throbber
Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 63 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. ________________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))
`
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZYNGA INC., and CHARTBOOST, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), for its Complaint for
`
`Patent Infringement against Zynga, Inc. (“Zynga”) and Chartboost, Inc. (“Chartboost”)
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”), demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable and alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`IBM is in the innovation business. Every year, IBM spends billions of dollars on
`
`research and development to invent, market, and sell new technology. These investments over the
`
`decades have led to innovations touching every industry and changing the way the world connects,
`
`including foundational advancements in computer hardware and software, big data analytics,
`
`artificial intelligence, and natural language processing. Even in the new frontier of quantum
`
`information science, once thought to be a purely academic exercise, IBM has capitalized on its
`
`early investments and innovations to become the leader in commercializing this revolutionary
`
`technology. IBM’s Q Network service—a community of Fortune 500 companies, academic
`
`institutions, research organizations, and startups working with IBM to advance quantum
`
`computing—now has over 100 members. IBM believes that the application of intelligence, reason
`
`and science can improve business, society and the human condition.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 63 PageID #: 2
`
`2.
`
`IBM obtains patents on the technology its inventors develop. IBM’s commitment
`
`to research and innovation has resulted in numerous inventions that have led to the thousands of
`
`patents awarded to IBM by the United States Patent and Trademark Office each year. In fact, for
`
`each of the last 29 years, IBM scientists and researchers have been awarded more U.S. patents than
`
`those of any other company. Those patents are critical to IBM’s business, its values, and its
`
`licensing philosophy.
`
`3.
`
`For example, for over twenty years, IBM has been a strong proponent of open-
`
`source technologies—technologies that are freely available to use, modify, and redistribute. IBM
`
`was a founding member of Open Invention Network, the largest patent non-aggression community
`
`in history, which supports freedom of action in Linux, a key element of open-source software.
`
`IBM was able to leverage its patent portfolio to enable the broad industry adoption of open-source
`
`technologies by pledging to provide open access to key innovations covered by hundreds of IBM
`
`software patents for those working on open-source software. And early in 2020, IBM joined the
`
`License on Transfer Network (“LOT Network”), a non-profit community of companies that
`
`supports open innovation and responsible stewardship of technology. LOT Network affirms the
`
`traditional use of patents—safeguarding the innovations of companies who research, develop, and
`
`sell new technologies—while protecting its members against patent assertion entities who
`
`purchase or acquire patents from others.
`
`4.
`
`As another example, IBM has pledged to let anyone working on solutions to the
`
`coronavirus pandemic use its patents for free. IBM’s vast patent portfolio can now support
`
`researchers everywhere who are developing technologies to help prevent, diagnose, treat, or
`
`contain COVID-19. The collection includes thousands of IBM artificial intelligence patents, some
`
`related to Watson technology, as well as dozens, if not hundreds, related to biological viruses.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 63 PageID #: 3
`
`5.
`
`IBM also believes in the protection of its proprietary technologies, which result
`
`from IBM’s extensive investments in research and development and the hard work of IBM’s
`
`inventors. When other companies seek to build new businesses on the foundation set by IBM’s
`
`patented technology, IBM believes that those companies should agree to a license and pay a fair
`
`royalty. When a company is using IBM’s patents without authorization, IBM first seeks to
`
`negotiate an agreement whereby IBM and the other company cross license their respective patent
`
`portfolios, enabling each to receive a license to the other’s patent portfolio. That way, each
`
`company can avoid litigation, be fairly compensated for the use of all of their patents, and maintain
`
`the freedom to operate in their respective markets.
`
`6.
`
`The modern technology industry has recognized IBM’s pioneering innovations in
`
`areas including big data analytics, digital marketplaces, and web-based business. Indeed, IBM’s
`
`patent portfolio includes many foundational technologies in those areas, such as personalized
`
`digital advertising and managing servers and applications. In fact, in the 1980s, IBM partnered
`
`with other companies to launch Prodigy, one of the pioneers in online networking and advertising.
`
`As a result, dozens of modern technology companies, including Amazon, Apple, Google, and
`
`Facebook, have agreed to cross licenses with IBM. Defendants have not.
`
`7.
`
`Zynga was founded in 2007. Like many companies before it, Zynga recognized the
`
`value in bringing interactive, social experiences onto the web and the internet. Specifically, Zynga
`
`successfully launched several mass-market “social games,” such as Words with Friends and
`
`Farmville. Unlike physical games sold in brick-and-mortar stores, Zynga offers these products as
`
`“free-to-play,” where a user can simply download applications or open a web browser to start
`
`playing. These games make it easy for users to connect to their existing social media accounts for
`
`online play. Zynga generates revenue by selling in-game virtual items to its users, by selling
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 63 PageID #: 4
`
`advertisements, and by operating a mobile advertising and monetization platform with its
`
`subsidiary, Chartboost. Zynga is now one of the world’s largest providers of social games, with
`
`millions of daily users and mobile downloads totaling over four billion. By offering products at
`
`this massive scale, Zynga has enjoyed billions of dollars in revenue in recent years.
`
`8.
`
`Those in the industry have described Zynga as a “big data company disguised as
`
`[a] gaming company.” Though Zynga is nominally a gaming company, its success relies on
`
`sophisticated data capture, processing, and analytics technology, which enables Zynga’s delivery
`
`of games and advertisements to millions of users. In its annual report, Zynga tells its investors:
`
`At the core of Zynga’s live services platform is our first-party data network, which
`captures key insights about how our players are interacting with our games. We
`use this data to deliver highly engaging interactive experiences for our players,
`optimize our user acquisition, monetize our games, and provide advertising
`services.
`
`Zynga’s products and its business model rely on prior innovations in big data, analytics, and online
`
`advertising made by IBM and others.
`
`9.
`
`Zynga is not alone when it comes to big data, analytics, and online advertising. The
`
`wider technology industry has recognized that the data and analytic techniques necessary for
`
`providing online services to millions, including gaming, require years of investments in research,
`
`development, and innovations. It is not surprising that others would use such techniques rather
`
`than develop them themselves, because it is difficult and expensive to develop such techniques
`
`without the kind of expertise that IBM provides in this space. Like other modern technology
`
`companies, Zynga recognized IBM’s expertise in the field and decided to incorporate IBM’s prior
`
`innovations in big data, analytics, and online advertising instead of spending the time and money
`
`to develop its own techniques.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 5 of 63 PageID #: 5
`
`10.
`
`As Zynga’s business has developed, it has continued to incorporate additional
`
`innovations pioneered by IBM. But unlike dozens of Zynga’s peers in the industry, Zynga does
`
`not have a license to use IBM’s patents.
`
`11.
`
`Since 2014, IBM has tried to negotiate with Zynga about Zynga’s unlicensed use
`
`of IBM’s patents. Unfortunately, to this day, Zynga has chosen to willfully infringe IBM’s patents
`
`and even expanded its infringing activity.
`
`12.
`
`Over the years, IBM has discovered that Zynga infringes additional IBM patents.
`
`IBM has informed Zynga of its expanding liability for willful patent infringement, including by its
`
`subsidiary Chartboost, but has been continually met with delay and excuses. For example, IBM
`
`specifically identified for Zynga how its products, including the CSR Racing 2, Words with Friends
`
`2, Farmville 2: Country Escape, and Game of Thrones Slots Casino games, practice multiple IBM
`
`patents. Rather than negotiate an acceptable business resolution with IBM, Zynga engaged in
`
`delay tactics, alternating between refusing to meet for weeks at a time and responding only partially
`
`to IBM’s letters detailing Zynga’s infringement.
`
`13.
`
`Chartboost, Zynga’s subsidiary, also uses IBM’s patents without a license. In 2021,
`
`IBM twice contacted Chartboost to inform them of its infringement of IBM’s patents through its
`
`advertising campaign platform. IBM told Chartboost that it was ready to discuss the detailed
`
`evidence of Chartboost’s infringement and a possible resolution of these issues. After a months-
`
`long delay with no reply, Chartboost responded in August 2021 to say that now that Zynga
`
`acquired Chartboost, Zynga would handle all discussions with IBM regarding Chartboost and its
`
`infringing activities. But Zynga never resolved Chartboost’s continued unlicensed use of IBM’s
`
`patents.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 6 of 63 PageID #: 6
`
`14.
`
`After almost eight years without meaningful progress toward a resolution, IBM has
`
`brought this lawsuit to address Zynga and Chartboost’s unauthorized use of IBM’s patented
`
`technology.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`15.
`
`This action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Zynga, Inc.’s infringement of IBM’s
`
`United States Patent Nos. 7,072,849 (the “’849 patent”), 7,631,346 (the “’346 patent”), and
`
`7,702,719 (the “’719 patent”), and Chartboost, Inc.’s infringement of the ’849 patent and
`
`8,315,904 (the “’904 patent”) (collectively the “Patents-In-Suit”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff IBM is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business at 1
`
`New Orchard Road, Armonk, New York 10504.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Zynga, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
`
`business at 699 Eighth Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. Zynga, Inc. is the parent company
`
`to Chartboost, Inc.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Chartboost, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at One Sansome Street, Floor 21, San Francisco, California, 94104.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`IBM incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–18.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`§ 271 et seq. The jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this action is proper under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`21.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b).
`
`Zynga, Inc. and Chartboost, Inc. are entities organized under the laws of Delaware and reside in
`
`Delaware for purposes of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Additionally, Zynga, Inc. and
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 7 of 63 PageID #: 7
`
`Chartboost, Inc. conduct business in Delaware, at least by offering for sale and selling products
`
`and services through its websites and mobile applications, which are accessible in Delaware.
`
`Infringement by Zynga, Inc. and Chartboost, Inc. has occurred and continues to occur in Delaware.
`
`22.
`
`Personal jurisdiction exists over Zynga, Inc. and Chartboost, Inc. because those
`
`entities conduct business in Delaware, at least by offering for sale and selling products and services
`
`through its websites and mobile applications, which are accessible in Delaware, and because
`
`infringement has occurred and continues to occur in Delaware. Personal jurisdiction also exists
`
`over Zynga, Inc. and Chartboost, Inc. because they are entities organized under the laws of
`
`Delaware.
`
`A.
`
`IBM Is A Recognized Innovator.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`23.
`
`IBM is a worldwide pioneer in various sectors of science and technology. During
`
`IBM’s over 100-year history, IBM’s employees have included six Nobel laureates, six Turing
`
`Awards laureates, five National Medal of Science recipients, and fifteen inventors in the National
`
`Inventors Hall of Fame. IBM has been awarded the U.S. National Medal of Technology more
`
`times than any other company or organization—the U.S. National Medal of Technology is the
`
`nation’s highest award for technological innovation. Recent IBM-affiliated awardees include:
`
`Richard L. Garwin, winner of the National Medal of Science in 2002 in recognition of his role in
`
`the development of magnetic resonance imaging technology, laser printers, touch-screen monitors,
`
`and other technologies; Frances E. Allen, winner the Turing Award in 2006 in recognition of her
`
`role in compiler research and data flow optimization; Daniel Lewin, a former IBM researcher who
`
`went on to found Akamai Technologies, who was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of
`
`Fame in 2017 for his development of algorithms to efficiently deliver content over a network of
`
`distributed servers, which led to modern content delivery networks; and Chieko Asakawa, an IBM
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 8 of 63 PageID #: 8
`
`researcher who was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2019 in recognition of
`
`her invention of the Home Page Reader, the first practical voice browser to provide effective
`
`Internet access for the visually impaired.
`
`24.
`
`IBM has been awarded the National Medal of Technology and Innovation (NMTI)
`
`more times than any other company or organization. The NMTI is the nation’s highest honor for
`
`technological achievement, bestowed by the president of the United States on America’s leading
`
`innovators. IBM was awarded the NMTI for its Blue Gene supercomputer in 2008. IBM
`
`employees are responsible for technological advances that have become foundational technology
`
`that is widely incorporated into use by the global community today. Such technological advances
`
`include the dynamic random access memory (DRAMs) found in nearly all modern computers; the
`
`magnetic disk storage (hard disk drives) found in computers and portable music players; and some
`
`of the world’s most powerful supercomputers, including Deep Blue (the first computer to beat a
`
`reigning chess champion, Garry Kasparov), Watson (the system that combined content analysis,
`
`natural language processing, information retrieval, and machine learning to beat two of
`
`Jeopardy!’s greatest human champions), and Summit (the world’s fastest supercomputer when
`
`delivered to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2018 that has been employed to tackle society’s
`
`largest problems from the opioid crisis to COVID-19). In 2021, IBM announced two major
`
`breakthroughs in semiconductor design: the world’s first 2-nanometer chip technology, fitting 50
`
`billion transistors on a chip the size of a fingernail; and a new approach to semiconductor design
`
`called “Vertical-Transport Nanosheet Field Effect Transistor” which could help the semiconductor
`
`industry to significantly reduce the energy needed to perform intensive workloads while
`
`continuing to pack even more transistors into a fixed space. These breakthroughs promise
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 9 of 63 PageID #: 9
`
`significant improvements in cell phone batteries, energy savings in data encryption and crypto-
`
`mining operations, and continued expansion of Internet of Things (IoT).
`
`25.
`
`In addition, IBM continues to lead the development of next-generation
`
`technologies, including quantum computing technology, with products and services such as Qiskit
`
`(the industry leading, open-source software development platform for working with quantum
`
`computers), Eagle (the first quantum processor to break the 100-qubit barrier unveiled in 2021),
`
`and the Quantum Composer (a cloud-based, user-friendly graphical programming tool for building
`
`quantum circuits that are then run on real quantum hardware or simulators). Technology evolves
`
`quickly and the nature of research and development ambitiously seeks out new discoveries. The
`
`inventions that IBM unearths today lay the groundwork for tomorrow’s technology.
`
`B.
`
`IBM Is Committed To Protecting Its Innovations Through The Patent System.
`
`26.
`
`IBM’s research and development operations differentiate IBM from many other
`
`companies. IBM annually spends billions of dollars on research and development. In addition to
`
`yielding inventions that have literally changed the way in which the world works, IBM’s research
`
`and development efforts have resulted in more than 80,000 patents worldwide.
`
`27.
`
`Like the research upon which the patents are based, IBM’s patents also benefit
`
`society. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the patent system encourages both the
`
`creation and the disclosure of new and useful advances in technology. Such disclosure, in turn,
`
`permits society to innovate further. And, as the Court has further recognized, as a reward for
`
`committing resources to innovation and for disclosing that innovation, the patent system provides
`
`patent owners with the exclusive right to prevent others from practicing the claimed invention for
`
`a limited period of time.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 10 of 63 PageID #: 10
`
`C.
`
`IBM Routinely Licenses Its Patents In Many Fields But Will Enforce Its Rights
`Against Those Who Use Its Intellectual Property Unlawfully.
`
`28.
`
`IBM’s commitment to creating a large patent portfolio underscores the value that
`
`IBM places in the exchange of innovation, and disclosure of that innovation, in return for limited
`
`exclusivity. Indeed, IBM has used its patent portfolio to generate revenue and other significant
`
`value for the company by executing patent cross-license agreements. The revenue generated
`
`through patent licensing enables IBM to continue to commit resources to innovation. Cross
`
`licensing, in turn, provides IBM with the freedom to innovate and operate in a manner that respects
`
`the technology of others.
`
`29.
`
`Given the investment IBM makes in the development of new technologies and the
`
`management of its patent portfolio, IBM and its shareholders expect companies to act responsibly
`
`with respect to IBM’s patents. IBM facilitates this by routinely licensing its patents in many fields
`
`and by working with companies that wish to use IBM’s technology in those fields in which IBM
`
`grants licenses. When a company appropriates IBM’s intellectual property but refuses to negotiate
`
`a license, IBM has no choice but to seek judicial assistance.
`
`D.
`
`IBM Invented Methods For Presenting Applications And Advertisements In An
`Interactive Service While Developing The PRODIGY Online Service.
`
`30.
`
`The inventors of the ’849 patent developed the patented technologies as part of
`
`IBM’s efforts to launch the PRODIGY online service (“Prodigy”), a forerunner to today’s Internet,
`
`in the late 1980s. The inventors believed that to be commercially viable, Prodigy would have to
`
`provide interactive applications to millions of users with minimal response times. The inventors
`
`believed that the “dumb” terminal approach that had been commonly used in conventional
`
`systems, which heavily relied on host servers’ processing and storage resources for performance,
`
`would not be suitable. As a result, the inventors sought to develop more efficient methods of
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 11 of 63 PageID #: 11
`
`communication that would improve the speed and functionality of interactive applications and
`
`reduce equipment capital and operating costs.
`
`31.
`
`In light of the above considerations, the inventors developed novel methods for
`
`presenting applications and advertisements in an interactive service that would take advantage of
`
`the computing power of each user’s personal computer (PC) and thereby reduce demand on host
`
`servers, such as those used by Prodigy. The inventors recognized that if applications were
`
`structured to be comprised of “objects” of data and program code capable of being processed by a
`
`user’s PC, the Prodigy system would be more efficient than conventional systems. By harnessing
`
`the processing and storage capabilities of the user’s PC, applications could then be composed on
`
`the fly from objects stored locally on the PC, reducing reliance on Prodigy’s server and network
`
`resources.
`
`32.
`
`The service that would eventually be called Prodigy embodied inventions from the
`
`’849 patent when it launched in late 1988, before the existence of the World Wide Web. The
`
`efficiencies derived from the use of the patented technology permitted the implementation of one
`
`of the first graphical user interfaces for online services. The efficiencies also allowed Prodigy to
`
`quickly grow its user base. By 1990, Prodigy had become one of the largest online service
`
`providers with hundreds of thousands of users. Prodigy was widely praised in the industry and is
`
`still held up as an example of innovation in computer networks that predated even the advent of
`
`the World Wide Web. The technological innovations embodied in this patent persist to this day
`
`and are fundamental to the efficient communication of Internet content.
`
`33.
`
`Today, it is easy to take the World Wide Web, powerful computers, and high-speed
`
`network connectivity for granted. Not so in 1988, when the first application in the ’849 patent’s
`
`priority chain was filed. The World Wide Web had not even been conceived yet. Typical PCs at
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 12 of 63 PageID #: 12
`
`the time had “512K RAM”—not 512 megabytes or gigabytes of RAM, but 512 kilobytes. ’849
`
`patent at 9:16–18. The ’849 patent also describes the use of 1,200 to 2,400 bps (bits per second)
`
`modems to access a network—a far cry from today’s high-speed internet. Id. at 9:18–20.
`
`34.
`
`The limited processing power and network bandwidth available in 1988 posed
`
`significant technical obstacles to the development and adoption of network-based interactive
`
`services, in which many users may access interactive services provided by a host. Id. at 1:34–58.
`
`Accordingly, the ’849 patent specifically identifies slowdowns in network response time caused
`
`by processing bottlenecks at the host as a problem to be solved:
`
`[I]n conventional time-sharing computer networks, the data and program
`instructions necessary to support user sessions are maintained at a central host
`computer. However, that approach has been found to create processing bottlenecks
`as greater numbers of users are connected to the network; bottlenecks which require
`increases in processing power and complexity; e.g., multiple hosts of greater
`computing capability, if the network is to meet demand. Further, such bottlenecks
`have been found to also slow response time as more users are connected to the
`network and seek to have their requests for data processing answered. Id. at 10:42–
`53; see also id. at 1:43–52, 10:54–57.
`
`35.
`
`As the ’849 patent also explains, simply increasing computing capacity to the hosts
`
`is not enough to fix the bottleneck problem. “[E]ven in the case where additional computing power
`
`is added, and where response time is allowed to increase, eventually the host becomes user
`
`saturated as more and more users are sought to be served by the network.” Id. at 10:58–61. In
`
`other words, even a host with additional computing capacity would still have limits on how many
`
`users it could support in conventional approaches.
`
`36.
`
`Conventional approaches
`
`to providing advertising
`
`in
`
`interactive services
`
`exacerbated the bottleneck problem, as advertising had to compete with service application data
`
`for limited network bandwidth. Id. at 2:20–30. That competition between advertising and service
`
`application data had “the undesirable effect of diminishing service response time.” Id. at 2:25–26.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 13 of 63 PageID #: 13
`
`37.
`
`The bottleneck problem arises from the limitations of networks that rely exclusively
`
`on central hosts to satisfy users’ data processing requests and the limited network bandwidth
`
`available at the time of the invention. Accordingly, the bottleneck problem addressed by the ’849
`
`patent is a “technical problem.”
`
`38.
`
`Before this suit, the ’849 patent had been challenged three times on grounds of
`
`alleged patent ineligibility. Those challenges were all unsuccessful. In the matter of IBM v. The
`
`Priceline Grp., Inc., C.A. No. 15-137 (D. Del.), the defendants (collectively “Priceline”) filed a
`
`motion to dismiss, alleging that the ’849 patent was directed to unpatentable subject matter. The
`
`Delaware court denied Priceline’s motion, finding that “Defendants have failed to meet their
`
`burden of demonstrating that . . . claim 1 of the ’849 patent [is] devoid of inventive concepts.”
`
`IBM v. The Priceline Grp., Inc., 2016 WL 626495, at *24 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2016).
`
`39.
`
`In the matter of Kayak Software Corp. v. IBM., CBM2016-00075, Priceline again
`
`challenged the ’849 patent on alleged patent eligibility grounds, this time before the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Just like in the district court, the PTAB rejected Priceline’s
`
`challenge. The PTAB “agree[d] with Patent Owner the disclosure of the ’849 patent itself is almost
`
`exclusively directed to solving a problem arising in computer technology (i.e., bandwidth) with a
`
`computerized solution (i.e., local storage).” Kayak Software Corp. v. IBM., CBM2016-00075,
`
`Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2016) at 19. The PTAB thus concluded, “Petitioner has not shown
`
`sufficiently that independent claims 1 and 21 are directed to an unpatentable ‘abstract idea’ . . . .”
`
`Id. at 20.
`
`40.
`
`Although the parties filed other summary judgment motions in the Priceline case,
`
`Priceline chose not to file a summary judgment motion to challenge the patent eligibility of the
`
`’849 patent.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 14 of 63 PageID #: 14
`
`41.
`
`In the matter of IBM v. Groupon, Inc., C.A. No. 16-122 (D. Del.), Groupon, Inc.
`
`(“Groupon”) moved for judgment on the pleadings that the ’849 patent was directed to ineligible
`
`subject matter. The court denied Groupon’s motion, finding that “the asserted claims of the Filepp
`
`patents are not directed to an abstract idea and are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.” IBM
`
`v. Groupon, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3d 596, 607 (D. Del. 2017).
`
`E.
`
`IBM Invented Methods For A Runtime User Account Creation Operation Using A
`Single-Sign-On (SSO) Process In A Federated Computer Environment.
`
`42.
`
`The inventors of the ’346 patent developed the patented technology as part of
`
`IBM’s efforts to improve single-sign-on technology. Online service providers, like website
`
`operators, typically use “sign-on” operations to manage access to protected resources, like
`
`confidential webpages. ’346 patent at 6:26–30. A user signs-on by providing authentication
`
`credentials, such as a username and password, which the service provider verifies to authenticate
`
`the user’s identity. Id. at 6:31–36. Then, the service provider can determine whether the identified
`
`user has authorization to access the protected resource and, if so, grants access. Id. at 6:37–43,
`
`Fig. 1C. Although that process has become commonplace, it is time consuming for users to sign-
`
`on every time they wish to access a protected resource. Id. at 1:25–33.
`
`43.
`
`One way to address the shortcomings of repetitive sign-on operations is to
`
`authenticate users for an entire “session,” i.e., a series of multiple transfers of information between
`
`the server and the client. Id. at 1:53–61, 6:17–22. That technology is called single-sign-on because
`
`users are only required to sign-on once per session. Id. at 1:53–61. For example, users could enter
`
`a user name and password on the homepage of a service provider and request multiple protected
`
`webpages without reentering their credentials. But prior art single-sign-on methods were
`
`problematic because they required users to have preexisting user accounts at the service provider.
`
`Id. at 2:19–42.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 15 of 63 PageID #: 15
`
`44.
`
`As Dr. Heather Hinton, first named inventor of the ’346 patent, testified in prior
`
`proceedings, prior art systems could not take advantage of the full benefits of single-sign-on
`
`because of this fundamental problem.
`
`45.
`
`The inventors of the ’346 patent sought to develop single-sign-on technology that
`
`would permit a new user of a service provider to access protected resources. They developed novel
`
`methods for systems interacting within a “federated computing environment” to trigger a single-
`
`sign-on operation on behalf of a user that would obtain access to a “protected resource” and create
`
`an account for the user. The specification discloses how to structure a “federated computing
`
`environment” using a nonconventional arrangement of computer components. Id. at 10:62–11:7,
`
`11:28–35. The specification describes a “protective resource” using precise technical terms that
`
`demonstrate “how” to solve the limitations of prior art single-sign-on operations. Id. at 5:60–67,
`
`6:26–30, 8:45–48, 11:28–35. And it specifies the “ordered combination” of technical steps
`
`necessary to implement the claimed embodiments. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 9, 11.
`
`46.
`
`One implementation of the ’346 patent involves using “tokens” to facilitate such
`
`interactions. “A token provides direct evidence of a successful operation and is produced by the
`
`entity that performs the operation, e.g., an authentication token that is generated after a successful
`
`authentication operation. A Kerberos token is one example of an authentication token that may be
`
`used with the present invention.” Id. at 8:49–54. Such binary security tokens can implement web
`
`services message-level security. When a user accesses a service provider and signs into the identity
`
`provider via single-sign-on operations, the identity provider authenticates the user. The identity
`
`provider provides a token to the service provider “to provide proof of authentication of a user.”
`
`Id. at 22:15–19. The service provider would in turn, “translate” the identity provider’s token into
`
`a “locally valid user identifier . . . based on information contained in the [] token” in order to “build
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00590-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/02/22 Page 16 of 63 PageID #: 16
`
`a local session for the user.” Id. at 24:16–25:3. After the user has been found to be authenticated
`
`by the identity provider, the system provider can then create an account for the user at the service
`
`provider, thus bypassing any requirement for the user to directly create an account at the service
`
`provider. The ’346 patent thus extends the benefits of single-sign-on technology to allow the user
`
`to access protected resources at any number of service providers without having to first set up a
`
`user account.
`
`47.
`
`The ’346 patent had been unsuccessfully challenged on grounds of alleged patent
`
`ineligibility. In the matter of IBM v. The Priceline Grp., Inc., C.A. No. 15-137 (D. Del.), Priceline
`
`filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the ’346 patent was directed to unpatentable subject matter.
`
`The Delaware court denied the motion, finding the patent was not directed to an abstract idea:
`
`“[T]he true heart of the invention is the utilization of SSO technology to automatically create an
`
`acco

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket