Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 2253
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-1236 (GBW)
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc.,
`Amazon.com Services, LLC and
`Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`J. David Hadden
`Saina S. Shamilov
`Ravi R. Ranganath
`Allen Wang
`Vigen Salmastlian
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Todd R. Gregorian
`Ethan M. Thomas
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 875-2300
`
`April 22, 2024
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2254
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`THE PIXEL AVERAGE PATENTS (’469, ’599, AND ’273 PATENTS) ARE
`PATENT-INELIGIBLE. ......................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`THE PARAMETER SET PATENT (’818 patent) IS PATENT-INELIGIBLE. .................4
`
`III.
`
`THE SEQUENCE INDICATOR PATENTS (’005 AND ’764 PATENTS) ARE
`PATENT-INELIGIBLE. ......................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 2255
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................. 4
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................... 2, 5, 9
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Digitech Image Techs v. Elecs. for Imaging,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................. 1
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................. 5
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,
`50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ......................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................. 2
`
`KOM Software Inc. v. NetApp, Inc.,
`No. 18-160-WCB, 2023 WL 6460025 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2023).............................................. 7
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH,
`942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................. 3
`
`Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................. 6
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc.,
`537 F. Supp. 3d 591 (D. Del. 2021) .................................................................................. 2, 5
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................. 1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 2256
`
`
`
`Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................. 9
`
`Voit Techs., LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc.,
`757 F. App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................... 2
`
`Wireless Discovery LLC v. eHarmony, Inc.,
`654 F. Supp. 3d 360 (D. Del. 2023) ............................................................................ 7, 8, 10
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................. 2, 5, 8, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 2257
`
`
`
`I.
`
`THE PIXEL AVERAGE PATENTS (’469, ’599, AND ’273 PATENTS) ARE
`PATENT-INELIGIBLE.
`
`The Pixel Average Patents are directed to the impermissibly abstract idea of encoding and
`
`decoding using basic math to interpolate subpixels. (See D.I. 18 (“Op. Br.”) at 11-14.) Nokia
`
`disagrees, but its own characterization of the patents—as directed to an “algorithm” for
`
`interpolating other sub-pixel values—is no different. (D.I. 22 (“Opp.”) at 9.)
`
`Nokia argues this idea is not abstract, but an “algorithm” in the context of interpolating
`
`values is just another word for “math formula.” Courts typically find claims directed to
`
`mathematical formulas abstract. (See Op. Br. at 12-13 (citing cases)); Digitech Image Techs v.
`
`Elecs. for Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claim to “a method of calculating, using
`
`a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose” is ineligible) (citation
`
`omitted). Nokia does not directly address these cases, arguing instead that not all claims “relating
`
`in some way to video encoding or decoding [are] abstract.” (Opp. at 7.) While some patents
`
`related to encoding/decoding may claim eligible subject matter, the claims here do not because
`
`they recite only basic arithmetic. Such claims are abstract as a matter of law. RecogniCorp, LLC
`
`v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another
`
`abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”).
`
`Nokia argues that the claims are not abstract because they cover a “specific improvement”
`
`in video encoding. This argument fails because Nokia describes the alleged “improvement” as an
`
`“improvement to sub-pixel interpolation.” (Opp. at 7 (emphasis added).) The specification
`
`describes the claimed interpolation as a mathematical process—a means of “estimat[ing],” or
`
`calculating, a sub-pixel value. (’469 Patent, 6:65-7:3.) Thus, even Nokia admits that the alleged
`
`“improvement” is nothing more than the application of basic math. Such mathematical formulas
`
`are abstract and ineligible. Recognicorp, LLC, 855 F.3d at 1326.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 2258
`
`
`
`Nokia next contends that the purported improvement in “interpolation” results in a
`
`“computationally more efficient” process, that requires “less memory,” and has “substantial
`
`benefits to motion prediction, video compression, video quality, and video playback.” (Opp. at 6-
`
`7.) This contention lacks merit. First, Nokia does not tie these alleged benefits to the actual claim
`
`language.1 ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The
`
`§ 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves, and the specification
`
`cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.” (internal
`
`citations omitted)); Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285, 1293 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (“features that are not claimed are irrelevant as to step 1 or step 2.”).
`
`Second, the “benefits” Nokia points to come not from any improvement in a computer but
`
`simply from implementing the abstract idea of interpolation on a computer, which does not make
`
`an otherwise abstract idea eligible for patent protection. Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks
`
`Inc., 537 F. Supp. 3d 591, 616 (D. Del. 2021) (finding claims ineligible because “[t]o the extent
`
`that the patents teach anything, it is simply the benefits of data compression.”); Customedia Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“‘claiming the improved speed
`
`or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ was insufficient to render the
`
`claims patent eligible.”) (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
`
`1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Voit Techs., LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., 757 F. App’x 1000, 1003-04
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“‘improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a
`
`computer’ are insufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept.”). Indeed, under Nokia’s view,
`
`
`1 Nokia makes much of the specification’s discussion of “TML5” and “TML6” interpolation
`schemes. (See Opp. at 7-8.) Not only do the claims not reference any purported advantage over
`these existing interpolation methods, but the specification describes the alleged improvement of
`as using “lower precision arithmetic.” (’469 patent at 38:1-5.) Thus, the specification makes clear
`that the claims are directed to mere simple arithmetic, which is an abstract idea.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 2259
`
`
`
`no claim involving application of a mathematical formula would be impermissibly abstract, as the
`
`purpose of doing so is always to perform calculations more efficiently and effectively.
`
`Nokia attempts to analogize its claims to those upheld in Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto
`
`M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2019), but that case is inapplicable. (Opp. at 8.) The
`
`challenged patent in Koninklijke related to the concept of “error checking in data transmissions.”
`
`Id. at 1150. While existing error checking methods compared “check data” on either side of the
`
`transmission to ensure accuracy, even in the case of a corrupted data transmission “certain
`
`generating functions [could] coincidentally produce the same check data for a corrupted data block
`
`and an uncorrupted data block.” Id. at 1145. The claims improved these methods by “applying a
`
`different permutation to different data blocks,” and specifying “how the permutation is modified”
`
`and stored. Id. at 1148 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit held the claims directed to the idea
`
`of “process[ing] data (by reordering information via permutation),” and not abstract because they
`
`“specifically recite[d] how this permutation is used (i.e., modifying the permutation applied to
`
`different data blocks).” Id. at 1153 (emphasis added). The claims “capture[d] the specific asserted
`
`improvement in detecting systematic errors” described in the patent. Id. at 1153. In contrast, the
`
`claims of the Pixel Average patents do not capture the benefits Nokia attributes to the claims; they
`
`claim only a simple mathematical formula for interpolation.
`
`The claims of the Pixel Average patents are also non-inventive at Alice step 2. Nokia does
`
`not dispute that the claims use only conventional technology. (See Opp. at 8-9.) Instead, it
`
`rehashes its step 1 arguments, arguing that the claims are inventive because they result in a
`
`“specific improvement” in video processing. This fails for the same reasons discussed above: they
`
`are not tied to the claims and the alleged benefits are improvements not to a computer but merely
`
`the result of implementing the abstract idea—a math equation—using computers.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 2260
`
`
`
`Nokia alternatively contends that the claims recite an inventive ordered combination
`
`because “each step of the claims at issue describes the specific association between a sub-pixel
`
`and neighboring pixel or subpixel (sic) values.” (Opp. at 9). This contention lacks merit because
`
`the ordering of the claimed steps flows logically from the abstract idea itself—i.e., it simply
`
`describes the steps of a mathematical formula for interpolation. See Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v.
`
`Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (no inventive concept where the
`
`steps “as an ordered combination add nothing to the [abstract idea] that is not already present when
`
`the steps are considered separately.”). Simply calculating sub-pixel values before other sub-pixel
`
`values in a logical manner is not inventive.2
`
`II.
`
`THE PARAMETER SET PATENT (’818 PATENT) IS PATENT-INELIGIBLE.
`
`The Parameter Set patent is directed to the abstract idea of “encoding and decoding video
`
`data by classifying data in pictures,” specifically by “classif[ying] parameter values based on
`
`whether they are the same across slices of a picture . . . or across pictures of a sequence.” (Op. Br.,
`
`8-10, 17-18.) Nokia’s characterization of the patent—“separation of sequence parameter sets [and]
`
`picture parameter sets,” and the “inclusion of specific parameters in slice headers”—is not
`
`meaningfully different. (See Opp. at 10.)
`
`Nokia still argues that the claims of the Parameter Set patent are not abstract because they
`
`purportedly claim a “technical improvement” in video encoding and decoding—according to
`
`Nokia, using “sequence parameter sets,” “picture parameter sets,” and “slide headers,” rather than
`
`a “single parameter set,” resulting in increased efficiency. (Opp. at 10.) This argument fails
`
`because using multiple sets of parameters is merely the abstract idea itself. It is not a technological
`
`solution or improvement to computers. See Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50
`
`
`2 Nokia does not dispute representativeness for the Pixel Average patents. (Opp. at 6-9.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 2261
`
`
`
`F.4th 1371, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (the claims must “recite [] assertedly inventive technology
`
`for improving computers as tools,” and not “an abstract idea for which computers are invoked
`
`merely as a tool.”) (citations omitted); ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 768 (the computer must “itself
`
`[be] improved from a technical perspective” or “operate differently than it otherwise could.”).
`
`Nokia argues that the claims cover “‘a novel data structure” that “result[s] in increased
`
`efficiency and compression.” (Opp. at 10-14.) But this is incorrect: the claims do not recite a new
`
`or improved data structure. ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769 (Ҥ 101 inquiry must focus on the
`
`language of the Asserted Claims”). Instead, the claims merely recite “defining . . . parameter
`
`values” in sequence parameter and picture parameter sets, and including one value “in a slice
`
`header”—i.e., the use of multiple parameter sets. Indeed, Nokia does not dispute that each of
`
`“parameter values,” “parameter sets,“ and “slice headers” were routine and conventional as of the
`
`date of the patents. (See Op. Br. at 8; see also ’818 at 2:6-12, 2:48-59; see generally, Opp.) Thus,
`
`unlike the claims in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the
`
`existing parameters of the Parameter Set Patent do not represent a new data structure, let alone one
`
`that renders the claims non-abstract.
`
`To the extent the claims result in any improved efficiency, this comes only from
`
`implementing the claimed idea on a computer. Such “improvements” do not amount to an
`
`improvement in computers that renders the claims non-abstract. See Realtime Data, 537 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 608 (claims directed to “compressing data based on the content of that data” are abstract.);
`
`Zillow Grp., 50 F.4th at 1382 (claims ineligible where “improved efficiency comes not from an
`
`improvement in the computer but from applying the claimed abstract idea to a computer display.”).
`
`The purported “specific improvement” Nokia identifies also does not save the claims
`
`because the cited benefits are results, rather than any technical solution for achieving them. See
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 2262
`
`
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (invalidating claims
`
`lacking “any requirements for how the desired result is achieved”). The claims of the Parameter
`
`Set patent recite vague, functional steps, such as “defining . . . parameter values” in a sequence
`
`parameter set and picture parameter set, and “defining . . . at least one picture parameter value.”
`
`(’818 patent, cl. 1.) The claims do not explain how the purported invention “defin[es]” any of such
`
`parameter values, let alone how this brings about the benefits identified by Nokia. The
`
`functionally-claimed steps are directed to the abstract idea of defining classifying data. 3
`
`Nokia attempts to analogize its claims to those in Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., 965
`
`F.3d 1299, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020), but the challenged claims in that case are nothing like those
`
`here. (See Opp. at 12-13). The patent in that case related to network monitoring—identifying the
`
`“amount or type of information being transmitted by a particular application or protocol,” and
`
`identifying “disjointed connection flows as belonging to the same conversational flow.” Packet
`
`Intel. LLC, 965 F.3d at 1307. The claims described a detailed method of parsing packets,
`
`extracting information, creating a unique flow signature, and comparing against a flow-entry
`
`database. Id. The Federal Circuit upheld the claims because they disclosed “a granular, nuanced,
`
`and useful classification of network traffic” that “improved quality and performance of traffic
`
`flows” and allowed network monitors to “identify intrusions and malicious attacks.” Id. at 1308-
`
`1309. This amounted to “a technological solution to a technological problem.” Id. at 1309. The
`
`claims of the Parameter Set patent are completely different. They do not identify a “granular,
`
`nuanced, and useful classification,” and recite no specific technological solution; they claim only
`
`
`3 Nokia accuses Amazon of “dramatic oversimplification” in arguing that the claims relate to
`classifying image data. (Opp. at 11.) It claims that the analogy does not address “encoding and
`decoding for bit savings.” (Id. (emphasis added).) But the claims do not recite “bit savings.” The
`claims relate to classifying images using parameters, a practice that could be carried out with
`printed photos or a series of images in a video stream.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 2263
`
`
`
`the idea of classifying image data by “defin[ing]” parameter values for “sequence parameter sets
`
`[and] picture parameter sets.”
`
`The claims of the Parameter Set patent also fail at Alice step 2. Again, Nokia does not
`
`dispute that the claims recite only conventional technology, and Nokia does not identify any novel
`
`or non-conventional computer components. (See Opp. at 13-15.) Nokia argues instead that the
`
`use of parameters (i.e., the “sequence parameter sets, picture parameter sets, and inclusion of
`
`certain parameters in slice headers”) is inventive. (Opp. at 13-14.) But the use of these parameters
`
`is simply the abstract idea itself, which cannot supply an inventive concept as a matter of law.
`
`Wireless Discovery LLC v. eHarmony, Inc., 654 F. Supp. 3d 360, 375 (D. Del. 2023), appeal
`
`docketed, No. 23-1586 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2023) (“[t]he abstract idea itself cannot supply the
`
`inventive concept, no matter how groundbreaking the advance”).
`
`Nokia alternatively contends that its complaint allegations create a fact issue precluding
`
`resolution of patent eligibility on the pleadings. (Opp. at 14.) But as Federal Circuit Judge Bryson
`
`recently held, a patentee that claims a fact dispute must articulate “what the alleged inventive
`
`concept is,” “how it is embodied in the claims,” or how it is “described and enabled by the
`
`specification.” KOM Software Inc. v. NetApp, Inc., No. 18-160-WCB, 2023 WL 6460025, at *11
`
`(D. Del. Oct. 4, 2023). Nokia’s conclusory complaint allegations merely make the same attorney
`
`arguments that Nokia rehashes in its opposition. (Compl. ¶¶ 63-70.) While Nokia claims that the
`
`claimed invention provides a “specific technological improvement” (id.), the purported
`
`improvements are not tied to the claims and are not improvements to computer functionality.
`
`Finally, Nokia argues that claim 1, which it asserts in the complaint in this case, is not
`
`representative of the other claims of the ’818 patent for purposes of patent ineligibility. (Opp. at
`
`15.) It argues claim 1, which recites a method for encoding, is distinct from claim 6, which recites
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 2264
`
`
`
`a method for decoding. (Id.) This argument fails. In its opening brief, Amazon explained why
`
`the use of parameter sets for both encoding and decoding was non-inventive. (Op. Br. at 17-19.)
`
`And as set forth in Amazon’s Opening Brief filed in the -1232 matter, claims 1 and 6 require nearly
`
`identical limitations: the definition or use of parameters—a “sequence parameter set” and “picture
`
`parameter set” and a “picture parameter value” that remains unchanged in all the slice headers of
`
`a picture. (See C.A. 1.23-cv-01232-GBW, D.I. 19 at 19.) Nokia does not explain why the
`
`“decoder” of claim 6 affects the eligibility analysis. Wireless Discovery LLC, 654 F. Supp.3d at
`
`371 (treating claim as representative where patentee failed to identify “concrete and technical
`
`elements” that would require “a separate patentability analysis”). Nokia also argues that dependent
`
`claim 8 is distinct for purposes of eligibility because it “requires the picture parameter set to include
`
`a reference to a sequence parameter set.” (Opp. at 15.) But the use of a “sequence parameter” as
`
`one parameter does not change the abstract character of the claims. And the claim neither recites,
`
`nor explains, any “specific implementations as to how multiple nested parameters sets would
`
`reference one another.” (Opp. at 15.) The Court can and should consider claim 1 of the ’818
`
`patent representative and should hold all claims of the patent invalid under § 101.
`
`III. THE SEQUENCE INDICATOR PATENTS (’005 AND ’764 PATENTS) ARE
`PATENT-INELIGIBLE.
`
`The claims of the Sequence Indicator patents (’005 and ’764 patents) are directed to the
`
`abstract idea of encoding and decoding video data using indexing or numbering. (Op. Br. at 14-
`
`15.) Nokia’s formulation of the idea is no different, yet it tries to use technology-specific jargon
`
`to hide that its claims amount to little more than counting. It characterizes the claims as directed
`
`to “tracking reference pictures” by requiring “numbering” based on the “reference pictures’
`
`encoding order.” (Opp. at 16-17.) Such claims are ineligible under Federal Circuit law. See Elec.
`
`Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353 (claims to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 2265
`
`
`
`certain results” are ineligible); Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363,
`
`1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to collecting, manipulating, and displaying data are ineligible).
`
`Nokia, however, contends that the claims are not abstract because they disclose a “specific
`
`way of detecting the loss of reference pictures in a video coding.” (Opp. at 17 (emphasis in
`
`original).) This contention lacks merit. The claims do not recite any technological solution. They
`
`claim only the idea of assigning numbers to pictures. For example, claim 1 of the ’005 patent
`
`requires “a sequence indicator having an independent numbering scheme, such that consecutive
`
`pictures used to form reference pictures in encoding order are assigned sequence indicator values
`
`that differ with respect to each other by a predetermined amount.” (’005 patent, cl. 1.)
`
`A “numbering scheme” is not a specific way of detecting the loss of reference pictures.
`
`Nokia argues next that the claims are non-abstract because they purportedly “achieve[]
`
`increased efficiency and video quality over conventional technology.” (Opp. at 16, 18.) But the
`
`claims have nothing to do with video quality, and none of the purported benefits Nokia identifies
`
`are tied to the claims. ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769. The claims do not recite any new or specific
`
`hardware or software or improve the functioning of a computer. Such claims are abstract at Alice
`
`step 1. See, e.g., ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 768 (to be eligible, the computer must “itself [be]
`
`improved from a technical perspective” or “operate differently than it otherwise could”).
`
`The claims of the Sequence Indicator patents also fail Alice step 2. Again, Nokia does not
`
`dispute that the claims are implemented with conventional computing technology. (See Opp. at
`
`18-19.) Nokia argues that the claims are inventive because they recite “technical improvement.”
`
`(Opp. at 18.) But, as discussed above, the claims do not disclose any technical improvement, or
`
`any technology at all. Nokia contends that the specification provides “implementation detail” for
`
`the claimed invention, pointing to the patents’ discussion of a “new sequence indicator (e.g.,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 2266
`
`
`
`RPON) codeword.” (Opp. at 17.) But the “codeword” is simply a generic numbering system
`
`implemented using admittedly conventional technology. (’005 patent at 3:39-52, 9:44-11:9.)
`
`Finally, contrary to Nokia’s assertion, the Court can and should consider the claims of the
`
`Sequence Indicator patents together for purposes of § 101. (See Opp. at 20.) Nokia identifies
`
`nothing distinct in the various dependent claims it references that affect the eligibility analysis or
`
`supply an inventive concept. It argues that “claims 3-4 and 13 of the ’005 patent and 7 of the ’764
`
`Patent include specific locations in the bitstream where the sequence indicator value would be
`
`located,” and thus provide “implementation detail” for the claimed invention. (Opp. at 20.) But
`
`these claims merely recite trivial variations on the basic numbering scheme of the representative
`
`claim; none describes how to use sequence indicators to more efficiently encode or decode video.
`
`(’005 patent, cl. 3 (requiring that “sequence indicator is included in a picture header”), cl. 4
`
`(requiring “encoding according to the [existing] H.263 video coding standard” and the use of a
`
`“sequence indicator” in a bit stream according to the standard), ’764 patent, cl. 7 (putting
`
`“sequence indicator” in “a picture segment header” or “a macroblock header”).) Nokia asserts that
`
`claims 11 and 12 of the ’005 patent and claims 5 and 6 of the ’764 patent “provide further
`
`refinement and potential benefits by allowing the sequence indicator to be associated with a whole
`
`picture or part of a picture.” (Opp. at 20.) But these claims are purely functional, reciting only
`
`the result of “associating” a sequence indicator with a picture. (’005 patent, cl. 11 (“wherein the
`
`sequence indicator is associated with a whole picture”), cl. 12 (“wherein the sequence indicator is
`
`associated with part of a picture”), ’764 patent, cl. 5 (“associating a sequence indicator value with
`
`the whole of a picture”), cl. 6 (“associating a sequence indicator value with part of a picture”).)
`
`They neither add an inventive concept nor “require a separate eligibility analysis.” Wireless
`
`Discovery LLC, 654 F. Supp.3d at 371.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 2267
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`J. David Hadden
`Saina S. Shamilov
`Ravi R. Ranganath
`Allen Wang
`Vigen Salmastlian
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Todd R. Gregorian
`Ethan M. Thomas
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 875-2300
`
`April 22, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc.,
`Amazon.com Services, LLC and
`Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 2268
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 22, 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
`
`April 22, 2024, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`Warren H. Lipschitz, Esquire
`Alexandra F. Easley, Esquire
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1200
`Dallas, TX 75224
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`R. Mitch Verboncoeur, Esquire
`Joshua Budwin, Esquire
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`Kevin Burgess, Esquire
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`Joshua J. Newcomer, Esquire
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 7000
`Houston, TX 77002
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 23 Filed 04/22/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 2269
`
`
`
`Theodore Stevenson, III, Esquire
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`John D. Haynes, Esquire
`Nicholas T. Tsui, Esquire
`Shawn P. Gannon, Esquire
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`Stephen R. Lareau, Esquire
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1120 South Tryon Street, Suite 300
`Charlotte, NC 28203-6818
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`
`
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`