Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 585
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`RIDESHARE DISPLAYS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
` C.A. No. 20-1629-RGA-JLH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.’S RULE 72 OBJECTIONS TO THE JULY 12, 2021 REPORT
`AND RECOMMENDATION ON LYFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (D.I. 46)
`
`
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`John G. Day (#2403)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`jday@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Jennifer C. Tempesta
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, NY 10112-4498
`(212) 408-2500
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 291-6200
`
`Dated: July 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01708182;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 586
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................................................. 1
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2
`III.
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`A. The R&R erred by declining to find Claim 1 of the ‘987 Patent representative of all
`claims of the asserted patents. ..................................................................................................... 4
`B. Alice Step 1: The R&R erred by failing to find the claims of the asserted patents directed
`to the abstract idea of identifying a vehicle using visual indicators. .......................................... 5
`C. Alice Step 2: The R&R erred in failing to find the claims of the asserted patents lack an
`inventive step. ............................................................................................................................. 8
`IV.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`II
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 587
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................2
`
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................5, 7
`
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...............................................................................................................1, 7
`
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 8, 10
`
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................4
`
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d. 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018).................................................................................................7
`
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................2
`
`
`Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 733 (D. Del. 2018) .................................................................................7, 8, 10
`
`
`Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. CitiGroup Inc.,
`
`424 F. Supp. 3d. 385 (D. Del. 2020) ......................................................................................2, 4
`
`Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. CitiGroup Inc.,
`834 F. App’x 591 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................4
`
`
`Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc.,
` No. 1:18-00444-RGA, 2018 WL 6168618 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) ...................................9, 10
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................6, 7
`
`IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`352 F. Supp. 3d 335 (D. Del. 2019) ...........................................................................................9
`
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`III
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 588
`
`
`
`Rondevoo Techs., LLC v. Aernos, Inc.,
` No. 19-680-RGA, 2020 WL 1441116 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2020) ..............................................10
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`
`SynKloud Techs., LLC v. HP Inc.,
` No. 19-1360-RGA, 2020 WL 5798725 (D. Del. 2020) .........................................................2, 7
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................8
`
`
`Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................5
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) ........................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`IV
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 589
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Defendant
`
`Lyft, Inc., objects to Magistrate Judge Hall’s July 12, 2021 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
`
`(D.I. 46) recommending denial of Lyft’s Motion to Dismiss based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. The R&R
`
`erred by declining to find: (1) claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,169,987 (“the ‘987 patent”)
`
`representative of all claims of the five asserted patents; (2) those claims directed to an abstract
`
`idea; and (3) that the claims lack an inventive concept.
`
`Claim Representativeness: the R&R erroneously found “claim 1 of the ’987 Patent is not
`
`necessarily representative of all of the claims of all of the patents” (D.I. 46 at 6) at least because
`
`Lyft demonstrated all of the claims are substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.
`
`Alice Step 1: the R&R found that whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea “is a
`
`close question,” (Id. at 9), but erred in declining to find “all 45 claims are only directed to the
`
`abstract idea of ‘identifying a particular vehicle using visual indicators’” (Id. at 8), in view of
`
`Lyft’s showing of abstractness.
`
`Alice Step 2: the R&R erred in finding “disputes of fact that preclude a holding at step two
`
`that the claims lack an inventive concept” (D.I. 46 at 10) because the patents themselves
`
`demonstrate lack of inventive concept, and analogous case law confirms abstractness of the claims.
`
`The Court should decline to adopt the objected-to portions of the R&R and grant Lyft’s
`
`motion to dismiss.
`
`I. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`The Court can accept, reject, or modify the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Objections to
`
`a R&R regarding a dispositive motion are reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
`
`Laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). “[P]atent eligibility
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 590
`
`
`
`can be determined at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage . . . when there are no factual allegations that, taken
`
`as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green
`
`Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`First, the court must determine whether the claims are drawn to a
`patent-ineligible concept. If the answer is yes, the court must look
`to the elements of the claim both individually and as an ordered
`combination to see if there is an inventive concept—i.e., an element
`or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent
`in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
`[ineligible concept] itself.
`
`SynKloud Techs., LLC v. HP Inc., No. 19-1360-RGA, 2020 WL 5798725, at *2 (D. Del. 2020)
`
`(internal citations and quotations omitted) (alteration in original).
`
`A claim may be representative where “all claims are substantially similar and linked to
`
`the same abstract idea” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d
`
`1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted); Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc.,
`
`424 F. Supp. 3d 385, 388 (D. Del. 2020) (one claim was “representative of the other claims in
`
`the Asserted Patents” because “all of the independent claims of the remaining patents recite the
`
`same concept . . . and the dependent claims offer only minor, non-technical variations”).
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The ’637 Patent, filed on May 27, 2015, is titled “Vehicle Identification System.” D.I. 6-
`
`1. The remaining four asserted patents are continuations of the ’637 Patent and share the same title
`
`and specification. D.I. 6-2–6-5. There are a total of 45 claims across the five asserted patents.
`
`The asserted patents describe the technical field at issue as follows:
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 591
`
`
`
`D.I. 6-1 at 1:20–25. The indicator may “be displayed on a display associated with an article of
`
`clothing (e.g., coat or hat) worn by the driver and/or displayed on a remote hand-held display
`
`device (e.g., tablet computer) held by the driver.” Id. at 3:14–19. The indicator “may be displayable
`
`as a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier,” that is displayed
`
`“to enable the [passenger] to identify the vehicle that he/she has requested for a ride service.” Id.
`
`at 4:5–10. The claims use generic components to achieve the claimed results, e.g., :
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 2:60-64; 3:63-4:3. Claim 1 of the ’987 Patent recites:
`
`1. A vehicle identification system, comprising:
`
` a
`
` display associated with a vehicle, wherein the display is located to
`be visible from an exterior of the vehicle by a rider;
`
` a
`
` controller communicatively coupled to a network and configured
`to, in response to receipt of a signal from a user, generate and
`transmit a first signal representing an indicator via the network to a
`mobile communication device associated with a driver of the
`vehicle; and
`
`
`wherein, in response to receiving the first signal, the mobile
`communication device associated with the driver of the vehicle
`generates and transmits a second signal representing the indicator to
`the display, the indicator identifies the vehicle.
`
`D.I. 6-2 at 7:33–46.
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 592
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`The R&R erred by declining to find Claim 1 of the ‘987 Patent
`representative of all claims of the asserted patents.
`
`The R&R erred in determining that “I cannot conclude at this stage of the case that claim
`
`1 of the ’987 Patent is representative of all of the claims in the asserted patents.” D.I. 46 at 7.
`
`Lyft established claim representativeness in the briefing on its motion to dismiss and at
`
`oral argument, and Lyft’s representativeness showing directly analyzed the claim language. See
`
`D.I. 15 at 12-17; D.I. 15-1 (Ex. A); D.I. 20 at 6-8; Ex. A (Hr’g Tr.) at 17-22; Ex. B (Hr’g
`
`Presentation) at 8-11. The R&R identified claim elements not in the representative claim (D.I.
`
`46 at 6), but those additional elements are not legally distinctive and therefore do not rebut Lyft’s
`
`representativeness showing. See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (“Courts may treat a claim as representative . . . if the patentee does not present any
`
`meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the
`
`representative claim . . . .”); Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. CitiGroup Inc., 834 F. App’x 591, 592 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (finding one claim “representative of all 234 asserted claims”).
`
`The R&R determined that claim 1 of the ‘987 Patent is merely one example of all of
`
`RSDI’s claims, and distinguished claims that require an indicator be sent to a mobile device
`
`associated with a rider as well as claims that require the indicator signal be transmitted based on
`
`the proximity of the rider and driver. See D.I. 46 at 6. Lyft addressed both limitations as well as
`
`those identified by RSDI as allegedly distinct from claim 1 of the ’987 Patent, either in its Motion
`
`and/or in its Reply Brief. See D.I. 15 at 12–17; D.I. 20 at 7-8. Specific to the limitations discussed
`
`in the R&R, requiring the transmission of a signal when the driver’s vehicle is within a
`
`predetermined distance of a location is a routine and conventional step of the abstract concept
`
`of vehicle identification by visual indicators. See Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. CitiGroup Inc., 424 F.
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 593
`
`
`
`Supp. 3d. 385, 387-88 (D. Del. 2020) (finding one claim representative where all of the
`
`independent claims of the other patents described the same concept, and the dependent claims
`
`described “only minor, non-technical variations”); e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV,
`
`LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claim limitations that are well-known, routine,
`
`conventional functions do not transform an abstract idea into patentable invention). Similarly,
`
`the requirement that an indicator signal is transmitted to a mobile device associated with the
`
`rider also fails to transform the concept into a patentable idea. This limitation simply allows the
`
`rider to identify the vehicle by matching the visual indicator on the rider’s phone to that on the
`
`display of the vehicle. See id. Neither of these limitations, nor any of RSDI’s identified
`
`differences between claim 1 of the ’987 Patent and other claims of the asserted patents, impact
`
`the Section 101 analysis.
`
`Since the claims are all directed to the abstract idea of vehicle identification using visual
`
`indicators, the Court should overrule the R&R to find Claim 1 of the ’987 Patent representative.
`
`B.
`Alice Step 1: The R&R erred by failing to find the claims of the asserted
`patents directed to the abstract idea of identifying a vehicle using visual indicators.
`
`The R&R agreed “there is no dispute that all of the claims are [ ] directed to systems
`
`and methods for vehicle identification.” D.I. 46 a 7. The R&R went on to find, however, that
`
`the claim language includes “some detail about the manner in which those vehicles are
`
`identified.” Id. But these details do not save the claims from abstractness. A vehicle
`
`identification system with a generic “display,” “controller,” and “mobile communication
`
`device” is a “quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent” that is directed to an abstract idea. See
`
`Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`In its Alice Step 1 analysis, the R&R stated “the specification suggests that, prior to the
`
`patented invention, there was a need to improve rider and driver security and that the claimed
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 594
`
`
`
`invention, with a separate controller that sends a verification signal to the driver and the rider,
`
`is a solution to that problem.” D.I. 46 at 7-8. To the contrary, Lyft showed that the purported
`
`invention of the asserted patents—identifying a particular vehicle using visual indicators—has
`
`been performed by humans since vehicles have existed. For example, drivers at airport pickup
`
`locations routinely hold signs displaying passengers’ names or other visual indicators (hotel
`
`name, group ID, etc.) that distinguish vehicles in a crowded area.
`
`It has been commonplace for decades for a traveler to set up a car service for transportation
`
`upon arrival at a destination. Once a traveler makes a reservation, via low-tech means such as a
`
`telephone, they are told to meet a driver at the airport holding a sign with an identifier such as the
`
`traveler’s name. Upon arrival, the traveler looks for a driver holding a sign with his or her name
`
`and can approach the driver with confidence that they have selected the correct driver. The
`
`specification itself describes this scenario as one way in which the claimed indicator can be
`
`displayed: “[t]he indicator may additionally, or alternatively, be displayed on a display associated
`
`with an article of clothing (e.g., coat or hat) worn by the driver and/or displayed on a remote hand-
`
`held display device (e.g., tablet computer) held by the driver.” D.I. 6-2 at 3:17–22. The asserted
`
`patents claim this abstract idea, implemented on generic computer technology as shown below:
`
`Claim Language (Representative Claim 1 of the ’987 Patent) Low-Tech Implementation
`a display associated with a vehicle, wherein the display is
`paper held by driver or
`located to be visible from an exterior of the vehicle by a rider;
`displayed in car window
`a controller communicatively coupled to a network and
`dispatcher who tells driver the
`configured to, in response to receipt of a signal from a user,
`name of the passenger to pick
`generate and transmit a first signal representing an indicator via
`up in response to a
`the network to a mobile communication device associated with
`passenger’s reservation using
`a driver of the vehicle; and
`a telephone
`wherein, in response to receiving the first signal, the mobile
`driver writes the name of the
`communication device associated with the driver of the vehicle
`passenger on the paper in the
`generates and transmits a second signal representing the
`car window for the passenger
`indicator to the display, the indicator identifies the vehicle.
`to see upon arrival
`
`This low-tech analysis demonstrates the ineligibility of the asserted patents. See, e.g., Intellectual
`{01708182;V1 }
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 595
`
`
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding email processing
`
`software program abstract through comparison to a “brick-and-mortar” post office).
`
`While the R&R correctly stated that an appropriate Step 1 analysis compares asserted
`
`claims to claims that have been considered in previous decisions, the R&R incorrectly applied
`
`the first line of cases summarized by Judge Bryson in Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, 351 F. Supp.
`
`3d 733, 737 (D. Del. 2018). D.I. 46 at 8-9. The R&R simply stated that this case is not like the
`
`first line of cases which hold that methods of organizing human activity are abstract. However,
`
`this case can be analogized with the first line of cases since the asserted claims utilize known
`
`computer components to perform conventional steps to organize human activity. See Alice, 573
`
`U.S. at 220; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d. 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a
`
`claimed invention only performs an abstract idea on a generic computer, the invention is directed
`
`to an abstract idea at step one”). Claims that “can be implemented in myriad ways ranging from
`
`the low-tech . . . to the high-tech” or seek to cover commonplace human activity concern abstract
`
`ideas. Affinity Labs v. DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1258; see also SynKloud Techs., 2020 WL 5798725,
`
`at *5 (“Courts have also found that such claims are directed to longstanding practices of human
`
`organization.”); D.I. 15 at 3-5; D.I 20 at 1-2. “In addressing the first step of the section 101
`
`inquiry, as applied to a computer-implemented invention, it is often helpful to ask whether the
`
`claims are directed to ‘an improvement in the functioning of a computer,’ or merely ‘adding
`
`conventional computer components to well-known business practices.’” Affinity Labs of Tex.,
`
`LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). As confirmed
`
`above, Lyft showed in its motion how the asserted claims have been implemented in low-tech
`
`contexts since vehicles existed, confirming their abstractness. See D.I. 15 at 3-5.
`
`While Lyft agrees with the R&R that the second line of cases described in Epic IP is
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 596
`
`
`
`best applied to computer applications and software, the asserted claims here neither improve the
`
`capabilities of a computing device nor solve a technological problem specific to computer
`
`networks. See Epic IP, 351 F. Supp. 3d. at 737-38.
`
`In the third line of cases, the Federal Circuit instructed courts to “look to whether the
`
`claims focus on a specific means or method, or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself
`
`is the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and machinery.” Two-Way Media Ltd.
`
`v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017). RSDI admitted at Oral
`
`Argument that “all of the technical aspects here are generic,” e.g., the controller and receiver.
`
`Ex. A (Hr’g Tr.) at 41:18-42:4; 27:25-28:2.
`
`Overall, Lyft demonstrated that the claims are all directed to the abstract idea of
`
`identifying a particular vehicle with visual indicators. The R&R erred in finding otherwise.
`
`C.
`Alice Step 2: The R&R erred in failing to find the claims of the asserted
`patents lack an inventive step.
`
`The R&R erred by “ultimately agree[ing] with RSDI that Bascom prevents the Court from
`
`concluding, as a matter of law, that the claims here lack an inventive concept.” D.I. 46 at 10. But
`
`the claims here are not analogous to those in Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, they are most analogous to the claims found invalid
`
`in Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017):
`
`Secured Mail Representative Claim
`1. A method for providing electronic data
`to a recipient of a mail object, comprising:
`using an output device to affix a single set
`of mail ID data to said mail object, said
`single set of mail ID data including at least
`recipient data,
`said
`recipient data
`comprising
`a personalized network
`address associated with said recipient of
`said mail object; submitting said mail
`
`RSDI Representative Claim
`1. A vehicle identification system,
`comprising:
`a display associated with a vehicle,
`wherein the display is located to be
`visible from an exterior of the vehicle
`by a rider;
`
`Functions
`
`
`Identifying/
`display
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 597
`
`
`
`sending/
`receiving
`signals
`
`a controller communicatively coupled
`to a network and configured to, in
`response to receipt of a signal from
`a user, generate and transmit a first
`signal representing an indicator via
`the
`network
`to
`a mobile
`communication device associated
`with a driver of the vehicle; and
`
`object to a mail carrier for delivery to said
`recipient of said mail object;
`receiving said recipient data from a
`reception device of said recipient via a
`network; and
`providing by at least one processor said
`electronic data to said reception device
`via said network
`in response
`to
`receiving said recipient data, said
`electronic data including data on a content
`of said mail object;
`wherein said reception device displays
`said electronic data to a recipient of said
`mail object by displaying said electronic
`data on a screen of said reception
`device.
`
`wherein, in response to receiving the
`first
`signal,
`the
`mobile
`communication device associated
`with the driver of the vehicle
`generates and transmits a second
`signal representing the indicator to
`the display, the indicator identifies
`the vehicle.
`D.I. 40 at 3; see Secured Mail, 873 F.3d at 912 (“[T]he asserted claims cite well known and
`
`Displaying
`in response
`to a signal
`
`conventional ways to allow generic communication between a sender and recipient using generic
`
`computer technology.”).
`
`The R&R further erroneously stated that the Court “must take as true at this stage,
`
`alleg[ations] that the claimed arrangement of generic components is not routine and
`
`conventional and that the claimed invention solves a known problem with ridesharing safety
`
`with a unique and previously unknown and nonconventional solution.” D.I. 46 at 11. Rather, “at
`
`the motion to dismiss stage, factual allegations in the complaint which contradict the
`
`specification, or the claims need not be credited as true under the Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.” IPA
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 352 F. Supp. 3d 335, 343 (D. Del. 2019). This Court
`
`acknowledged, post-Berkheimer, that “[p]atentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal
`
`issue. Accordingly, the § 101 inquiry is properly raised at the pleadings stage if it is apparent
`
`from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to eligible subject matter.”
`
`Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., No. 1:18-00444-RGA, 2018 WL 6168618, at *2 (D. Del.
`{01708182;V1 }
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 598
`
`
`
`Nov. 26, 2018) (internal citation omitted). Here, “there is not a single technical improvement
`
`that is claimed in the asserted patents, and the claimed components are described based on their
`
`functions rather than on specific improvements in hardware or any technical explanation as to
`
`how to implement them in an inventive way.” Rondevoo Techs., LLC v. Aernos, Inc., No. 19-
`
`680-RGA, 2020 WL 1441116, at *5 (D. Del. Mar. 24, 2020) (finding asserted claims directed
`
`to patent ineligible abstract idea and granting motion to dismiss).
`
`The asserted claims are distinguishable from those in Bascom, which were directed to
`
`solving a problem based entirely in computer technology. See 827 F.3d at 1346. First, it is worth
`
`noting that the R&R acknowledged in its Step 1 analysis that the asserted patents do not fall in
`
`line with the second line of cases in Epic IP because those cases were directed solely to a
`
`computer application. D.I. 46 at 9. The R&R contradicted itself by then relying on Bascom—a
`
`case directed solely to a computer application—in its Step 2 analysis. See id. at 62-63; Bascom,
`
`827 F.3d at 1343-46. The R&R agreed with RSDI that the externally located controller in the
`
`asserted patents is not, as a matter of law, conventional or generic by analogy to the remote
`
`server in Bascom. D.I. 46 at 11. However, the remote server in Bascom was characterized as a
`
`specialized ISP server that solved a technological problem by providing individualized benefits
`
`of local software and security benefits of ISP-server-located software (which existed at the time).
`
`See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1344. The limitations raised by RSDI and relied upon by the R&R do
`
`not add an inventive concept, nor does the ordered combination of those limitations do so.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should decline to adopt the objected-to portions of the R&R and grant Lyft’s
`
`motion to dismiss.
`
`
`
`
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 599
`
`
`
`
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`
`
`/s/ John G. Day
`___________________________
`John G. Day (#2403)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`jday@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Jennifer C. Tempesta
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, NY 10112-4498
`(212) 408-2500
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 291-6200
`
`Dated: July 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01629-RGA-JLH Document 51 Filed 07/26/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 600
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`Pursuant to the Standing Order for Objections Filed Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 dated
`
`October 9, 2013, The undersigned counsel certifies that these objections do not raise new
`
`legal/factual arguments.
`
`{01708182;V1 }
`
`
`
`12
`
`