Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 323
`
`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 PARTIAL
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 5, 2023
`
`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 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 324
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ................................................................... 1
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 1
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 2
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................................................ 4
`A.
`Patent Eligible Subject Matter .............................................................................................. 4
`B.
`Stating A Claim For Willfulness or Indirect Infringement ................................................... 5
`1. Willfulness ............................................................................................................................ 6
`2.
`Indirect Infringement............................................................................................................. 6
`V. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`The ‘045 and ‘772 Patents are invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter. .......... 7
`1. The claims of the ‘045 and ‘772 Patents are directed to an abstract idea. ............................ 7
`2. The ‘045 and ‘772 Patents fail to recite an inventive concept. ........................................... 14
`B.
`PayRange fails to state a claim for willfulness and indirect infringement. ......................... 18
`C.
`The Court should dismiss PayRange’s claim for injunctive relief. ..................................... 19
`VI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 325
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018).................................................................................................... 17
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016).................................................................................................... 10
`
`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)....................................................................................................... 9
`
`Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi. v. Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity Co.,
`2003 WL 1921815 (E.D. Ill Apr. 21, 2003)................................................................................. 19
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015).................................................................................................... 15
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Atlas Glob. Techs., LLC v. Sercomm Corp.,
`6:21-CV-00818-ADA, 2022 WL 16557650 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2022) ..................................... 18
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)...................................................................................................... 18
`
`Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 433 (2007) ........................................................................................................... 5, 18, 19
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ....................................................................................................................... 4
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).................................................................................................... 14
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019).................................................................................................. 8, 14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 326
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Dynamic Data Techs., LLC v. Amlogic Holdings Ltd,
`2020 WL 4365809 (D. Del. July 30, 2020) ................................................................................... 6
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ..................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc.,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 733 (D. Del. 2018) (Bryson, J.) ........................................................................... 9
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2462423 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) ............................................................................... 18
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
`620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Helios Streaming, LLC v. Vudu, Inc.,
`2020 WL 2332045 (D. Del. 2020) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Pat. Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)...................................................................................................... 6
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................... 15
`
`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)...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)...................................................................................................... 9
`
`M & C Innovations, LLC v. Igloo Prod. Corp.,
`No. 4:17-CV-2372, 2018 WL 4620713 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2018) ............................................. 19
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 327
`
`Sandbox Software, LLC v. 18Birdies, LLC,
`No. CV 18-1649-MN, 2019 WL 2524780 (D. Del. June 19, 2019) ............................................ 16
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)...................................................................................................... 8
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. den., 140 S. Ct. 1108 (2020) .............................................. 6
`
`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) .............................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 18-1518-MN, 2019 WL 2524779 (D. Del. June 19, 2019) ...................................... 15, 16
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ............................................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ............................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................ 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,045 ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,438,208 ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 328
`
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`PayRange filed its Complaint against CSC on March 15, 2023, alleging infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ‘045, ‘208, ‘608, and ‘772 patents (the “Asserted Patents”). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 16, 34,
`
`47, 57, 66.
`
`Defendant CSC ServiceWorks, Inc. (“CSC”) moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(b)(6) to: (1) dismiss Counts I and IV of Plaintiff PayRange Inc.’s (“PayRange”) Complaint
`
`because U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,045 and 11,481,772 (the “’045 Patent” and the “’772 Patent”) are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter; (2) dismiss Counts II, III, and
`
`IV on the basis of willfulness and indirect infringement as to U.S. Patent Nos. 10,438,208 (the “’208
`
`Patent”), 10,891,608 (the “’608 Patent”), and the ‘772 Patent because PayRange has failed to allege
`
`prior knowledge of those patents; and (3) to dismiss PayRange’s claim for injunctive relief because
`
`PayRange failed to plead any irreparable harm.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`PayRange alleges that CSC infringes four patents related to mobile payments. The claims of
`
`two of those patents—the ‘045 and ‘772—recite purely functional, results-oriented steps for using a
`
`mobile device to make payments on a machine. The claims are devoid of specific instructions or
`
`algorithms for accomplishing this abstract idea, reciting only generic “mobile devices,” servers, and
`
`goal-oriented messages. Because the claims merely recite the abstract idea of using mobile devices
`
`for payments on machines, they fail the patent eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The Federal Circuit has consistently held that requesting, transmitting, and displaying
`
`information—including in the context of mobile payments, as in the claims at-issue—are abstract
`
`ideas. Reciting those abstract ideas using well-known, conventional, off-the-shelf devices and
`
`wireless technologies does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 329
`
`Because the claims of the ‘772 and ‘045 Patents are drawn to the abstract idea of using a
`
`mobile device to payments on machines with conventional devices and technologies, PayRange has
`
`failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for those patents. The Court should dismiss
`
`Counts I and IV for asserting claims that fail the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`PayRange’s Complaint also fails to state a claim for indirect and willful infringement of the
`
`‘772, ‘208, and ‘608 Patents. Both of those claims require actual knowledge of the specific patents
`
`allegedly infringed. But PayRange’s Complaint lacks any factual allegations supporting that CSC had
`
`actual knowledge of these patents before PayRange filed this lawsuit. Because pre-suit knowledge is
`
`a requirement for both willful infringement and indirect infringement, CSC requests that the Court
`
`dismiss the willfulness and indirect infringement allegations of Counts II, III, and IV.
`
`Finally, PayRange’s claim for permanent injunctive relief should be dismissed because
`
`PayRange has not pled irreparable harm—a critical element to stating a claim for this form of relief.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`PayRange filed its Complaint against CSC on March 15, 2023, alleging infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ‘045, ‘208, ‘608, and ‘772 patents (the “Asserted Patents”). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 16, 34,
`
`47, 57, 66. The ‘045 Patent and the ‘772 Patent both claim priority from U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 61/917,936, filed on December 18, 2013. The specifications of the ‘045 and ‘772 Patents overlap
`
`significantly.
`
`The ‘045 and ‘772 Patent specifications explain that “vending machines” have “been around
`
`for thousands of years,” with “coin operated vending machines . . . introduced in the 1880’s.” See
`
`‘045 Patent at 1:18-26. They further explain that vending machines are one type of “payment
`
`accepting unit,” which is simply “equipment that requires payment for the dispensing of products
`
`and/or services.” Id. at 1:27-38. While prior payment accepting units required insertion of cash or
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 330
`
`coins and physical user input with the machine (id. at 39-48), based on the proliferation of mobile
`
`devices, “[m]obile payment is a logical extension.” Id. at 49-54. The patents summarize the invention
`
`as “a mobile-device-to-machine payment system for facilitating a cashless transaction for purchase
`
`of at least one product or service by a user from a payment accepting unit.” Id. at 3:38-41.
`
`The claims of both Asserted Patents are directed to the abstract idea of using a mobile device
`
`for payment on a “payment accepting unit”—i.e., any machine that dispenses a product or service.
`
`The ‘045 Patent claims recite using a mobile device to facilitate a mobile payment to a “payment
`
`accepting unit.” Method claim 18 is exemplary:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 transaction
`
`information” to a “payment accepting unit.” Method claim 1 is exemplary:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 331
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition to direct infringement, PayRange alleges that CSC infringes indirectly (knowingly
`
`inducing others to infringe a patent) and willfully (knowingly infringing a patent). PayRange’s
`
`Complaint does not assert that CSC had pre-suit knowledge of the ‘208, ‘608, or ‘772 Patents.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Patent Eligible Subject Matter
`
`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-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 332
`
`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).
`
`B. Stating A Claim For Willfulness or Indirect Infringement
`
`Stating a claim for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation
`
`of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 433, 444 (2007).
`
`Rather, a pleading must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
`
`at 570. “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported
`
`by factual allegations.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “Factual allegations must be
`
`enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the
`
`complaint’s allegations are true.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 333
`
`1. Willfulness
`
`A determination of willfulness requires some finding of conduct that is “willful, wanton,
`
`malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs.,
`
`Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016); see SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1309
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“wanton, malicious, and bad-faith”), cert. den., 140 S. Ct. 1108 (2020). To state a
`
`claim for willful infringement, a pleading must allege, at a minimum: “facts from which it can be
`
`plausibly inferred that the party accused of infringement (1) had knowledge of or was willfully blind
`
`to the existence of the asserted patent and (2) had knowledge of or was willfully blind to the fact that
`
`the party's alleged conduct constituted, induced, or contributed to infringement of the asserted patent.”
`
`Dynamic Data Techs., LLC v. Amlogic Holdings Ltd, 2020 WL 4365809, at *5 (D. Del. July 30, 2020)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`2. Indirect Infringement
`
`Indirect infringement can take the form of either inducement or contributory infringement. An
`
`induced infringement claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires that: (1) a third party directly infringed,
`
`(2) the alleged inducer knew of the patent and, nevertheless, (3) knowingly induced the infringing
`
`acts with a specific intent to encourage infringement by the third party. See In re Bill of Lading
`
`Transmission & Processing Sys. Pat. Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphasis added);
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304–06 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A contributory
`
`infringement claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) requires that: (1) there is direct infringement, (2) the
`
`accused infringer had knowledge of the patent, (3) the component has no substantial noninfringing
`
`uses, and (4) that the component is a material part of the invention. See Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
`
`620 F.3d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 334
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The ‘045 and ‘772 Patents are invalid for failing to claim patentable subject
`matter.
`
`PayRange’s Complaint fails to state a claim for relief as to Counts I and IV because the ’045
`
`and ‘772 Patents claim only the unpatentable abstract idea of using a mobile device for payment on a
`
`machine. The ‘045 and ‘772 Patent claims further fail step two of the Alice test because they
`
`implement this abstract idea using well-known, generic components, and thus lack an inventive
`
`concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`1. The claims of the ‘045 and ‘772 Patents are 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.
`
`The claims of the ‘045 and ‘772 Patents are directed to the abstract idea of using a mobile
`
`device for payment on a machine, including by requesting, transmitting, and displaying information
`
`to complete a mobile payment. The ‘045 Patent claims recite generic, results-oriented steps of
`
`“sending an authorization request for funds,” “receiving said authorization request,” “forwarding said
`
`authorization request,” “sending an authorization grant for funds,” “receiving said authorization
`
`grant,” “forwarding said authorization grant,” and “dispensing the at least one product or service” in
`
`response. The claims of the ‘772 Patent are similarly abstract, reciting such generic, results-oriented
`
`steps as: “identifying” payment accepting units, “displaying” selection and payment information on
`
`a user interface, “receiving” a selection, “trigger[ing] payment” by an application, “establishing” a
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 335
`
`wireless communication path, and “exchanging information” with payment accepting units. The
`
`Federal Circuit has repeatedly found abstract similar claims directed to transmitting, receiving, and
`
`displaying information in a generic, results-oriented manner like the claims at issue here.
`
`The Federal Circuit routinely finds similar claims abstract—including claims directed to
`
`completing mobile payments. 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 they “simply
`
`recite conventional actions in a generic way” and “do not purport to improve any underlying
`
`technology”); 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 is also instructive. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). In that case, the Court examined claims related to electric vehicle charging stations
`
`connected to a network, finding that they were directed to “communication over a network to interact
`
`with a device connected to the network.” Id. at 767. Citing several prior Federal Circuit cases, the
`
`Court recognized that merely connecting the devices over the network and transmitting data to
`
`facilitate business transactions without employing inventive technology to carry out those functions
`
`rendered the asserted claims unpatentable because the patent claimed “nothing more than the abstract
`
`idea of communication over a network for interacting with a device, applied to the context of electric
`
`vehicle charging stations.” Id. at 768.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 336
`
`Like the claims in those cases, the well-known concepts in the ‘045 and ‘772 Patents 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 payments “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.”).
`
`Neither the claims of the ‘045 Patent nor the claims of the ‘772 Patent provide rules or
`
`algorithms for performing the generic, claimed steps. For instance, while the claims of the ‘045 Patent
`
`recite the generic steps of “sending an authorization request for funds to the mobile device using
`
`short-range communication technology of an adapter module associated with the payment accepting
`
`unit” and “receiving said authorization request for funds from said short-range communication
`
`technology of said adapter module at the short-range communication technology of the mobile
`
`device,” they are devoid of any rules or instructions for how to accomplish the sending and receiving
`
`of the authorization requests.
`
`Likewise, the ‘772 Patent recites such steps as “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” and “establishing via the one or more radio transceivers
`
`a wireless communication path including the mobile device and the available payment accepting
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 337
`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 15 of 25 PagelD #: 337
`
`unit.” But the claims do not recite How the mobile device should identify payment accepting units or
`
`how the wireless communication path should be established. The steps recited in the ‘045 and ‘772
`
`Patent claims 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 embodimentof that idea.” Affinity Labs of
`
`Texas, LLC v. Amazon.comInc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Claim 18 of the ‘045 patent is exemplary as to how the methodis claimedin functional terms
`
`and nottied to any specific type of novel technology:
`
`x said authorization request for
`
`10
`
` forwardin
`
`Function and Claimed Technology
`
`(‘045 Claim 18
`Claim Element
`18. A method for using a mobile-device-to-
`machine payment system for facilitating a
`cashless transaction for purchaseofatleast
`one productor service by a user from a
`payment accepting unit having input
`mechanisms, the user having a mobile device
`having both short-range communication
`technology and long-range communication
`technology, the payment accepting unit
`capable of dispensingat least one product or
`service, said method comprising the steps of:
`sending an authorization request for funds to|Function: sending and receiving an authorization
`the mobile device using short-range
`request for funds.
`communication technology of an adapter
`module associated with the payment
`accepting unit;
`
`Technology: Known devices and conventional
`short-range wireless communication technologies.
`See ‘045 Patent, 12:15-21 (user uses their own
`receiving said authorization request for funds|personal mobile device, such as a “smart phone”
`from said short-range communication
`or “tablet”), 11:59-12:14, 19:56-67 (describing
`technology of said adapter moduleat the
`generic adapter module, such as “low cost
`short-range communication technology of
`hardware”pre-configured to work on “industry
`the mobile device;
`standard” multi-drop bus, and establishes
`payment“in much the same manneras other
`alternative forms ofpayment(e.g. cash)”), 12:64-
`13:40 (describing well-known short-range
`communication technology, such as Bluetooth).
`Function: forwardingthe authorization requestto
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 9 Filed 05/05/23 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 338
`
`funds to a server using the long-range
`communication technology of the mobile
`device;
`
`receiving said authorization request for funds
`from the long-range communication
`technology of the mobile device at long-
`range communication technology of said
`server;
`
`
`
`
`sending an authorization grant for funds to
`the mobile device using said long-range
`communication technology of said server;
`
`receiving said authorization grant for funds
`from long-range communication technology
`of said server at the long-range
`communication technology of the mobile
`device;
`
`
`
`
`forwarding said authorization grant for funds
`to said adapter module using the short-range
`communication technology of the mobile
`device;
`
`receiving said authorization grant for funds
`from the short-range communication
`technology of the mobile device at short-
`range communication technology of said
`adapter module; and
`
`
`dispensing the at least one product or service
`from the payment accepting unit in response
`to receiving user input to the payment
`accepting unit input mechanism if said
`adapter module
`has
`received
`said
`authorization grant.
`
`a server.
`
`Technology: Known devices and conventional
`long-range wireless communication technologies.
`See ‘045 Patent, 12:15-21 (user uses their own
`personal mobile device, such as a “smart phone”
`or “tablet”), 13:41-14:7 (describing generic
`network server), 12:64-13:40 (describing well-
`known long-range communication technology
`such as WiFi).
`
`Function: sending an authorization grant from
`the server to the mobile device.
`
`Technology: Known devices and conventional
`long-range wireless communication technologies.
`See ‘045 Patent, 12:15-21 (user uses their own
`personal mobile device, such as a “smart phone”
`or “tablet”), 13:41-14:7 (describing generic
`network server), 12:64-13:40 (des