing eligibility, courts may take
`
`judicial notice of “fundamental economic concepts and technological developments.” Affinity
`
`Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`IV. Argument
`A.
`
`Alice step one: claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea of selecting the
`operating conditions of a machine to optimize fuel efficiency while
`maintaining rotor speed.
`
`Claim 13 is directed to the abstract idea of selecting operating conditions of a machine—
`
`namely, engine speed and gear ratio—to optimize fuel efficiency while maintaining a constant
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 35601
`
`
`rotor speed. The physical components recited in the claim—an engine, a variable transmission, a
`
`rotor, a controller, and a clutch—are indisputably generic and conventional. Road-construction
`
`machines have had these features for decades. See generally ’538 patent 1:13–48; see id. 1:20–
`
`
`
`22, 2:67–3:2 (engine); id. 1:34–37, 2:63–67 (variable transmission); id. 1:13–28 (rotor); id. 3:21–
`
`29 (controller); id. 3:30–50 (clutch). The purported novelty of the claimed machine, to the extent
`
`there is any, must lay in the result that the controller uses information about the machine’s
`
`operating condition and “predefined efficiency points” to optimize fuel efficiency while
`
`maintaining rotor speed. See id. 1:37–40, 1:55–60. But that result is just that—a result. The claim
`
`does not specify any concrete means by which that result is achieved. The claim is therefore
`
`directed to an ineligible concept at step one.
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838
`
`F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is instructive. The claim there covered “a broadcast system in which
`
`a cellular telephone located outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests and receives
`
`network-based content from the broadcaster via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to
`
`wirelessly download an application for performing those functions, and (3) contains a display
`
`that allows the user to select particular content.” Id. at 1256. The court held that the claim was
`
`directed to the abstract “concept of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast
`
`content.” Id. at 1258. Because the patent “claim[ed] the function of wirelessly communicating
`
`regional broadcast content to an out-of-region recipient, not a particular way of performing that
`
`function,” it was “drawn to the idea itself” and therefore directed to an abstract idea. Id.
`
`A similar conclusion is appropriate here. The invention of claim 13 is “entirely functional
`
`in nature.” Id. It recites a controller “configured” to accept as inputs certain information about
`
`the milling machine and “predefined efficiency points” and then use that information to optimize
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 35602
`
`
`fuel efficiency while maintaining a constant rotor speed. But “[t]here is nothing in claim 1[3] that
`
`
`
`is directed to how to” accomplish that result. Id.; see also University of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v.
`
`General Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding claim “described in purely
`
`functional terms” ineligible at the pleadings stage) (emphasis in original). Instead, the claim
`
`simply covers the collection and analysis of information, applied to a particular technological
`
`context but described at a high level of generality. Those sorts of claims are ineligible, as the
`
`Federal Circuit has routinely held. See iLife Techs., Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 839 F. App’x
`
`534, 536 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding claim that “merely amount[ed] to a system capable of sensing
`
`information, processing the collected information, and transmitting processed information”
`
`directed to an abstract idea); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (“[C]laims focused on ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results
`
`of the collection and analysis’ are directed to an abstract idea.”) (quoting Electric Power Grp.,
`
`830 F.3d at 1353). The claim therefore fails step one.3
`
`The § 101 analysis must always remain focused on the claim language, “and the
`
`specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not
`
`claimed.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019). That is
`
`because “[e]ven a specification full of technical details about a physical invention may
`
`nonetheless conclude with claims that claim nothing more than the broad law or abstract idea
`
`underlying the claims, thus preempting all use of that law or idea.” Id. Here, however—as in
`
`
`3 See also AGI Suretrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc., No. 8:22CV275, 2024 WL 1578164, at *6
`(D. Neb. Apr. 11, 2024) (claims that “use[d] generic (‘off the shelf’) computers and sensors to
`collect data from standard farm implements” and analyze that data were directed to an abstract
`idea); Atos, LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-06224, 2021 WL 6063963, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Dec.
`22, 2021) (finding claims covering a method of “detecting the motion or state of a vehicle and
`taking a corresponding action” directed to an abstract idea because the claim failed to “provide[]
`technical details as to how this monitoring or analysis should be accomplished”).
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 35603
`
`
`Affinity Labs v. DIRECTV—“[e]ven if all the details contained in the specification were imported
`
`
`
`into the … claims, the result would still not be a concrete implementation of the abstract idea.”
`
`838 F.3d at 1259. On the contrary, “the specification underscores the breadth and abstract nature
`
`of the idea embodied in the claims” by describing the claimed invention “at a high level of
`
`generality.” Id. For example, the patent states that the controller
`
`• “receive[s] a desired rotor speed from the operator”;
`• “monitor[s] or determine[s] the current engine speed and current engine load” using a
`generic “sensor”;
`• “refer[s] to predefined fuel efficiency points … or any other predetermined information
`pertaining to the fuel consumption characteristics of the milling machine” stored in a
`generic “memory” to “determine an optimum engine speed for the given engine load”;
`and
`• “compare[s] the actual engine speed to the optimum engine speed” “[o]nce the optimum
`engine speed … has been determined for the given engine load.”
`
`’538 patent 5:1–17 (emphasis added). “Nothing in [this discussion] provides any details
`
`regarding the manner in which the invention accomplishes the recited functions.” Affinity Labs v.
`
`DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1260. These generic computer functions do nothing to improve the
`
`underlying technology, placing the claims in “the familiar class of claims that do not ‘focus …
`
`on [] an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
`
`computers as tools.’” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168.
`
`The only clue the patent provides about how to determine optimum engine speeds is that
`
`these determinations are based on “predefined efficiency points.” But, aside from stating that the
`
`“predefined efficiency points” are “preprogrammed,” ’538 patent 4:18–23, the patent does not
`
`describe any steps for deriving this data or creating the data structure in which it is contained. In
`
`other words, the “invention” here is just the idea to use any helpful data—that is, “any …
`
`predetermined information pertaining to … fuel consumption characteristics,” id. 5:9–10—to
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 35604
`
`
`(somehow) determine the optimum engine speed and then (somehow) adjust both the engine
`
`
`
`speed and the gear ratio to achieve that engine speed while maintaining the preferred rotor speed.
`
`That may be a “good idea”—but the idea “is where [the inventor] stopped, and that is all [he]
`
`patented.” ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 770. Such “ideas” are not patentable. See id. at 768–71
`
`(holding that patents to controller-operated networked charging station were directed to “the
`
`abstract idea of communication over a network for interacting with a device, applied to the
`
`context of electric vehicle charging stations,” and that specifying “the content of the
`
`communications received by the charging station” did not make the claims any less abstract).
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in American Axle provides a useful illustration of this
`
`point (albeit in the natural-law context rather than the abstract-idea one). A claim in that case
`
`covered a method for manufacturing an automobile drive shaft that involved “tuning a mass and
`
`a stiffness” of a liner for the shaft that would dampen both shell-mode and bending-mode
`
`vibration. 967 F.3d at 1290. The Federal Circuit held that this claim was ineligible because it
`
`“define[d] a goal (‘tuning a liner’ to achieve certain types of vibration attenuation)” without
`
`specifying how the goal was achieved. Id. at 1293–94. “[C]laims that state a goal without a
`
`solution,” the court explained, “are patent ineligible.” Id. at 1295–96 & n.7 (collecting cases
`
`applying this principle in the abstract-idea context). And that was all the claim at issue did—it
`
`did “not specify how target frequencies are determined or how, using that information, liners are
`
`tuned to attenuate two different vibration modes simultaneously, or how such liners are tuned to
`
`dampen bending mode vibrations.” Id. at 1298. It simply “instruct[ed] the reader to tune the liner
`
`to achieve a claimed result, without limitation to particular ways to do so.” Id. The claim thus
`
`“invoke[d] a natural law, and nothing more, to achieve a claimed result.” Id.
`
`
`
`Similar analysis applies here. Claim 13 does not specify how to identify any “predefined
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00770-JDW Document 386 Filed 05/21/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 35605
`
`
`efficiency points” or how to use that information along with the machine’s operating parameters
`
`
`
`to adjust engine speed and gear ratio to optimize fuel efficiency while maintaining rotor speed. It
`
`simply instructs the reader to achieve that claimed result. The claim is therefore directed to the
`
`abstract idea of selecting the operating conditions of a machine to optimiz