Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 1871
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00278-MN
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECOND
`RENEWED PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS PAYRANGE’S SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`Date: April 17, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John C. Phillips, Jr. (# 110)
`Megan C. Haney (#5016)
`PHILLIPS, MCLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.
`1200 North Broom Street
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`(302) 655-4200
`jcp@pmhdelaw.com
`mch@pmhdelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`CSC ServiceWorks, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 1872
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ...............................................................1
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......................................................................................2
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................3
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................5
`V. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................................6
`A.
`The ‘772 Patent Fails the Eligibility Requirements of Section 101. ................................6
`1.
`Claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent is directed to an abstract idea. .........................................6
`2.
`Claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent fails to recite an inventive concept. ...............................14
`VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 1873
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`
`Alice Corp. Pty v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`939 F.3d 1355 (Fed Cir. 2019)...................................................................................................8
`
`Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-891, 2022 WL 2347622
`(U.S. June 30, 2022) ................................................................................................................13
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................14
`
`In re AuthWallet, LLC,
`No. 2022-1842, 2023 WL 3330298 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2023) ..................................................7
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`BoardActive Corp. v. Foursquare Labs, Inc.,
`No. 1:22-CV-00597-JDW, 2023 WL 2587688 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2023).................................18
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................13
`
`Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................9
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................................8, 12
`
`Chewy, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`94 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ................................................................................................17
`
`Control v. Digital Playground, Inc.,
`2016 WL 5793745 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ........................................................................................16
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 1874
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d at 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................13
`
`Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc.,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 733 (D. Del. 2018) (Bryson, J.) .......................................................................8
`
`GeoComply Sols. Inc. v. Xpoint Servs. LLC,
`No. CV 22-1273-WCB, 2023 WL 1927393 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023) ......................................17
`
`Google LLC v. Hammond Development Int’l, Inc.,
`54 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................16
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`855 Fed. Appx. 740 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .........................................................................................9
`
`Innovation Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`778 F. App’x 859 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................8
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,
`50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................9
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................8
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................6
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al v. PayRange Inc.,
`PTAB-PGR2021-00093 (PTAB, Jun. 10, 2021) ............................................................. passim
`
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al v. PayRange Inc.,
`PTAB-PGR2023-00042 (PTAB, Jul. 25, 2023) ..................................................................1, 17
`
`Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`No. CV 17-1405-MN-CJB, 2022 WL 17403538 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2022) ................................16
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Oath Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-12267, 2020 WL 419469 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2020) .............................................16
`
`Sandbox Software, LLC v. 18Birdies, LLC,
`No. CV 18-1649-MN, 2019 WL 2524780 (D. Del. June 19, 2019) ........................................18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 1875
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`Simio LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................18
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7
`
`Thunder Power New Energy Vehicle Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Byton N. Am. Corp.,
`340 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2018), aff’d, 777 F. App’x 517 (Fed. Cir.
`2019) ..........................................................................................................................................8
`
`In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................14
`
`TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 18-1518-MN, 2019 WL 2524779 (D. Del. June 19, 2019) ........................................15
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................18
`
`Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................7
`
`W. View Research v. Audi AG,
`685 F. App’x at 926 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................14
`
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ..............................................................................1, 2, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 1876
`
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`PayRange Inc. (“PayRange”) filed its Original Complaint on March 15, 2023, alleging that
`
`CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. (“CSC”) infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,045 (“the ‘045 Patent”),
`
`10,438,208 (“the ‘208 Patent”), 10,891,608 (“the ‘608 Patent”), and 11,481,772 (“the ‘772 Patent)
`
`(collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). D.I. 1. On May 5, 2023, CSC filed a Partial Motion to
`
`Dismiss PayRange’s Original Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.I. 8.
`
`In response, PayRange filed a First Amended Complaint against CSC on May 19, 2023, alleging
`
`infringement of at least claims 1-4 and 10-12 of the ‘045 Patent, claim 1 of the ‘208 Patent, claim
`
`1 of the ‘608 Patent, and claims 1 and 4 of the ‘772 Patent. D.I. 12 at ¶¶ 47, 62, 73, 87. In light of
`
`PayRange’s FAC, the Court denied as moot CSC’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. D.I. 13.
`
`On June 10, 2021, before PayRange filed its FAC, third party KioSoft Technologies LLC
`
`(“KioSoft”) filed a Petition for Post-Grant Review in the PTAB challenging the claims of the ‘772
`
`Patent’s parent, U.S. Patent No. 10,891,614 (“‘614 Patent”), as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101. KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al v. PayRange Inc., PTAB-PGR2021-00093 (PTAB, Jun.
`
`10, 2021) (“the ‘614 PGR”). In its Final Written Decision, the PTAB found several claims of the
`
`‘614 Patent ineligible under § 101, including claim 1. Ex. 1, ‘614 PGR, Paper 38. KioSoft then
`
`filed a PGR petition challenging all claims of the ‘772 patent as patent-ineligible under § 101.
`
`KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al v. PayRange Inc., PTAB-PGR2023-00042 (PTAB, Jul. 25, 2023)
`
`(“the ‘772 PGR”).
`
`On June 2, 2023, CSC filed its Renewed Partial Motion to Dismiss the claims of the ‘772
`
`Patent under § 101. D.I. 14. While the Renewed Motion to Dismiss was pending, on November
`
`22, 2023, PayRange voluntarily cancelled the majority of the claims of the ‘772 Patent, including
`
`claim 1, just before filing its Patent Owner Preliminary Response in the ‘772 PGR. D.I. 42.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 1877
`
`PayRange then filed amended infringement contentions, asserting only claim 11 of the ‘772 patent.
`
`D.I. 51. On March 27, 2024, the Court heard oral argument on CSC’s Renewed Motion. D.I. 74.
`
`Among other relief, the Court Denied-in-Part CSC’s motion to dismiss the claims of the ‘772
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to PayRange’s failure to include the sole remaining claim of the
`
`‘772 Patent in its operative complaint, and granted PayRange leave to file a Second Amended
`
`Complaint to correct that deficiency. See id. PayRange filed its SAC on April 3, 2024, identifying
`
`claim 11 as the sole asserted claim of the ‘772 Patent. D.I. 73.
`
`CSC moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Count IV of
`
`PayRange’s SAC because claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming
`
`ineligible subject matter.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`PayRange alleges that CSC infringes four patents related to mobile payments. The sole
`
`asserted claim of one of those patents—claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent—is textbook patent-ineligible.
`
`In fact, the PTAB has already invalidated under § 101 a materially identical claim 1 (on which
`
`claim 11 depends) in the ‘614 PGR. See KioSoft Technologies, LLC et al v. PayRange Inc., PTAB-
`
`PGR2021-00093 (PTAB, Jun. 10, 2021), Paper 38. And in response to KioSoft filing a new PGR
`
`challenging all claims of the ‘772 Patent as ineligible under § 101, PayRange voluntarily cancelled
`
`independent claim 1 of the ‘772 patent.
`
`Claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent should also be found ineligible because it adds nothing
`
`patentable to cancelled claim 1. It recites purely functional, results-oriented steps for presenting
`
`generic information on the user interface of a mobile device to facilitate payments on a machine.
`
`The claim is devoid of specific instructions or algorithms for accomplishing this abstract idea,
`
`reciting only generic “mobile devices” and goal-oriented messages. Furthermore, displaying
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 1878
`
`information on a mobile device to facilitate a mobile payment on a machine—as the claim
`
`recites—is merely a computer-implemented method of the longstanding economic practice of
`
`transacting for a good or service. Claim 11 merely recites limitations for (1) identifying a merchant,
`
`(2) communicating the transaction amount, and (3) providing the good or service in exchange for
`
`payment. Displaying this generic information on a user interface of a mobile device does not
`
`transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`Because claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent is drawn to the abstract idea of displaying information
`
`to facilitate mobile payments on a machine using conventional devices and technologies,
`
`PayRange has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court should dismiss
`
`Count IV for asserting a claim that fails the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`PayRange filed its SAC against CSC on April 3, 2024, alleging infringement of at least
`
`claims 1-4 and 10-12 of the ‘045 Patent, claim 1 of the ‘208 Patent, claim 1 of the ‘608 Patent, and
`
`claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent. D.I. 73 at ¶¶ 46, 61, 72, 87.
`
`The ‘772 Patent specification explains that “vending machines” have “been around for
`
`thousands of years,” with “coin operated vending machines . . . introduced in the 1880’s.” See ‘772
`
`Patent at 1:45-53. It further explains that vending machines are one type of “payment accepting
`
`unit,” which the specification describes as “equipment that requires payment for the dispensing of
`
`products and/or services.” Id. at 1:54-65. While prior payment accepting units required insertion
`
`of cash or coins and physical user input with the machine (id. at 2:2-3), based on the proliferation
`
`of mobile devices, “[m]obile payment is a logical extension.” Id. at 2:10-12.
`
`The ‘772 Patent is entitled “Method and System for Presenting Representations of Payment
`
`Accepting Unit Events.” Its claims recite using a mobile device to present “selection and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 1879
`
`transaction information” to a “payment accepting unit.” Method claim 1, on which claim 11
`
`depends, reads as follows:
`
`1. A method of presenting representations of payment accepting unit events, comprising:
`
`at a mobile device with one or more processors, memory, one or more output devices
`including a display, and one or more radio transceivers:
`
`identifying one or more payment accepting units in proximity to the mobile device that are
`available to accept payment from a mobile payment application executing on the mobile device,
`the identifying based at least in part on an identifier corresponding to the one or more payment
`accepting units, wherein the one or more payment accepting units are payment operated machines
`that accept payment for dispensing of products and/or services;
`
`displaying a user interface of the mobile payment application on the display of the mobile
`device, the user interface being configured to display a visual indication of the one or more
`payment accepting units and accept user input to (i) receive selection by a user of the mobile device
`of an available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units and (ii) trigger
`payment by the mobile payment application for a transaction initiated by the user of the mobile
`device with the available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment accepting units;
`
`establishing via the one or more radio transceivers a wireless communication path
`including the mobile device and the available payment accepting unit of the one or more payment
`accepting units;
`
`after establishing the wireless communication path, enabling user interaction with the user
`interface of the mobile payment application to complete the transaction;
`
`exchanging information with the available payment accepting unit via the one or more
`radio transceivers, in conjunction with the transaction; and
`
`after exchanging the information, displaying, on the display, an updated user interface of
`the mobile payment application to the user of the mobile device.
`
`Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and adds the following limitation:
`
`11. The method of claim 1, wherein the user interface of the mobile payment application,
`after establishing the wireless communication path, includes:
`
` a
`
` visual representation of the available payment accepting unit;
`
`
`an indication of a prepared balance; and
`
`an affordance that when slid, indicates the initiation of the transaction;
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 1880
`
`wherein the affordance is slid in response to receiving user input of swipe on the affordance
`displayed on the display of the mobile device.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Whether patent claims are drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
`
`an issue of law for the court to decide. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 621 (2010). “Laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty v. CLS Bank
`
`Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). These exceptions are “reserved exclusively to none.” Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012) (internal citations omitted).
`
`The Supreme Court has established a two-step analytical framework for “distinguishing
`
`patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
`
`patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. First, the court must
`
`determine “whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts,”
`
`such as an abstract idea. Id. at 217. Second, if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court
`
`must “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’
`
`sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 221. An
`
`“inventive concept” includes 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. at 217 (citation omitted).
`
`The first step of the Alice inquiry examines “the focus of the claims, their character as a
`
`whole.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The second step
`
`requires the court to “look[] more precisely at what the claim elements add—specifically, whether,
`
`in the Supreme Court’s terms, they identify an ‘inventive concept’ in the application of the
`
`ineligible matter to which (by assumption at step two) the claim is directed.” Elec. Power Grp.,
`
`LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 1881
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The ‘772 Patent Fails the Eligibility Requirements of Section 101.
`
`PayRange’s SAC fails to state a claim for relief as to Count IV because claim 11 of the
`
`‘772 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of displaying information to facilitate mobile payments
`
`on a machine. Claim 11 further fails step two of the Alice test because it implements this abstract
`
`idea using well-known, generic components, and thus lacks an inventive concept sufficient to
`
`transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`1. Claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent is directed to an abstract idea.
`
`At Alice step 1, the court must “first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
`
`a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. In this step, “the claims are considered in their
`
`entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal
`
`Circuit has consistently held that claims directed to the requesting, transmitting, and displaying of
`
`information—including information related to mobile payments— are unpatentable abstract ideas.
`
`Claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent—the only remaining asserted claim—is directed to the abstract
`
`idea of displaying information to facilitate mobile payments on a machine. Making payments on a
`
`machine is a longstanding economic practice, which the ‘772 Patent specification admits “has been
`
`around for thousands of years.” ‘772 Patent at 1:45-46. Cancelled claim 1 recites generic, results-
`
`oriented steps to implement this practice, including “identifying” payment accepting units,
`
`“displaying” selection and payment information on a user interface, “receiving” a selection,
`
`“trigger[ing] payment” by an application, “establishing” a wireless communication path, and
`
`“exchanging information” with payment accepting units. Claim 11, which depends on cancelled
`
`claim 1, further recites displaying information on a mobile device to facilitate mobile payment on
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 1882
`
`the machine, including a “visual representation” of the machine, the “prepared balance” for the
`
`transaction, and a slide-to-transact feature to initiate the transaction.
`
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly found abstract similar claims directed to transmitting,
`
`receiving, and displaying information in a generic, results-oriented manner like the claim at issue
`
`here. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in In re AuthWallet, LLC is instructive. No. 2022-1842,
`
`2023 WL 3330298 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2023). The patent in that case was directed to “a method for
`
`processing financial transaction data that implements authorization requests and confers discounts
`
`and benefits upon the consumer.” Id. at *1-3. The specific steps in the mobile payment process at
`
`issue included: (1) receiving an authorization request from a purchaser that includes an identifier
`
`and transaction information, (2) determining one or more stored value items to apply to the
`
`transaction based on the authorization request, (3) transmitting a transaction indication message to
`
`a mobile device, (4) accepting input from a user of the mobile device, (5) applying the stored value
`
`items, and (6) initiating payment. Id. at *1-3. In finding the claims abstract, the Federal Circuit
`
`reasoned they are directed to a longstanding economic practice that is performed ordinarily in the
`
`stream of commerce. Id. at 3. In implementing that economic practice, the claims “recite[d] generic
`
`steps and results.” Id. at *4 (internal citations omitted).
`
`In re AuthWallet was not an outlier—the Federal Circuit has repeatedly found similar
`
`claims to be abstract. See Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364,
`
`1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding claims directed to mobile payment of transit fares over a network
`
`to be abstract because “when reduced to their core, claims directed to the performance of certain
`
`financial transactions—and paying a fare is a financial transaction—must be categorized as
`
`involving abstract ideas”); Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1349 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (finding abstract claims directed to securing electronic payment transactions because
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 1883
`
`they “simply recite conventional actions in a generic way” and “do not purport to improve any
`
`underlying technology”); Innovation Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 778 F. App’x 859, 863 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2019) (finding invalid claims directed to securely processing a credit card transaction with a
`
`payment server as directed to an abstract idea); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850
`
`F.3d 1315, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“receiving a request for information” is “no more than the
`
`performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activit[y] previously known to the
`
`industry”); ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding
`
`abstract claims directed to “communication over a network to interact with a device connected to
`
`the network”).
`
`The well-known concepts in claim 11 are abstract “because they consist of generic and
`
`conventional . . . acquisition and organization steps that are connected to, but do not convert, the
`
`abstract idea” of displaying information to facilitate mobile payments on a machine “into a
`
`particular conception of how to carry out that concept.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896
`
`F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 939
`
`F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed Cir. 2019) (“[A] claim to a[n abstract idea] without specifying the means of
`
`how to implement the concept is ineligible under Section 101.”); Thunder Power New Energy
`
`Vehicle Dev. Co. Ltd. v. Byton N. Am. Corp., 340 F. Supp. 3d 922, 929 (N.D. Cal. 2018), aff’d,
`
`777 F. App’x 517 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Any explanation of how these various devices will accomplish
`
`these steps, at a technical level, is absent.”); Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 3d 733
`
`at 738 (D. Del. 2018) (Bryson, J.) (holding claims abstract because they “recite [a] concept, but
`
`not the way to implement it.”).
`
`Claim 11 of the ‘772 Patent does not provide rules or algorithms for performing the generic,
`
`claimed steps. For instance, claim 1 (from which claim 11 depends) recites the steps of “identifying
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 1884
`
`one or more payment accepting units in proximity to the mobile device that are available to accept
`
`payment from a mobile payment application executing on the mobile device” and “establishing
`
`via the one or more radio transceivers a wireless communication path including the mobile device
`
`and the available payment accepting unit.” But claim 1 does not recite how the mobile device
`
`should identify payment accepting units (other than through a non-descript “identifier”) or how the
`
`wireless communication path should be established. The steps are markedly general, and “[a]t that
`
`level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without
`
`providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified
`
`problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea,
`
`not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838
`
`F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The additional elements in dependent claim 11—directed to items displayed on a user
`
`interface of a mobile device application—do not change the eligibility calculus. Similar claims
`
`directed to displaying information in a particular way based on certain inputs (for example,
`
`displaying prepared balance or a visual representation of a specific machine), have been found
`
`abstract, especially when presented on a “generic display device” like the mobile device at issue
`
`in the ‘772 Patent. See Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1377-80 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2022) (holding that a claim directed to “displaying, filtering, and interacting with” data on a
`
`computer was not directed to patent-eligible subject matter). The display limitations, including the
`
`requirement of an “affordance” to be slid by the user to initiate the transaction, are directed to the
`
`performance of an economic transaction using “wholly generic touch-screen functionality” and are
`
`therefore abstract. See GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, 855 Fed. Appx. 740, 742 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The
`
`“mere physical nature” of the claimed user interface does not save claims from abstraction where
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 1885
`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 15 of 24 PagelD #: 1885
`
`the claims are directedto an abstract idea “using off-the-shelftechnology for its intended purpose.”
`
`Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Moreover, the limitations of claim 11 are claimed in functional terms andnottied to any
`
`specific type of new technology. For instance, the following chart illustrates the functional
`
`language of each elementin claim 11, and the known technology described by the specification as
`
`carrying out each function:
`
`(‘772 Claim 11
`Claim Element
`1. A method ofpresenting representations of
`payment whetherthe user is walking away
`from the available accepting unit events,
`comprising:
`
`at a mobile device with one or more
`processors, memory, one or more output
`devices including a display, and one or more
`radio transceivers:
`
`identifying one or more payment accepting
`units in proximity to the mobile device that
`Technology: Known devices and conventional
`are available to accept payment from a
`mobile paymentapplication executing on the|technologies. See ‘772 Patent, 8:59-9:26
`mobile device, the identifying based at least|(describing user’s personal mobile device
`in part on an identifier corresponding to the|including a corresponding software application
`one or more payment accepting units,
`that “is used broadly to include any software
`wherein the one or more payment accepting|program(s) capable of implementing the features
`units are payment operated machinesthat
`described herein’), 9:27-38 (describing payment
`accept payment for dispensing of products
`accepting unit as any conventional machine
`and/or services;
`which accepts payment such as a vending
`machine or laundry machine).
`
`displaying a user interface of the mobile
`payment application on the display of the
`mobile device, the user interface being
`configured to display a visual indication of
`the one or more payment accepting units and|Technology: Known devicesand conventional
`accept user inputto (1) receive selection by a|technologies. See ‘772 Patent, 8:59-9:26
`user of the mobile device of an available
`(describing user’s personal mobile device
`payment accepting unit of the one or more
`including a corresponding software application
`
`Function: using an application on the user’s
`mobile device to select a payment accepting unit
`and trigger payment.
`
`Function and Claimed Technology
`
`Mobile device is point of reference for claim from
`which eachstep is directed.
`
`Technology: Known mobile devices with
`conventional features. See ‘772 Patent, 8:59-9:26
`(describing user’s personal mobile device, such as
`phone”or “‘tablet’’).
`Function: identifying a payment accepting unit.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 80 Filed 04/17/24 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 1886
`
`payment accepting units and (ii) trigger
`payment by the mobile payment application
`for a tra