Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 3896
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)
`
`
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS WIZ, INC.’S COUNTERCLAIM COUNT IV
`UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`Lucas Lonergan
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 328-4600
`
`Blake R. Davis
`Peter Hoffman
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 391-0600
`
`Kristina D. McKenna
`Christopher Henry
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 948-6000
`
`October 3, 2024
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant Orca Security Ltd.
`
`
`Ryan Thomas Banks
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626
`(714) 540-1235
`
`Gabriel K. Bell
`Nicole Elena Bruner
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 637-2200
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 3897
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT: THE CLAIMS ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER § 101 ....................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Step One: Wiz’s Own Description Confirms The Claims Are Abstract .................2
`
`Step Two: Wiz Identifies No Inventive Concept Or Material Fact Issue ................7
`
`Dismissal is Appropriate ..........................................................................................9
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3898
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`836 F. App’x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................8
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc.,
`97 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ................................................................................................10
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc.,
`104 F.4th 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ..............................................................................................10
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`778 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................9
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................4, 5, 8
`
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................8
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................3
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................8, 9
`
`Elec. Pwr. Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................5
`
`Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2024 WL 371959 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2024).................................................................................3
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 3899
`
`
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .....................................................................................................................3
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................3
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd.,
`110 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ..........................................................................................6, 10
`
`O’Reilly v. Morse,
`56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854) .....................................................................................................3
`
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................7
`
`Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc.,
`65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..............................................................................................2, 10
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................................9
`
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.,
`72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..............................................................................................4, 8
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................5
`
`Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................5
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................9
`
`RULES
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 3900
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The patent claims here are aimed at nothing more than creating context for alerts and
`
`queries using existing technology. Controlling law dictates that such claims constitute the epitome
`
`of abstraction—not any technological advance. As Orca explained, Wiz’s asserted claims are
`
`ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014),
`
`because they (1) are directed to a classic information-based abstract idea (retrieving,
`
`contextualizing, querying, and responding to cybersecurity threat information) and (2) add nothing
`
`inventive (admittedly using only conventional computer functionality). D.I. 138 (“Op. Br.”) 7-19.
`
`Wiz’s answering brief (“Ans. Br.,” D.I. 144) confirms this result. Wiz does not deny that
`
`humans can (and did) perform the functions recited in the claims (crafting database queries to
`
`retrieve useful information) and that the patent aims to alleviate that often-tedious manual process
`
`(by using computers to supply additional context). Automating human functions is a hallmark of
`
`ineligibility. Wiz’s own description of its purported improvement is simply using existing
`
`computer technology—such as LLMs—to aid that process. Wiz nowhere suggests it invented or
`
`even improved the LLMs themselves; that technology is a mere tool. That, too, shows ineligibility.
`
`Tellingly, Wiz’s answering brief largely overlooks the ’549 patent and primarily refers to
`
`its First Amended Counterclaims (“FACC,” D.I. 124), which, in turn, recites allegations that are
`
`divorced from the disclosures of the ’549 patent. But, even crediting these allegations, Wiz still
`
`fails to demonstrate any basis for eligibility. Wiz’s central argument is that its claims are directed
`
`to a “specific” application of LLMs to improve cybersecurity incidence response. But the asserted
`
`claims and specification provide no details for a “specific” application of LLMs or of any
`
`“specific” improved LLM. Plainly, LLMs are not the claims’ main focus. Instead, as Wiz
`
`confirms, the purportedly “inventive” focus of the claims is the “mapping” activity—where, in a
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 3901
`
`
`
`cybersecurity context, a received input is mapped to “scenarios.” That “mapping” is to provide
`
`context—associating information with other information—which is an abstraction.
`
`Wiz fails to show why § 101 cannot be resolved now. Wiz handwaves regarding a
`
`“question of fact” and claim construction but fails to point to any specific facts in dispute or any
`
`claim terms to be construed. Ans. Br. 20. Where a patentee, as here, makes conclusory assertions
`
`“to the effect that ‘a factual dispute exists’” and “fail[s] to provide proposed constructions” or
`
`“explain why any proposed constructions … would make any difference to the Alice analysis,”
`
`those assertions do not prevent dismissal under § 101. Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65
`
`F.4th 698, 705 n.6, 704 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The FACC should be dismissed with prejudice. See id.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT: THE CLAIMS ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER § 101
`
`A.
`
`Step One: Wiz’s Own Description Confirms The Claims Are Abstract
`
`Under Alice step one, Wiz’s claims are directed to the abstract concept of retrieving,
`
`contextualizing, querying, and responding to cybersecurity threat information. Op. Br. 7-15.
`
`Wiz’s alleged invention purports to supply additional context or “structure” for natural language
`
`database queries using existing technology. See ’549 patent at 1:26-37, 10:10-13. But providing
`
`additional context is part of the abstract idea, and thus—even if new—is still abstract. The ’549
`
`patent confirms that Wiz’s “solution” is not an improvement in the technology—the claims may
`
`be implemented via a variety of off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) “such as GPT, BERT,
`
`and the like,” “general-purpose microprocessors,” or “any other hardware logic components that
`
`can perform calculations.” Id. at 10:14-40, 16:25-26, 17:59-18:3; see Op. Br. 3-5.
`
`Neither Wiz’s FACC nor its answering brief points to any improved technology to identify
`
`a security threat, query a database, or facilitate responses. Instead, Wiz asserts that an LLM is
`
`“cutting-edge … technology” and that it “maps an incident input into a scenario.” Ans. Br. 4. But
`
`even if LLMs are “cutting-edge,” Wiz’s claims are not eligible simply by using that existing
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 3902
`
`
`
`technology. Precedent is littered with failed attempts to get patents using cutting-edge
`
`technologies where, as here, the claims provided no details for improving the technology itself.
`
`Just as Samuel Morse could not patent the use of “electro-magnetism, however developed for
`
`marking or printing intelligible characters” in the mid-1800s, O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.)
`
`62, 112 (1854), and Gary Benson could not patent the use of “[a] digital computer” to perform
`
`certain binary computations in the mid-1900s, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65 (1972), Wiz
`
`cannot make its claims eligible here merely by using LLMs “however developed” to process
`
`information.1 Again, Wiz does not suggest that it invented or improved LLMs—and its claims
`
`certainly provide no details for improving LLMs. Moreover, the challenged claims do not require
`
`that the LLM perform the asserted “mapping.” See ’549 patent cls. 1, 11, 12. At base, the ’549
`
`claims lack eligible subject matter. Wiz’s contrary arguments fail for four reasons.
`
`First, Wiz’s argument that the claims are “‘necessarily rooted in computer technology’”
`
`and “‘solve a specific problem in the realm of computer networks’” (Ans. Br. 8) misses the mark.
`
`As Wiz admits, the ’549 patent purports to address a “problem” where “queries and alerts” can
`
`“lack context and important information, such as the relevant workloads, root causes, or potential
`
`mitigation.” Id. But “lack[ing] context” is not a problem rooted in computer technology, and
`
`providing context does not entail a technical solution. Instead, by the patent’s own disclosure, the
`
`claims involve a solution to “overcome the challenges” where “an operator will often receive an
`
`alert that lacks context.” ’549 patent at 1:44-58. Even now, Wiz does not dispute that the claims
`
`
`1 See also, e.g., ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766-73 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(claims ineligible despite reciting cutting-edge wireless charging components); In re TLI
`Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims ineligible despite “nascent”
`fields—combining digital camera with cellular telephone—as there was no “inventive solution to
`any problem presented by combining the two”); Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2024 WL
`371959, at *1-2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2024) (claims ineligible despite reciting providing interactive
`content on Internet using distributed processing); Op. Br. 17 & n.3 (use of artificial intelligence).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 3903
`
`
`
`are “performable by humans.” Ans. Br. 12. That is a key sign of abstraction. Op. Br. 8-10; Trinity
`
`Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (ineligible claims were
`
`directed to automating human activities). And the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that
`
`providing useful context or information—including for improving database queries—is abstract.
`
`See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Op. Br. 11-13.
`
`Nonetheless, Wiz contends that the patent’s use of an LLM is a specific solution rooted in
`
`computer technology. But the ’549 patent acknowledges that the disclosed LLM can be any well-
`
`known large language models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, or Google’s BERT, ’549 patent at
`
`16:25-26, 10:14-40, and that tools exist to convert natural language queries to database queries, id.
`
`at 12:13-17, 1:38-43. And, further, Wiz’s assertion that “the claims require using generative AI to
`
`map what specific cloud cybersecurity response scenarios are applicable given the particular
`
`received incident input” (Ans. Br. 8) is incorrect. The claims do not require performance of any
`
`mapping by an LLM; the claims instead recite generic computer components for performing that
`
`mapping. See ’549 patent at cls. 1 (computer method), 11 (computer medium), 12 (computer
`
`system). Likewise, Wiz’s FACC confirms that humans may perform the mapping function. See
`
`FACC ¶¶ 112-120. Wiz’s attempt to monopolize human activity in its infringement allegations
`
`speaks volumes. See id. The asserted inventive features are abstract.2
`
`Second, Wiz’s argument that the claims are directed to a “specific implementation” of the
`
`a “specific type” of LLM is belied by the record. The independent claims do not recite how the
`
`
`2 Wiz’s reliance (at 12) on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
`1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the patents automated human behavior, is misplaced. There, the
`claims advanced animation technology because they recited specific rules—including a “set of
`rules that define output morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and time of
`said phoneme sequence”—that departed sharply from the way humans performed animation. Id.
`at 1307-08 Here, the claimed functions are recited generically and mirror human activities.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 3904
`
`
`
`LLM is used other than to receive an input (prompt) and generate an output. See ’549 patent at
`
`cls. 1, 11, 12. The claims provide no requirement that the LLM perform the mapping feature, nor
`
`does the specification confirm how the LLM would map the received incident input into a plurality
`
`of scenarios based on the output of the LLM (i.e., based on its own output).
`
`Wiz attempts to distinguish Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342,
`
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“USR”), arguing that the ineligible claims there “included no limitation that
`
`the mapping involve an LLM, involve mapping to an incident input into a scenario associated with
`
`an incidence response, or on how the ‘mapping’ was performed at all.” Ans. Br. 14-15. The same
`
`is true here: Wiz’s claims do not require the LLM to perform the mapping or explain “how the
`
`‘mapping’ [is] performed at all.” Id. The USR claims “map[ped] a ‘code to an identity’” to provide
`
`useful contextual information; so too do Wiz’s claims map an incident input to a scenario. Wiz’s
`
`claims should be held ineligible too. Wiz’s claims recite “generic functional language to achieve
`
`… purported solutions” without claiming “how the desired result is achieved.” Two-Way Media
`
`Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017). That is dispositive.
`
`Wiz also relies on the specification’s reference to a “security database” with a
`
`“representation of the computing environment.” Ans. Br. 9. But Wiz and the patent nowhere
`
`suggest the database structure itself is improved—it merely uses existing database technology to
`
`store information, just like other claims the Federal Circuit has found abstract. See, e.g., BSG, 899
`
`F.3d at 1288. That marks a sharp contrast from the eligible claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which specifically improved the database
`
`technology itself—a “self-referential” database that departed from existing database structures.
`
`Here, Wiz’s claims merely use the database “as a tool”; they do not improve it. Id. at 1336.
`
`Third, Wiz’s argument that the claims are directed to improving the “‘efficient functioning
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 3905
`
`
`
`of computers’” lacks merit. As discussed, the ’549 specification confirms that the main thrust of
`
`the invention has been performed by humans and existing tools. Humans previously generated
`
`database queries and prior technology existed to convert natural language queries to database
`
`queries. ’549 patent at 1:38-43. Thus, at most, the ’549 patent simply supplies additional context
`
`for database queries—not a new tool or feature for querying a database. In retrieving the additional
`
`context, the patent claims scenario mapping (see, e.g., id. at cls. 1, 11, 12), that may be performed
`
`via user input. Id. at 15:27-40. To facilitate the user queries, the patent describes using
`
`conventional techniques, including large language models, to generate the queries, and using
`
`conventional database technology, such as SQL, to store and retrieve the data. Id. at 1:30-37. The
`
`patent does not purport to invent or improve any such technologies; it merely uses them to process
`
`information, which “is an intangible” process “within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Pwr. Grp.,
`
`LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Fourth, Wiz argues that the dependent claims include further elements that “relate to
`
`specific, technical solutions” and that “Orca fails to address” these dependent claims. But Orca
`
`addressed each dependent claim in turn in its opening brief. Op. Br. 14-15. Wiz addresses only
`
`dependent claims 3-5 and 14-16, Ans. Br. 15-16, but fails to identify any “distinctive significance.”
`
`Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., 110 F.4th 1280, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2024).3 Wiz argues that some
`
`claims recite using certain data as inputs (for training the LLM and for the incident input) but does
`
`not suggest that the training process or technology itself is improved. Merely reciting “specific
`
`types of data” (Ans. Br. 15) as inputs for a known technological process is abstract. Elec. Pwr.,
`
`830 F.3d at 1355 (specifying “type” or “source” of data is abstract). The dependent claims reciting
`
`“generating a second prompt” repeat the abstract functions of the independent claims—and
`
`
`3 Wiz “forfeits” any separate argument as to other claims. Mobile Acuity, 110 F.4th at 1290-91.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 3906
`
`
`
`“[s]tringing together the claimed steps by ‘[a]dding one abstract idea ... to another’” is still abstract.
`
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`B.
`
`Step Two: Wiz Identifies No Inventive Concept Or Material Fact Issue
`
`At step two, Wiz identifies nothing inventive apart from the abstract idea. See Ans. Br. 16-
`
`20; cf. Op. Br. 15-19. First, Wiz contends the claims are inventive because they use a “a specific
`
`application of AI—large language models, or LLMs.” Ans. Br. 17; see id. (citing FACC to allege
`
`claims are unconventional because they “leverage[e] LLMs,” and LLMs are “neither routine nor
`
`conventional in the industry”). But, again, Wiz does not assert that the LLMs themselves are
`
`improved. For good reason: the specification squarely admits that LLMs were known and the
`
`alleged invention can be implemented using off the shelf LLMs including Google’s BERT and
`
`OpenAI’s GPT, as Orca explained and Wiz does not dispute. Op. Br. 3-4, 10-11, 16-17; ’549
`
`patent at 10:14-40, 16:25-26, 17:59-18:3, 18:23-28, 18:43-45. Wiz’s argument is that LLMs were
`
`not previously used in this context—i.e., to assist with providing contextual information and
`
`generating database queries, which are part of the abstract idea. But “merely limiting the field of
`
`use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment” does not make claims
`
`eligible. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Wiz cannot “repackage” the abstract idea as a technological advance by reciting its performance
`
`using existing computer technology—even if that was not previously done in this field. Simio,
`
`LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Where, as here,
`
`the claims use existing computer technology to perform an abstract idea, they lack any inventive
`
`concept, despite any assertions of unconventionality or technological improvements. See id.
`
`Second, Wiz argues that the ’549 patent “issued over numerous prior art references
`
`considered during its prosecution.” Ans. Br. 18. But “satisfying the requirements of novelty and
`
`non-obviousness does not imply eligibility under § 101 … because what may be novel and non-
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 3907
`
`
`
`obvious may still be abstract.” Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App’x 900, 904
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348-49
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019)); see also, e.g., Simio, 983 F.3d at 1364. Indeed, if USPTO approval was
`
`sufficient to demonstrate patent eligibility, courts would never need to address § 101. But where
`
`issued claims recite an abstract idea implemented using conventional components—like here—
`
`courts find them invalid under Alice. This Court should do the same.
`
`Third, Wiz relies on the “ordered combination” of elements as purportedly unconventional.
`
`But in its claim construction chart, Wiz asserted that the claims elements need not be performed
`
`in any order. D.I. 151 at 11. Either way, the claims add nothing inventive. Again Wiz points to
`
`aspects of the abstract idea: providing context information (“mapping the received incident input
`
`into a scenario of a plurality of scenarios”) and querying a database (“generating a query for a
`
`security database”). But “the abstract idea itself … ‘cannot supply the inventive concept.’” Simio,
`
`983 F.3d at 1364 (quoting BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290). To supply an inventive concept, a claim must
`
`“recite[] a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea where the particular arrangement
`
`of elements is a technical improvement over the prior art.” Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs.,
`
`Inc., 815 F. App’x 529, 534 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Here, the claims merely recite steps
`
`that the specification and Wiz’s infringement allegations confirm humans can perform, only now
`
`using conventional LLM technology. Op. Br. 8-12; supra at 3-4, 6. But using conventional
`
`technology to augment human activities is not inventive. See Simio, 983 F.3d at 1365 (improving
`
`the “user’s” efficiency or speed is insufficient); Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1367; Op. Br. 8-12.
`
`Fourth, the dependent claims “primarily recite the type or source of the input or output
`
`information” or a user interface, which the Federal Circuit has found lacks an inventive concept at
`
`step two, as Orca explained. Op. Br. 14-15, 18-19. Wiz argues this is an “overgeneralization,”
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 3908
`
`
`
`but identifies no “additional inventive concepts.” Ans. Br. 19-20. Wiz cites one paragraph in the
`
`FACC alleging the dependent claims are “not routine, conventional, or well-understood.” Id.
`
`(citing FACC ¶ 108). But a patent owner cannot defeat a motion to dismiss by including
`
`conclusory allegations of inventiveness. See Simio, 983 F.3d at 1365 (“We disregard conclusory
`
`statements when evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).”); Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 894 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (district court “was not required to accept
`
`[the plaintiff]’s legal conclusions as true,” including “repeated characterizations of its inventions
`
`as ‘technical innovations’”); Dropbox, 815 F. App’x at 538 (dismissing undetailed allegations that
`
`claims are “not well-known, routine or conventional”). The claims add nothing inventive.
`
`C.
`
`Dismissal is Appropriate
`
`Wiz argues that dismissal is not appropriate for two reasons. Both fail.
`
`First, Wiz argues, without explanation, that there is a “question of fact” and that it has
`
`“plausibly alleged that the asserted claim elements, alone and in combination, are not well-
`
`understood, routine, or conventional.” Ans. Br. 20. But the Court “need not accept as true
`
`allegations that contradict … the claims and the patent specification.” Secured Mail Sols. LLC v.
`
`Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Simio, 983 F.3d at 1365
`
`(rejecting asserted factual dispute); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1097
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (same). Wiz asserts a “specific improvement in computer capabilities” because
`
`the purported invention “use[s] a particular type of artificial intelligence technology, LLMs,” to
`
`provide additional contextual information (mapping incident information to scenarios). Ans. Br.
`
`17; see id. 11 (“uses an LLM” (emphasis added)). But, as discussed, neither Wiz nor the patent
`
`suggest that the patent improves LLMs themselves—or database structures or any other computer
`
`technology. Indeed, the specification admits that the claims require only generic hardware and
`
`off-the-shelf LLMs and databases. Supra at 2-7; ’549 patent at cls. 1, 11, 12; Op. Br. 3-5. Using
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 3909
`
`
`
`existing technology in a particular context, such as to process and provide useful information, is
`
`not a patent-eligible advance: “merely reciting an abstract idea performed on a set of generic
`
`computer components, as the claims do here, would not contain an inventive concept.” AI
`
`Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1378-81 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (cleaned up)
`
`(affirming dismissal; holding ineligible claims for processing and displaying information more
`
`effectively). As such, Wiz’s emphasis on “use of certain technology” “fails at step two” because
`
`“the intrinsic record establishes that the technology is conventional or well-known in the art.” Id.
`
`at 1380. Moreover, the claims do not even require the LLM to perform the “mapping,” supra at
`
`4; so, Wiz’s allegations are in that respect “‘divorced’ from the claims or the specification.”
`
`Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2024). No factual disputes
`
`preclude dismissal.
`
`Second, Wiz argues claim construction has not yet occurred. Ans. Br. 20. But “[t]o defeat
`
`a motion to dismiss based on the purported need for claim construction, a ‘patentee must propose
`
`a specific claim construction ... and explain why [any dispute] ... must be resolved before the scope
`
`of the claims can be understood for § 101 purposes.’” Mobile Acuity, 110 F.4th at 1293-94. In its
`
`answering brief, Wiz does not identify any particular dispute or explain why it matters for § 101
`
`(it would not).4 Therefore, Wiz cannot “defeat [this] motion to dismiss based on the purported
`
`need for claim construction.” Id.; see also Sanderling, 65 F.4th at 704 (affirming dismissal where
`
`patentee “failed to explain why any proposed constructions … would make any difference”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Wiz’s Amended Counterclaims should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`
`4 “When a non-moving party proposes a construction, the court must proceed by adopting the non-
`moving party's constructions, or the court must resolve the disputes to whatever extent is needed
`to conduct the § 101 analysis ….” Sanderling, 65 F.4th at 704.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 3910
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
`___________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant Orca Security Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`Lucas Lonergan
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 328-4600
`
`Blake R. Davis
`Peter Hoffman
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 391-0600
`
`Kristina D. McKenna
`Christopher Henry
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 948-6000
`
`Ryan Thomas Banks
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626
`(714) 540-1235
`
`Gabriel K. Bell
`Nicole Elena Bruner
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 637-2200
`
`October 3, 2024
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 156 Filed 10/03/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 3911
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 3, 2024, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`October 3, 2024, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III,