Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 35 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2422
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-1236 (GBW)
`
`
`
`
`NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AND
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC., AND
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`
`Plaintiff Nokia Technologies OY (“Nokia”) respectfully requests this Court take notice of
`
`the following recent authority that issued with reference to U.S. Patent No. 7,724,818 (“the ’818
`
`Patent”), which Nokia submits is relevant to all of the challenged patents in the pending Motion to
`
`Dismiss (D.I. 17-18) and was issued after the briefing on the Motion had already been completed.
`
`Nokia previously submitted a Notice of Supplemental Authority in August 2024, when in a related
`
`ITC proceeding 337-TA-1380 (“1380 Investigation”), ALJ Elliot issued an order in response to
`
`Amazon’s Motion for Summary Determination in which he denied Amazon’s challenge that five
`
`of Nokia’s patents, including the ’818 Patent, were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. D.I.
`
`33. The evidentiary hearing was held in September, and then on December 20, 2024, ALJ Elliot
`
`issued an Initial Determination in the 1380 Investigation in which he considered the evidentiary
`
`hearing and both parties’ full briefings and held that the ’818 Patent was not directed to an abstract
`
`idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex. A at 36-38.
`
`
`
`As described in the previous Notice, in the 1380 Investigation, Amazon (the same
`
`Defendants here) made similar arguments as it does here that the claims of the ’818 Patent are not
`
`eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. at 36-37. Just as in this case, Amazon argued in the 1380
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 35 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2423
`
`Investigation that the ’818 Patent was directed to the abstract idea of recognizing and classifying
`
`information (i.e. “organizing data into smaller groups”). D.I. 18 at 17-18; Ex. A at 36. Amazon
`
`asserted that “[o]rganizing information into categories, including using content-based labels (e.g.
`
`aisles in a supermarket or genres in a library), has consistently been held abstract.” Ex. A at 36.
`
`And just as in this case, Nokia responded that Amazon’s oversimplification, divorced from the
`
`claim language, was contrary to Federal Circuit law and that the ’818 Patent was patent eligible
`
`because it is directed to a novel data structure based on the frequency of change in parameter values
`
`designed to improve the way a computer compresses and decompresses video data, resulting in
`
`more efficient video encoders and decoders. D.I. 22 at 9-12; see e.g. Ex. B at 13-14.
`
`
`
`Just as when he denied Amazon’s Motion for Summary Determination, ALJ Elliot found
`
`that Amazon’s arguments were “not persuasive.” Ex. A at 37. Citing to the holdings in Enfish,
`
`LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and its progeny that improvements in the way computers function are not
`
`abstract ideas, ALJ Elliot held that the “clear aim of the asserted 818 Patent claims is to improve
`
`a computer’s ability to decode video streams; i.e., an improvement to the way computers function.”
`
`Id. at 37. Indeed, ALJ Elliot noted that the asserted claims of the ’818 Patent were “more like those
`
`found non-abstract as in Packet Intelligence [v. NetScout Systems],” a case Nokia has analogized
`
`the ’818 Patent to in both this case and the 1380 Investigation. Id.; D.I. 22 at 12-13; D.I. 28; see,
`
`e.g., Ex. B at 15. Finally, ALJ Elliot held that there could be “no assertion . . . that the claims
`
`represent the simple computerization of ordinary human activity” because “[h]umans do not
`
`transmit video streams to one another.” Ex. A at 37.
`
`While ALJ Elliot’s Initial Determination in the 1380 Investigation relates directly to the
`
`’818 Patent, it also bears on the other patents challenged in Amazon’s pending motion here. That
`
`is, just like in the 1380 Investigation, Amazon’s arguments that the Asserted Patents are merely
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 35 Filed 01/17/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2424
`
`directed to abstract ideas are ultimately “not persuasive” for similar reasons. See id. Because the
`
`patents in this case are also directed to “generally improved performance, “reduced complexity,”
`
`and “more accurate/fewer errors,” the challenged claims are directed to improving the functionality
`
`of a computer and pass Alice step one, just like the ’818 Patent in the 1380 Investigation. Id.
`
`Accordingly, and at least for the same reasons as discussed in the recent Initial
`
`Determination in the 1380 Investigation, as well as the previous Order denying Amazon’s Motion
`
`for Summary Determination, Nokia requests that this Court deny Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss.
`
`
`
`Date: January 17, 2025
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`919 N. Market St. 12th Floor
`Wilmington DE 19801
`Tel.: (302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`Warren H. Lipschitz
`Alexandra F. Easley
`300 Crescent Ct. Ste, 1200
`Dallas, TX 75224
`Tel: (214) 978-4000
`wlipschitz@mckoolsmith.com
`aeasley@mckoolsmith.com
`
`R. Mitch Verboncoeur
`303 Colorado St. Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 692-8700
`mverboncoeur@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Josh Newcomer
`600 Travis St., Suite 7000
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 35 Filed 01/17/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2425
`
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tel: (713) 485-7300
`jnewcomer@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Kevin Burgess
`104 East Houston St., Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Tel: (903) 923-9000
`kburgess@mckoolsmith.com
`
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`
`Theodore Stevenson, III
`2200 Ross Ave. #2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 922-3400
`ted.stevenson@alston.com
`
`John D. Haynes
`Nicholas T. Tsui
`Shawn Gannon
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Tel: (404) 881-7000
`john.haynes@alston.com
`nick.tsui@alston.com
`shawn.gannon@alston.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Nokia Technologies Oy
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`