IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 18-1608-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
` GRACENOTE, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FREE STREAM MEDIA CORP. d/b/a
`SAMBA TV,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT SAMBA TV’S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT &
`RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE FALLON (D.I. 22)
`
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Free Stream Media
`Corp., d/b/a Samba TV
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Sten Jensen
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`Columbia Center
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Clement Seth Roberts
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Alyssa Caridis
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`
`Dated: November 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING PATENT ELIGIBILITY .................... 1
`
`III. GRACENOTE’S ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO
`ABSTRACT IDEAS AND DO NOT CLAIM AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT ........... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’030 Patent Claims An Abstract Idea – A Conventional
`Database Scheme Used To Index And Store Videos ........................................ 1
`
`The Trigger Patents Do Not Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter .............. 5
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .....................................................................................................1, 4, 5, 10
`
`Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................4, 7, 10
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................10
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................7
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................10
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................4, 5, 7, 9
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................1, 4
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................4
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................2, 3, 4
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GMBH,
`No. 2018-1863 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2019) ..................................................................................9
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................1, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................4, 7
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................1, 9
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 .............................................................................................................................1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) ........................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Defendant Free Stream Media Corp., d/b/a
`
`Samba TV (“Samba”), objects to the November 1, 2019 Report and Recommendation (D.I. 22,
`
`“R&R”) recommending denial of Samba’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 10). Specifically, Samba
`
`objects to the R&R’s finding that (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,171,030 (the “’030 Patent”) claims patent-
`
`eligible subject matter, and (2) the Trigger Patents claim patent-eligible subject matter. This Court
`
`reviews the R&R de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR EVALUATING PATENT ELIGIBILITY
`The Supreme Court’s Alice decision established a two-part framework for determining
`
`patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
`
`217-18 (2014). First, a court determines whether the claims are directed to patent-ineligible
`
`subject matter, such as an abstract idea. Id. If so, the court moves on to Step 2 and considers the
`
`elements of each claim, both individually and “as an ordered combination,” to determine whether
`
`the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into one that is patent-eligible. Id.
`
`Because the ultimate question of whether a claim recites patent-eligible subject matter under § 101
`
`is a question of law, a district court may resolve the issue of patent eligibility by way of a motion
`
`to dismiss. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`III. GRACENOTE’S ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO ABSTRACT IDEAS
`AND DO NOT CLAIM AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT
`The ’030 Patent Claims An Abstract Idea – A Conventional Database Scheme
`A.
`Used To Index And Store Videos.
`
`The R&R recommended denial of Samba’s motion to dismiss the ’030 Patent based on a
`
`misapplication of the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). For the reasons set forth below, Samba’s motion to dismiss should be granted.
`
`Alice Step 1. The ’030 Patent claims using a well-known “tree” database to index and
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`store videos. The use of computers for “organizing and accessing records through the creation of
`
`an index-searchable database” is plainly nothing more than an abstract idea. See, e.g., Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). That is all that asserted
`
`claim 1 of the ’030 Patent covers:
`
`1. A method of organization of a multi-dimensional video database using a robust
`hash of a multi-dimensional vector signature as a traversal index, the method
`comprising:
`generation of a robust hash value as a traversal index from multiple parameters
`extracted from a region of interest in a frame of a video sequence; and
`storing data associated with the video sequence at a leaf node addressed by the
`robust hash value, wherein the leaf node is a member of a plurality of leaf nodes
`in a multi-dimensional video database.
`’030 Patent at 15:29-38.
`
`Each of the elements of the claim—a “multi-dimensional … database,” a “robust hash,” a
`
`“traversal index,” and a “leaf node”—are well-known and conventional features of a tree database.
`
`An example of a tree database is the taxonomic system for classifying species. Imagine an upside-
`
`down tree: You start at a “root”—the broadest category, like the kingdom “Animalia”—and then
`
`go to a branch at the next level (phylum, class, order, etc.), and continue until you reach a “leaf,”
`
`a particular entry on the tree, like the species “Ursus arctos californicus” for the California grizzly
`
`bear. In the ’030 Patent, the leaf nodes represent videos instead of a species. A tree video database
`
`is shown in Fig. 1A:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Gracenote does not claim to have invented tree databases. See ’030 Patent at 5:14-15
`
`(referring to a “typical video database” as including “leaf nodes.”). Instead, Gracenote argued,
`
`and the R&R accepted, that the ’030 Patent claims the “improved organization of a multi-
`
`dimensional video database” through use of a “robust hash” “as a traversal index.” D.I. 22 at 16;
`
`D.I. 14 at 20. But, like the idea of using a tree database, both a “robust hash” and a “traversal
`
`index” are abstract concepts that long predate videos and video databases.
`
`The R&R acknowledged that a “robust hash” is simply a video fingerprint—a unique
`
`identifier of a video. D.I. 22 at n.3. The use of a unique identifier as the tag to identify each entry
`
`in a database—the leaf node—is simply how an indexed database works. Specifying a particular
`
`type of data (a “robust hash”) as the label or tag for each video “is still abstract. The claims are
`
`not focused on how usage of the [robust hash] tags alters the database in a way that leads to an
`
`improvement in the technology of computer databases.” Erie, 850 F.3d at 1328 (use of XML tags
`
`as an index is abstract).
`
`The patent itself acknowledges that a “traversal index” is just the technical name for how
`
`a human or a computer navigates a tree database:
`
`The word traverse is typically used to describe the operations that involve the
`stepping or traversal from node to node of the database until the individual elements
`of the database are reached. The traversal indexes and the signatures are computed
`from features such as, the shape, motion, first and second order gradients in the
`sectors or other features or combination thereof, to identify likely frames or video
`sequence in step 202 of FIG. 2A.
`’030 Patent at 8:56-67. As Gracenote’s counsel explained, in a tree database, instead of taking a
`
`list of every single leaf in the tree and comparing it against your query until you find a match, you
`
`narrow your search by travelling along the branches of the tree based on directions provided by
`
`the traversal index. See Transcript of July 23, 2019 Hearing on MTD, at 48:10-51:5.1
`
`
`1 The transcript is cited as “Tr.,” and a courtesy copy is attached as Ex. 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The R&R erred in analogizing this entirely typical use of a known database structure to the
`
`database at issue in Enfish. R&R at 16-17. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit held that claims to a
`
`new, specific way of structuring a database were patent-eligible. 822 F.3d at 1337-38; see Elec.
`
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that the claims
`
`in Enfish were eligible “because [they] focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing
`
`computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement ... in how computers could carry
`
`out one of their basic functions”). The ’030 Patent does not change anything about the way a tree
`
`database is structured or the way traversal indexes are used to access data in a tree database, and
`
`the R&R did not conclude otherwise. Instead, the R&R accepted statements in the specification
`
`that use of a tree database makes indexing videos faster. D.I. 22 at 16-17. The supposed benefits
`
`the R&R identified—efficiency and accuracy—“are not improvements to database functionality.
`
`Instead, they are benefits that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a well-
`
`known database structure.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-8 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018). Identifying purported benefits stemming from use of an abstract idea do not make a claim
`
`patent-eligible. See OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363.
`
`The alleged improvement of using a robust hash as a traversal index does not “enable[] a
`
`computer ... to do things it could not do before.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d
`
`1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claim’s focus is “not a physical-realm improvement but an
`
`improvement in a wholly abstract idea,” and is therefore not eligible for patenting. SAP Am., Inc.
`
`v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As this Court held in Erie, a claim to the
`
`“creation of an index used to search and retrieve information stored in a database,” is directed to
`
`an abstract idea and fails Alice Step 1. Erie, 850 F.3d at 1327. That is all claim 1 of the ’030
`
`Patent covers.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Alice Step 2. The R&R did not address Alice Step 2 due to its erroneous conclusion on
`
`Step 1. Claim 1 of the ’030 Patent fails Alice Step 2 because it claims nothing beyond an abstract
`
`idea. There is no contrary evidence in the record. Gracenote did not even address Alice Step 2 in
`
`its briefing on Samba’s motion to dismiss. See D.I. 14 at 19-20.
`
`B.
`
`The Trigger Patents Do Not Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter.
`
`Alice Step 1. U.S. Patent Nos. 9,066,114, 9,479,831, and 9,407,962 (the “Trigger Patents”)
`
`are related and share a common specification. D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 17, 20. They describe systems and
`
`methods for identifying, via fingerprint matching, a moment in a video stream and triggering an
`
`event to occur at a particular time after a match is detected. The Federal Circuit “treat[s] analyzing
`
`information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
`
`more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d
`
`at 1354 (collecting cases). Claim 11 of the ’831 Patent is representative:
`
`11. A method comprising:
`[a] playing back multimedia content on a multimedia playback device,
`including providing at least some of the multimedia content on a display
`associated with the multimedia playback device;
`[b] during the playback of the multimedia content by the multimedia playback
`device, repeatedly deriving, by the multimedia playback device, fingerprints
`from respective segments of the multimedia content;
`[c] comparing the derived fingerprints to reference fingerprints representing
`features of the multimedia content, each reference fingerprint associated with
`one or more actions;
`[d] determining that one of the derived fingerprints matches one of the reference
`fingerprints; and
`[e] in response to the determining that the one of the derived fingerprints
`matches the one of the reference fingerprints, causing execution of an action
`associated with the one of the reference fingerprints, the action being associated
`with a time point indicating when, in the multimedia content, the action is to be
`performed.
`’831 Patent at 9:26-47 (bracketed letters added); see D.I. 14 at 4 (Gracenote agreeing claim 11 is
`
`representative).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim 11 is directed to the abstract idea of comparing observed data against a reference
`
`and taking an action upon detecting a match. In simple terms, step (a) is playing a video on a TV
`
`(see Tr. at 43:11-14 (Gracenote’s counsel)); step (b) is deriving “fingerprints” from the video (id.
`
`at 43:14-16); steps (c) and (d) are comparing and matching the “fingerprints” to prestored
`
`references (id. at 43:16-22); and finally, step (e) involves using the match as a trigger to perform
`
`an action at a specific time, like playing an advertisement on the TV (id. at 43:22-24). Gracenote’s
`
`example of how this technology would be used in the real world is triggering an advertisement to
`
`appear after a specific scene in a movie. Id. at 42:15-43:7.
`
`The Trigger Patents do not purport to have invented fingerprints or matching. They
`
`describe fingerprints as “an identifier which is computed over that piece of audio or video,” and
`
`note that “of course any method for computing a robust fingerprint can be used.” ’831 Patent at
`
`3:26-33, 4:46-47; id. at 4:44-5:5 (citing examples of known video fingerprinting methods). Nor
`
`do the Trigger Patents claim to have invented matching fingerprints to a database. Id. at 6:42-60
`
`(describing known “matching strategies for matching fingerprints”). The matching is performed
`
`“by means of a suitably programmed computer,” as is the storage and association of fingerprints
`
`and responsive actions (i.e., playing an advertisement). Id. at 7:50-62, 8:20-22.
`
`
`
`Humans perform these functions all the time. When watching a football game, fans sing
`
`their team’s fight song after a touchdown. When the Phantom of the Opera is performed live, the
`
`chandelier crashes after the song “All I Ask of You.” During the evening news, the news anchor’s
`
`speech prompts the TV engineers to switch to an on-site reporter or the meteorologist. See also
`
`D.I. 11 at 13-14. The Trigger Patents “merely implement [this] old practice in a new environment”
`
`and therefore do not claim patent-eligible subject matter. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`
`839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (sorting email based on matching observed characteristics to
`
`stored characteristics is abstract and analogizing email sorting to discarding junk mail without
`
`opening it); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d
`
`1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is
`
`undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”).
`
`
`
`The R&R correctly recognized that limiting the abstract idea to the context of video
`
`fingerprints on a TV does not make the invention patent-eligible. See D.I. 22 at 9 (citing BSG, 899
`
`F.3d at 1287 (“[A] claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow
`
`way.”)). Nonetheless, the R&R made an error of law in holding that comparing continuously
`
`derived fingerprints to reference fingerprints is not abstract and “provide[s] a specific,
`
`simultaneous solution” to identified problems with TV broadcasting. D.I. 22 at 8, 9-10. The R&R
`
`failed to appreciate that, as a matter of law, an abstract solution to a technical problem is still
`
`abstract. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355; SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168 (an “improvement in
`
`wholly abstract ideas—the selection and mathematical analysis of information, followed by
`
`reporting or display of the results,” is not patentable). The R&R asserts the Trigger Patents cover
`
`an “improvement to the technology” because they solved problems with accuracy and
`
`watermarking. D.I. 22 at 9-10. But the R&R did not identify any technical improvements to
`
`creating fingerprints, performing matching between an observed fingerprint and a database, or
`
`triggering an action. Nor do the Trigger Patents disclose any such improvements; they refer to
`
`known methods of generating fingerprints and known methods of comparing and matching
`
`fingerprints to a database. See ’831 Patent at 6:42-60.
`
`
`
`The R&R also erred in holding that the Trigger Patents disclose an “improv[ement to] the
`
`computer technology itself.” D.I. 22 at 14. For example, the R&R states the “Trigger Patents
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`recite a particular manner of marking portions of a multimedia stream.” D.I. 22 at 11. But that is
`
`not the case. The common specification does not disclose any improved method of fingerprinting.
`
`Instead, the specification discloses that “any method for computing a robust fingerprint can be
`
`used.” ’831 Patent at 4:46-47 (emphasis added); id. at 9:32-35 (claim 11). That generic description
`
`and claiming of fingerprinting confirms that the claims “are directed to the use of conventional or
`
`generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention
`
`reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two.” In re TLI
`
`Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The R&R discounted Samba’s theater analogy based on the same misunderstanding,
`
`concluding that it “fails to account for the functional improvement achieved by comparing
`
`continuously-generated fingerprints” with reference fingerprints. D.I. 22 at 11, 13. Again, the
`
`R&R does not identify any “functional improvement” achieved through the claimed fingerprints
`
`or comparison to reference fingerprints. A stagehand watching a play (“continuously generating
`
`fingerprints”) and following directions from a script annotated with stage directions (a “reference”)
`
`to decide when to raise a curtain or change the lighting (“triggering an action”) is doing the exact
`
`same thing as claimed in the Trigger Patents and achieving the same result.
`
`
`
`The R&R further erred in analogizing this case to Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017). D.I. 22 at 12-13. In Thales, the patent claimed a “particular
`
`arrangement of sensors” in the physical world (there, on a fighter jet and a helmet), which
`
`allowed a computer to determine the orientation of two objects relative to each other. 850 F.3d
`
`at 1348. Prior systems used a different arrangement of sensors to gather different data to achieve
`
`the same result. Id. The Federal Circuit held the claim in Thales was “directed to a new and
`
`useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object on a moving platform.” Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`at 1349. A method of using new, unconventional inputs to observe real-world properties is
`
`unlike this case, which uses an old, conventional method of gathering data from a preexisting
`
`source (fingerprinting a TV broadcast) and an old, conventional method of processing that data
`
`(matching to a database) with no improvement to either method.2
`
`Gracenote’s opposition also repeatedly emphasized Thales and pointed to the use of an
`
`“independently marked reference stream” of fingerprints as the inventive idea underlying the
`
`claims. See D.I. 14 at 5, 8, 12, 16 (“modified advance copy of the multimedia stream”). That
`
`argument cannot carry the day. First, the specification does not teach any technical improvement
`
`to “reference fingerprints” or “reference streams.” Instead, the specification describes deriving
`
`and storing video fingerprints using conventional computer algorithms and conventional computer
`
`components. E.g., ’831 Patent at 5:17-18, 5:39-46. Using a reference broadcast as a comparator
`
`amounts to nothing more than “merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
`
`analysis, and display [and] does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental
`
`processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of
`
`abstract ideas.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355. Second, the claim does not require the
`
`“independently marked reference stream” or “modified advance copy of the multimedia stream”
`
`emphasized by Gracenote—it simply requires generic “reference fingerprints.” Improvements that
`
`are not claimed are not relevant to the § 101 inquiry. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (alleged improvements are only relevant if “captured in the claims”).
`
`
`2 For the same reason, Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GMBH, No. 2018-1863 (Fed. Cir.
`Nov. 15, 2019), confirms claim 11 is not patent eligible. There, the claims covered a “new way of
`generating check data,” and the defendants did not dispute this was “an improvement to an existing
`technological process.” Slip Op. at 13-14. Here, as explained above, the Trigger Patents do not
`claim any technological improvement.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The R&R’s reliance on Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018), is also misplaced. D.I. 22 at 11-12. Data Engine involved claims to electronic
`
`spreadsheets with multiple tabs and “a specific interface and implementation for navigating
`
`complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers” in a patent with a
`
`1992 priority date—a time when “electronic spreadsheets were not easy to use.” Id. at 1002, 1009.
`
`Here, there is no “technique unique to computers” or new structure that improves computer
`
`functionality. The claimed fingerprints function in the exact same way the fingerprints always
`
`function: to uniquely identify something (here, a video). See ’831 Patent at 3:29-33.
`
`Alice Step 2. Because of its error under Alice Step 1, the R&R did not reach Alice Step 2.
`
`D.I. 22 at 15. As explained in Samba’s Opening Brief (D.I. 11 at 15-18), claim 11 does not involve
`
`“significantly more” than the abstract idea of matching fingerprints and taking action in response.
`
`BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290. The individual components of claim 11 are well-known: a “multimedia
`
`playback device” (i.e., a TV), deriving fingerprints, comparing and matching fingerprints to a
`
`database, and triggering an action. See ’831 Patent at 4:44-5 (fingerprints), 6:37-60 (matching to
`
`database), 8:20-24 (computer program), and 1:30-40 (triggering an action in a TV/music stream).
`
`And together, they amount to nothing more than the abstract idea. Whatever purported novelty
`
`there is in using a reference stream as a comparator, that simply comes from a restatement of the
`
`abstract idea itself that “cannot supply the inventive concept at step two.” ChargePoint, Inc. v.
`
`SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Gracenote did not identify any evidence
`
`to the contrary in its Opposition. D.I. 14 at 16-17.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Samba respectfully requests that the Court sustain Samba’s objections to the R&R and
`
`grant Samba’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 10).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Sten Jensen
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`Columbia Center
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Clement Seth Roberts
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Alyssa Caridis
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`
`Dated: November 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Free Stream Media
`Corp., d/b/a Samba TV
`
`11
`
`