Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 324
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No: 21-1840-MN-CJB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`CORETEK LICENSING LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
`GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.’S
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS RULE 12(b)(6)
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`Jeremy D. Anderson (#4515)
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-5070 (Telephone)
`(302) 652-0607 (Facsimile)
`janderson@fr.com
`
`Neil J. McNabnay (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Ricardo J. Bonilla (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Adil A. Shaikh (pro hac vice to be filed)
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`mcnabnay@fr.com
`rbonilla@fr.com
`shaikh@fr.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc.
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 325
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..............................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .............................................................................2
`
`A. 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..............................................................................................3
`
`A. 
`
`The Routing Patents .....................................................................................2
`
`This case should be disposed of at the pleading stage through
`Rule 12(b)(6). ...............................................................................................3
`
`The Law of 35 U.S.C. § 101. .......................................................................4
`
`
`B. 
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................4
`
`A. 
`
`
`The Routing Patents are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................5
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent is representative of the Routing
`Patent claims. ...................................................................................5
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Alice Step 1: Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent is directed to the
`abstract idea of call routing. .............................................................6
`
`Alice Step 2: Claim 1 contains no inventive concept to
`transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
`matter. ............................................................................................10
`
`4. 
`
`The remaining claims are ineligible for the same reasons.
`........................................................................................................12 
`There are no factual disputes preventing a ruling ......................................13 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`VI. 
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................14 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 326
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC,
`915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 855 (2020) ........................................11
`
`Baggage Airline Guest Servs., Inc. v. Roadie, Inc.,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 753 (D. Del. 2019) (Andrews, J.) ....................................................................5
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................11
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................13
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...............................................................................................................3, 4
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................2
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`Cuvillier v. Sullivan,
`503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................7, 11, 12
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 327
`
`
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .....................................................................................................................4
`
`Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp.,
`665 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`352 F. Supp. 3d 335 (D. Del. 2019) .........................................................................................14
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .........................................................................................9
`
`PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00007-JRG, 2019 WL 1317286 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2019) ..................................5
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc.,
`114 F.Supp.3d 192 (D. Del., 2015) ........................................................................................7, 8
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................12
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Lit.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................2, 7, 11
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................1, 9
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring) ..................................................4, 10, 13
`
`Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .............................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 328
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`On December 29, 2021, Coretek Licensing LLC (“Cortek”) filed a Complaint for
`Infringement of Patent (“Complaint”). Coretek accuses the “ALASKA VOICE” communications
`software (the “Accused Product”) of infringing “at least one claim” of the asserted patents because
`the accused product purportedly routes a call without using a network operator’s home location
`register and determines a location of a wireless device by extracting data from a database. (D.I. 1
`at ¶¶ 22, 37, 59.)
`II.
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Defendant Alaska Communications Systems Group, Inc. (“ACS Group”) moves pursuant
`
`to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Coretek Complaint for
`
`Infringement of Patent (D.I. 1 (“Complaint”)) for failure to state a claim.1
`
`The claims of the asserted patents are invalid because they are directed to patent-ineligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The purported advance of Coretek’s claims is the idea of
`
`call routing, where the user can “set up call in accordance to a user’s own choice of routing” (’512
`
`Patent, 6:47-49). The claims recite the mere notion of using generic computer components and
`
`processing for their generic purposes in order to achieve the abstract result of call routing. They
`
`use result-based functional language described only at a high-level of generality. The claims are
`
`abstract because the applicants failed to describe with any specificity how to achieve their intended
`
`goal in a non-abstract way. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d
`
`1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`1 Coretek Licensing LLC sued and served the incorrect entity. ACS Group is a holding company
`that does not commercialize the accused product, Alaska Voice. The correct party to this suit is
`Alaska Communications Internet, LLC (“ACS Internet”), an Alaska corporation. Despite
`Coretek’s improper service and incorrect party naming, ACS Group is responding to Coretek’s
`lawsuit.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 329
`
`
`
`Moreover, neither the generic processing nor the recited components—such as a wireless
`
`device, a server, a software application, and a home or visitor location register—whether
`
`considered individually or in combination, amounts to any technical improvement in the
`
`functioning of the system or any components thereof. Rather, the components are used only as
`
`tools to limit the abstract idea of call routing. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d
`
`1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an
`
`abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
`
`transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”). In other words, the generic
`
`components do not supply an inventive concept and instead “merely provide a generic environment
`
`in which to carry out the abstract idea.” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Lit., 823 F.3d 607, 611
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Resolving this issue does not require discovery or formal claim construction. To avoid
`
`wasting judicial and party resources unnecessarily litigating invalid patents, ACS Group thus
`
`requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`A.
`
`The Routing Patents
`
`The ’512, ’154, and ’551 Patents (the “Routing Patents”)2 are directed to “a method and
`
`apparatus of interfacing and connecting a wireless device to a network,” and specifically to “make
`
`a network connection without using a network operator's home location register (HLR).” ’512
`
`Patent, 1:18-22. The applicants acknowledged that wireless devices can “handle voice-over-
`
`internet-protocol (VoIP) calls” through “wireless networks.” Id., 1:28-32. But existing call routing
`
`
`2 The ’512 Patent was filed on March 7, 2007, and issued on October 14, 2014, claiming priority
`to PCT application filed on March 8, 2008. The ’154 and ’551 Patents, are continuations of the
`’512 Patent. All three are entitled “Method of enabling a wireless device to make a network
`connection without using a network operator's home location register” and share specifications.
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 330
`
`
`
`methods purportedly “can be restricted” to wireless networks “made available by the wireless
`
`network(s) that is subscribed to.” Id., 1:27-31.
`
`The applicants described their purported invention only in functional terms and only at a
`
`high-level of generality. For example, exemplary Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent describes “A method
`
`of . . . initiating a network connection without using a network operator's home location” consisting
`
`of the following steps described only in result-based functional language: (1) “contacting a server
`
`to communicate with the server over a wireless link,” (2) “send, over the wireless link, data to the
`
`server that defines a call request,” and (3) “routing to a third party end-user over all available
`
`networks for that call request without using the network operator's home or visitor location
`
`register.” Id., cl. 1 (emphasis added).
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`A.
`
`This case should be disposed of at the pleading stage through Rule 12(b)(6).
`
`Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim
`
`upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must provide
`
`“allegations that raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart
`
`Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). Although factual allegations are taken as
`
`true, legal conclusions are given no deference—those matters are left for the court to decide. See
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (noting the tenet that allegations are taken as true on a
`
`motion to dismiss “is inapplicable to legal conclusions”). “[W]hen the allegations in a complaint,
`
`however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief [as a matter of law], this basic
`
`deficiency should . . . be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the
`
`parties and the court.” Cuvillier v. Sullivan, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal citations
`
`and quotations omitted). Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal issue. Bilski v.
`
`Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602 (2010). Accordingly, the § 101 inquiry is properly raised at the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 331
`
`
`
`pleadings stage if it is apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed
`
`to eligible subject matter. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718-19 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (Mayer, J., concurring).
`
`B.
`
`The Law of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act sets forth four categories of patentable subject matter: “any
`
`new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Also,
`
`the law recognizes three exceptions to patent eligibility: “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and
`
`abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) (emphasis added). Abstract
`
`ideas are ineligible for patent protection because a monopoly over these ideas would preempt their
`
`use in all fields. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611–12. In other words, “abstract intellectual concepts are
`
`not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Id. at 653 (quoting
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`
`Determining whether a patent claim is impermissibly directed to an abstract idea involves
`
`two steps. First, the court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concept.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). Second, if the
`
`claim contains an abstract idea, the court evaluates whether 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.” Id. (internal
`
`quotations and citations omitted).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The claims of the asserted patents are invalid under § 101 because they fail both prongs of
`
`the Alice test. Each of the claims are directed to the abstract idea of call routing, and none contain
`
`an “inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patents in practice amount to significantly more
`
`than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (emphasis added).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 332
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Routing Patents are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`1.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent is representative of the Routing Patent
`claims.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent is representative of the claims.3 See, e.g., Baggage Airline Guest
`
`Servs., Inc. v. Roadie, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 3d 753, 758 (D. Del. 2019) (Andrews, J.) (quoting Content
`
`Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (invalidating 242 claims after analyzing only two “representative claims” where the other
`
`claims were “substantially similar in that they recite little more than the same abstract idea”)); see
`
`also Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–26 (invalidating over 200 claims across four patents based on two
`
`representative claims). In assessing whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, courts begin by
`
`analyzing the “focus” of the claim, i.e., its “character as a whole,” in order to determine whether
`
`the claim is directed to an abstract idea. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). For example, the Federal Circuit has explained that courts should examine the
`
`patent’s “‘claimed advance’ to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract
`
`idea.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`The remaining claims of the Routing Patents recite the same abstract idea: call routing. See
`
`PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00007-JRG, 2019 WL 1317286, at *5
`
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2019) (articulating that defendants first bear the burden of demonstrating a
`
`claim is representative, which then shifts to the plaintiff to identify a difference material to the
`
`§ 101 analysis). Indeed, the independent claims of the Routing Patents are substantially similar,
`
`with the only difference in the medium making a network connection: “wireless device,” (’512
`
`
`3 As is the case here, where claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea,”
`courts may look to representative claims in a § 101 analysis. Content Extraction and Transmission
`LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 333
`
`
`
`Patent), “wireless handheld cellular phone device (’154 Patent), or a “computer program embodied
`
`on a non-transitory storage medium” (’551 Patent). The other independent claims of the Routing
`
`Patents are directed to a “system,” “server,” or “computer program” performing the same claimed
`
`method steps. Representative Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent is recited in method terms, but each of
`
`the remaining independent claims includes almost identical limitations.
`
`The resemblance of Claim 1 to the other independent claims is further supported by the
`
`fact that Coretek characterizes each of the Routing Patent claims as “enabling a wireless device . .
`
`. to initiate a network connection without using a network operator’s home location register.” See
`
`Complaint at ¶¶ 13, 22, 37, 59. Coretek further alleges that the Accused Product meets each of
`
`these claim limitations by “enabling a wireless device (e.g., Smartphone)” and “initiat[ing] a
`
`network connection (e.g., SIP invite) without using a network operator’s home location register
`
`that covers that region.” Id. at ¶¶ 59, 62, 68, 72, 79, 85, 89, 93, 100, 113, 117, 121.
`
`Because claims 22, 23, and 24 of the ’512 Patent, claims 1, 22, 23, and 24 of the ’154
`
`Patent, and claims 1, 22, 23, and 24 of the ’551 Patent, cannot be meaningfully distinguished from
`
`Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent, Claim 1 is representative, and all independent claims are invalid under
`
`Alice.
`
`2.
`
`Alice Step 1: Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent is directed to the abstract idea
`of call routing.
`
`The “focus” of Claim 1 is the fundamental practice of call routing, and it achieves it by
`
`initiating a network connection, contacting a server over a wireless link, and sending and receiving
`
`data. See SAP Am., Inc., 898 F.3d 1161, 1167. The ’512 Patent describes call routing by using a
`
`“server (PASCM)” and a wireless device with a built-in routing module (“PAM”), where the
`
`“PAM provides location updates each time the WD or HS changes wireless network name or
`
`wireless network country or region or state.” ’512 Patent, 6:55-57. The purported invention is
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 334
`
`
`
`implemented using a handful of generic, unmodified components, where a “module sends any
`
`change in the wireless network name or country code to the server.” Id., 3:16-17. Nothing in Claim
`
`1 is concerned with improving the functioning of the wireless device, server, software application,
`
`or home or visitor location register from a technical standpoint, which is why the claimed
`
`components are described “in vague terms without any meaningful limitations.” In re TLI, 823
`
`F.3d at 612-13. Providing call routing functionality through a “module” on a conventional
`
`“wireless device” and running a “software application” on a conventional “server,” requiring no
`
`modification, is not an “improvement in computer capabilities,” but rather “a process that qualifies
`
`as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Any alleged cost savings or functional improvements
`
`resulting from Claim 1 arise wholly out of the conventional advantages of using such generic
`
`processing and components as tools. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
`
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing patent eligible improvements in computer functionality from
`
`patent ineligible improvements that use computers as tools).
`
`The decisions in Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories,
`
`Inc., 114 F.Supp.3d 192 (D. Del., 2015) and Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d
`
`1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019) are instructive. The Pragmatus claims were directed to “the abstract idea
`
`of connecting customers to call centers,” which the court found to be a patent-ineligible abstract
`
`idea. Pragmatus Telecom, 114 F. Supp. 3d 192, 200. In fact, the Pragmatus claim is directed to
`
`the same type of abstract idea as the ’512 Patent: establishing a network connection with a user
`
`device based on information collected from the user device. Id. The court found that the abstract
`
`idea of having “[c]all centers where customers call in to speak with live agents” was “not new,”
`
`even though the “invention might be faster, automated, and more streamlined.” Id. Here, the claims
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 335
`
`
`
`of the ’512 Patent similarly collect data by a “module,” which sends this data to a “server,” and a
`
`“software application running on the server” decides “on the appropriate routing to a third party
`
`end-user.” ’512 Patent, cl. 1. This is no different than connecting customers to call centers based
`
`on received data, as found patent-ineligible in Pragmatus.
`
`In Voip-Pal.Com, the claims were directed to routing calls based on characteristics of a
`
`caller and a callee. Id. at 1130. The plaintiffs alleged that the purported invention “improved call
`
`routing technology enabling better interoperability of communication networks” Id. at 1130. But
`
`the claim was described only in high-level functional terms, such as “locating a caller dialing
`
`profile” and “classifying the call.” Id. The specification, for example, “makes clear that the ’815
`
`Patent did not invent the caller dialing profile, but rather, the caller dialing profile is comprised of
`
`various identificatory attributes of subscribers that are left undefined.” Id. at 1131. The call
`
`classification step discloses analysis of the classification criteria, by, for example, classifying a
`
`call as “public” or “private,” and then sending a message based on that analysis. Id. The court
`
`concluded that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1138 (“The Court finds that at
`
`Alice step one, claim 1 of the ’815 Patent is directed to an abstract idea. At Alice step two, there is
`
`no inventive concept sufficient to save the claim.”).
`
`Like the Pragmatus and Voip-Pal.com claims, the claims of the ’512 Patent fail to disclose
`
`the details of how to implement their call routing method, and instead describe the system only at
`
`a high level of generality. Additionally, nothing in Claim 1 explains from a technical standpoint
`
`how a “module” contacts a “server to communicate,” or how this data exchanged between the two
`
`enables call routing—and further not in a way that advances technology. See Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.,
`
`375 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1132-33. In other words, the broad claim language covers only the resulting
`
`system the applicants envisioned, but does not teach how to achieve it. See Internet Patents Corp.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 336
`
`
`
`v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding claim not directed to
`
`patent-eligible subject matter where “[t]he mechanism for maintaining the state is not described,
`
`although this is stated to be the essential innovation”). Just like the Voip-Pal.Com claims,
`
`regardless of any tangible components claimed or purported problems solved, Claim 1 is abstract
`
`because “the process of sending a network routing message is not unique to the patent, and is
`
`implemented using generic computers.” Id. at 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1141.
`
`The result-based functional language confirms the abstractness of Claim 1. For example,
`
`in Two-Way Media, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the patentee’s
`
`“method for routing information” was directed to the abstract idea of “(1) sending information, (2)
`
`directing the sent information, (3) monitoring the receipt of the sent information, and (4)
`
`accumulating records about receipt of the sent information.” 874 F.3d at 1337-38. The Federal
`
`Circuit highlighted that the patent used “result-based functional language” like “converting,”
`
`“routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records,” without “sufficiently
`
`describ[ing] how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.” Id. Similarly, Claim 1 requires
`
`the functional results of “contacting a server,” “send[ing] data,” and “deciding on the appropriate
`
`routing,” based on the sent data, “but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in
`
`a non-abstract way.” Id. at 1337.
`
`By only claiming the desired result—routing calls—without describing any specific
`
`roadmap for doing so, Claim 1 of the ’512 Patent falls short of claiming eligible subject matter
`
`under § 101. See Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348. And because of its largely functional nature,
`
`the ’512 Patent risks preempting all methods or systems for routing calls. See, e.g., Loyalty
`
`Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 3d 829, 843 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (finding
`
`“preemptive effect . . . broad” where “the claims [were] largely functional in nature, they [did] not
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 337
`
`
`
`provide any significant description of the particular means by which the various recited functions
`
`are performed,” and “[a]ll that [was] disclosed [was] the ultimate objective”). Claim 1 thus fails
`
`Alice step one because it is directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
`
`3.
`
`Alice Step 2: Claim 1 contains no inventive concept to transform the
`abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`Because Claim 1 of the ‘512 Patent is directed to an abstract idea, the Court must next
`
`determine whether it contains an “inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract
`
`idea into a patent eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (internal quotations omitted). To
`
`pass this test, Claim 1 “must include additional features” that “must be more than well-understood,
`
`routine, conventional activity.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (quotation omitted). Here, Claim 1
`
`is broadly generic and does not contain meaningful limitations that would restrict it to a non-
`
`routine, specific application of the abstract idea.
`
`Although the stated goal of the ’512 Patent is to provide the “lowest cost routing for the
`
`[network] connection,” ’512 Patent, 3:41-42, not a single technical improvement is discussed,
`
`much less claimed. Claim 1 requires a “module,” “server,” and a “wireless link” connecting the
`
`two. A “software application running on the server” decides “on the appropriate routing to a third
`
`party end-use.” No special programming or improved components are claimed or required. Rather,
`
`the specification indicates vaguely that the “server will typically decide on the lowest cost routing
`
`for the connection.” Id., 3:41-42.
`
`Nor are any special components needed. For example, the claimed “module” is “capable
`
`of” wireless and wired communication between a wireless device and a “server” Id., 8:52-59.
`
`Moreover, the applicants acknowledged that the wireless devices, wireless links, and servers, are
`
`“any available current and future” versions of technologies, Id., 9:1-31 (emphasis added). Indeed,
`
`objectively speaking, “[n]othing in [Claim 1], understood in light of the specification, requires
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01840-MN-CJB Document 10 Filed 01/20/22 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 338
`
`
`
`anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network and [processing] for gathering,
`
`sending, and presenting the desired information.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355. There is simply
`
`nothing “inventive” about using a communication “module” and “server” to route calls. The claims
`
`are altogether devoid of any explanation as to how to implement the invention in a specific manner
`
`that would improve the functioning of existing systems or components from a technical standpoint
`
`and thus provide no inventive concept. See In re TLI, 823 F.3d at 615; see also buySAFE, Inc. v.
`
`Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the
`
`information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
`
`This case is unlike BASCOM in which the Federal Circuit held that the ordered combination
`
`of claim limitations was not routine and conventional because it placed a filtering tool at a specific
`
`location that improved on prior art technology. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The inventive concept was “found in the non-
`
`conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Id. As discussed, the
`
`applicants of the asserted patents did not claim to invent call routing functionality. Rather, they
`
`simply wanted to add a “module” and a “server” to an existing wireless calling infrastructure such
`
`that the module can communicate location changes. ’512 Patent, 8:11-18. Adding a “location
`
`update” module that sends and receives location data from a server so that it can “decide on the
`
`appropriate routing” does not result in a technical improvement on prior art technology or a new
`
`and improved arrangement of components. See id., 10:1; id., cl. 1. Thus, unlike the c