Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 798
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANT PINTEREST, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 24-1301 (CFC)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`OPENTV, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`PINTEREST, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
`TUNNELL LLP
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`E. Paul Steingraber (#7459)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`kjacobs@morrisnichols.com
`esteingraber@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Pinterest, Inc.
`
`Of Counsel:
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`Matthias Kamber
`101 California Street 48th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 856-7050
`David Tennant
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 551-1700
`Grace Wang
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 318-6000
`Robert W. Unikel
`71 S. Wacker Drive, 45th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 499-6000
`Additional Counsel on Signature Page
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 799
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS .............................................. 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 3
`A.
`The Advertising Patent ......................................................................... 3
`B.
`The Playlist Patents .............................................................................. 4
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................. 5
`A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) .............................................. 5
`B.
`Patent Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................... 6
`V. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 7
`A.
`The Advertising Patent is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ............... 7
`1.
`Claim 44 is directed to the abstract idea of targeted
`advertising (step 1). .................................................................... 7
`Claim 44 has no saving inventive concept (step 2). ................ 13
`Other claims are directed to the same abstract idea with
`no inventive concept. ............................................................... 15
`The Playlist Patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ................ 16
`1.
`Claim 1 of both Playlist Patents are directed to the
`abstract idea of data manipulation for playlist
`customization (step 1). ............................................................. 17
`Claim 1 of both Playlist Patents have no saving inventive
`concept (step 2). ....................................................................... 21
`Other claims are directed to the same abstract idea with
`no inventive concept. ............................................................... 22
`C. Dismissal with prejudice is proper. .................................................... 24
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`2.
`3.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 800
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-03868-VKD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60604 (N.D. Cal.
`Apr. 2, 2024) ....................................................................................................... 19
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .....................................................................................passim
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................. 5
`Beteiro, LLC v. Draftkings Inc.,
`104 F. 4th 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ........................................................................ 10
`Bluebonnet Internet Media Servs., LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC,
`No. 2022-2215, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7433 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 29,
`2024) ..................................................................................................... 2, 5, 18, 22
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`778 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 8
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
`113 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ..................................................................passim
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 14, 20
`Chamberlain Grp. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 13, 21
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 13, 21
`Chewy, Inc. v. IBM Corp.,
`94 F.4th 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ..................................................................... 12, 20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 801
`
`
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...................................................................... 8, 12
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................... 9, 17
`Elec. Commc’ns Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC,
`958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 6
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 13
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................................... 8, 10, 12, 19
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .............................................................................................. 11
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................ 8, 9
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 6
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................... 10, 19
`In re Morsa,
`809 F. App’x 913 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................... 15, 18, 23
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................ 8, 11, 18
`People.ai, Inc. v. Clari Inc.,
`No. 2022-1364, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8294 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7,
`2023) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 9
`Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc.,
`537 F. Supp. 3d 591 (D. Del.) ............................................................................. 11
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 802
`
`
`
`Receivership Est. of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC,
`No. 22-cv-04756-EJD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80585 (N.D. Cal.
`May 2, 2024) ............................................................................................. 9, 19, 21
`Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.,
`692 F. Supp. 3d 438 (D. Del. 2023).................................................................... 24
`RecogniCorp., LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 6
`Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 1:22-cv-00305-JLH-CJB, ECF No. 463 (D. Del. Feb. 21,
`2025) ................................................................................................................... 18
`Sanderling Mgmt. v. Snap Inc.,
`65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................... 3, 20, 24
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................passim
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................... 14, 21
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA,
`555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 9, 11
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 11
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 18, 21
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.,
`72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 14
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 14, 22
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 6
`Universal Secure Registry v. Apple Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................... 14
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 803
`
`
`
`Validity, Inc. v. Project Bordeaux, Inc.,
`No. CV 23-365-SRF, 2023 WL 6200287 (D. Del. Sept. 22, 2023) ............. 20, 24
`Wireless Discovery LLC v. eHarmony, Inc.,
`654 F. Supp. 3d 360 (D. Del. 2023).................................................................... 24
`Wireless Discovery LLC v. eHarmony, Inc.,
` No. 2023-1582, 2024 WL 3336763 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2024) ............................. 24
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................passim
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 804
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`OpenTV, Inc. alleges that Pinterest, Inc. infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 10,419,817
`
`(“’817 patent”), 9,699,503 (“’503 patent”) (together with the ’817 patent, “Playlist
`
`Patents”), 7,669,212 (“’212 patent” or “Advertising Patent”), and 7,055,169 (“’169
`
`patent”).1 D.I. 16 (“FAC”). But OpenTV cannot set forth a plausible claim for relief
`
`because the Advertising and Playlist Patents are patent ineligible under Section 101
`
`for (1) being directed to the abstract ideas of rule-based targeted advertising
`
`(Advertising Patent) and manipulating data for customizing playlists (Playlist
`
`Patents), and (2) using generic components and functions in non-specific ways to
`
`carry out those abstract ideas. Accordingly, Pinterest moves to dismiss the
`
`Advertising and Playlist Patents (Counts I-III) from the case.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Advertising and Playlist Patents are patent ineligible under the Alice two-
`
`step test. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). For the
`
`Advertising Patent, all claims fail step 1 for being directed to the abstract idea of
`
`targeted advertising, which the Federal Circuit has routinely deemed abstract. See,
`
`e.g., Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 113 F.4th 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2024). The claims use generic rules to select advertisements and predict user
`
`
`1 Pinterest also considers the claims of the ’169 patent ineligible under Section 101
`and reserves the right to move following claim construction.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 805
`
`
`
`interests, which can be performed in the human mind or using pencil and paper.
`
`Moreover, they lack specificity and attempt to pre-empt all rule-based targeted
`
`advertising. The Advertising Patent also fails step 2 for lacking an inventive concept
`
`transforming the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims
`
`functionally recite generic devices—an “advertising manager,” “delivery manager,”
`
`“server,” and “client device”—that fail to transform the abstract idea into a tangible
`
`improvement. There is no specific configuration of any computing device, and
`
`OpenTV cannot reasonably argue the claims improve the operations of a computer.
`
`For the Playlist Patents, all claims fail step 1 for being directed to the abstract
`
`idea of manipulating data for customizing playlists. The claims recite obtaining
`
`content data, generating a list of popular content, and tailoring that list based on a
`
`social network’s viewership (or other generic user data) to generate a customized
`
`playlist. Generating a playlist based on what friends are watching is a mental step
`
`that has already been found abstract. See Bluebonnet Internet Media Servs., LLC v.
`
`Pandora Media, LLC, No. 2022-2215, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7433, at *2 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Mar. 29, 2024); Broadband iTV, 113 F.4th at 1371. Moreover, these claims lack
`
`specificity regarding the data and how to customize the playlist. The Playlist Patents
`
`also fail step 2 for having no inventive concept. The claims have no specific
`
`configuration of any computing device and do not improve computer operations.
`
`Rather, the Playlist Patents solve the “technical problem of curating viewable
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 806
`
`
`
`content today” in various “online environments.” FAC ¶¶ 99-100. But this is akin
`
`to curating music titles at brick-and-mortar record stores, which is not a
`
`technological solution and is not inventive.
`
`For these reasons, the Advertising and Playlist Patents should be dismissed.
`
`Dismissal should be with prejudice because “[n]o amendment to a complaint can
`
`alter what a patent itself states.” Sanderling Mgmt. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698, 706
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2023).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A. The Advertising Patent
`
`The Advertising Patent applies generic rules to targeted advertising, which is
`
`a longstanding human practice. Representative claim 44 (the only claim in this
`
`patent specifically alleged in the FAC) recites2:
`
`2 Red annotations added.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 807
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The other claims are materially the same. See V.A.3, infra. No new computer
`
`technology is required. Rather, the patent’s background admits that interactive TVs
`
`and set-top boxes already delivered content and “register[ed] viewer actions or
`
`responses” for “marketing” purposes. ’212 Patent, 1:48-2:36.
`
`B.
`
`The Playlist Patents
`
`The Playlist Patents, which share a specification, claim manipulating data to
`
`customize a playlist for a user’s expected taste. Representative claim 1 of both
`
`patents (the only claims in these patents specifically alleged in the FAC) recites3:
`
`3 Red annotations added.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 808
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The remaining claims are materially the same. See V.B.3 infra. The patents purport
`
`to address the problem of “sheer volume of content that is available for viewing is
`
`exploding dramatically.” ’503 Patent, 1:23-24. This results in “a paradox of choice,
`
`where the excess of choices causes a viewer’s inability to choose.” Id., 1:31-33; see
`
`also FAC ¶ 99.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
`
`matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Patent-ineligibility under Section 101
`
`is a threshold “question of law” “frequently … resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) …
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 809
`
`
`
`motion,” where—as is often the case—there are no relevant factual disputes. SAP
`
`Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Elec.
`
`Commc’ns Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 719 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`The Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework governs whether computer-
`
`based claims are ineligible under § 101. 573 U.S. at 217. At step 1, courts determine
`
`whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Id. Courts consider whether the
`
`claims focus on a “specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software
`
`arts” or instead “an abstract end-result” or “generalized steps to be performed on a
`
`computer using conventional computer activity.” RecogniCorp., LLC v. Nintendo
`
`Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Implementing the idea in a “particular
`
`technological environment” using conventional computer technology does not make
`
`the claims “any less abstract.” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d
`
`1307, 1314, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). At step 2, courts consider the claim elements
`
`“both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
`
`additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. This involves “a search for an ‘inventive
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 810
`
`
`
`concept’ … ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217-18.
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`The Advertising and Playlist Patents are ineligible under Section 101 for being
`
`directed to an abstract idea with no inventive concept.
`
`A. The Advertising Patent is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`All Advertising Patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of rule-based
`
`targeted advertising, using prior responses and user interest predictions, without
`
`significantly more. This is not a specific technological advance.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 44 is directed to the abstract idea of targeted
`advertising (step 1).
`
`Here, claim 44:
`
`• Uses an undefined “campaign rule” to select an advertisement for
`
`sending to a user (44[c][1]-[3]);
`
`• Applies an unspecified “rule[]” to the user response to predict the user’s
`
`interests (44[c][4]); and
`
`• Generates another “campaign rule” to select another advertisement for
`
`the user (44[c][5]-[7]).
`
`This amounts to generic targeted advertising with user information, which the
`
`Federal Circuit has routinely found abstract at step 1. See, e.g., Broadband iTV, 113
`
`F.4th at 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“claim 1 is directed to a type of ‘targeted advertising,’
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 811
`
`
`
`which we have repeatedly found abstract”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish
`
`Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding ineligible claims
`
`directed to delivering targeted advertising to a user); Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 886 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (targeted marketing over
`
`the Internet is abstract). Such targeting has been “a fundamental … practice long
`
`prevalent[,]” as “newspaper inserts had often been tailored based on [customer]
`
`information[.]” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
`
`1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Indeed, “gathering information about
`
`one’s intended market and attempting to customize the information then provided is
`
`as old as the saying, ‘know your audience.’” OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc., 76 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 886, 892-94 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“Netflix”) (finding ineligible two of
`
`OpenTV’s other targeted advertising patents).
`
`Predicting “interests” based on the user’s “response” to an advertisement
`
`(44[c][4]) is also abstract. Claim 44 is similar to the ineligible claim in Broadband
`
`iTV, where “recommend[ing] categories of video content” (analogous to selecting
`
`advertisements) based on “viewing history data” (analogous to user response and
`
`interest) was abstract. 113 F.4th at 1361. Similarly, claims that sent targeted
`
`advertisements matched with television viewing habits were abstract. Free Stream
`
`Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Humans
`
`have long predicted user interests based on user feedback (e.g., survey responses),
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 812
`
`
`
`to select commercials. These are mental processes that “can be performed in the
`
`human mind” or with “pencil and paper.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
`
`Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted); see also Broadband
`
`iTV, 113 F.4th at 1371; PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1316
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021); Receivership Est. of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 22-
`
`cv-04756-EJD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80585, at *31 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2024)
`
`(claims “directed to the abstract idea of targeting advertisements to internet users to
`
`maximize revenue generation”).
`
`Claim 44 lacks specificity, only reciting general rules for selecting
`
`advertisements and predicting interests. Such generic recitation of “rules” is abstract
`
`when the rules “do not differ from those previously used in the long-prevalent
`
`manual practice.” See People.ai, Inc. v. Clari Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8294, at
`
`*25 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2023); see also SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs.,
`
`SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding ineligible claims generically
`
`reciting rules). Salespeople, newspapers, and televisions have long used rules to
`
`select advertisements predicted to align with the customer’s likely interests. See
`
`Intell. Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1370 (“a television channel might choose to present a
`
`commercial for children’s toys during early morning cartoon programs but beer
`
`during an evening sporting event” is “an abstract, overly broad concept long-
`
`practiced in our society.”).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 813
`
`
`
`Nor does claim 44 specify how to apply the claimed rules, i.e., how to apply
`
`a campaign rule to select an advertisement, how to apply a rule to a user response to
`
`predict interests, and how to generate a new campaign rule from the predicted
`
`interests. Yet claims “drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional
`
`language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves
`
`those results … are almost always found to be ineligible[.]” Beteiro, LLC v.
`
`Draftkings Inc., 104 F. 4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). There are also no specifics
`
`regarding how to measure and collect user responses. Reciting such functions in the
`
`abstract is insufficient at step 1. See Broadband iTV, 113 F.4th at 1371; Free Stream,
`
`996 F.3d at 1363.
`
`Without this specificity, OpenTV seeks to pre-empt all rule-based targeted
`
`advertising relying on user responses to predict the user’s interests. To be patent-
`
`eligible, a claim must have the specificity to transform the claim from one claiming
`
`only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it. SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167-68
`
`(collecting cases). Here, the claim simply achieves the result of targeted advertising
`
`based on user data, without specifying any way to achieve that result. See Interval
`
`Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claim is ineligible
`
`when it “amount[s] to encompassing the ‘principle in the abstract’ no matter how
`
`implemented.”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 17 of 33 PageID #: 814
`
`
`
`There is also no improvement to computer functionality. In fact, the
`
`limitations (“advertising manager” and “delivery manager”) can be “performed
`
`without a computer” or, at best, “in existing computers long in use, no new
`
`machinery being necessary.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)
`
`(emphasis added); see also SmartGene, 555 F. App’x at 950; Netflix, 76 F. Supp. 3d
`
`at 893. Claim 44 recites no computer component or any new hardware, and instead
`
`assumes the availability of physical components for accessing, generating, and
`
`applying rules (44[c][1], 44[c][4]-[5]) and selecting advertisements for delivery
`
`(44[c][2]-[3], 44[c][6]-[7]). Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc., 537 F. Supp.
`
`3d 591, 617 (D. Del.), adhered to, 556 F. Supp. 3d 424 (D. Del. 2021), aff’d, No.
`
`2021-2251, 2023 WL 4924814 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2023) (finding ineligible claims
`
`that “do not even require generic computer components”). Nor does it identify any
`
`steps beyond those that advertisers routinely performed in their heads: selecting
`
`advertisements based on predicted user interests.
`
`Although the 101 inquiry focuses on the claims themselves (Synopsys, Inc. v.
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), the specification and
`
`FAC confirm that the patent is directed to the abstract idea of targeted advertising.
`
`According to the specification, the alleged invention provides for adaptive
`
`advertisements in interactive TV (’212 Patent, 3:42-43, Abstract), by selecting new
`
`advertisements based on user responses (id., 23:33-39). And, as stated in III.A, no
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 18 of 33 PageID #: 815
`
`
`
`new computer technology is required. See id., 1:48-2:36. The FAC underscores that
`
`the patent is directed to no more than this abstract idea. FAC ¶¶ 107-16. In a long-
`
`winded description of unclaimed elements (e.g., four-tier comprehensive
`
`management solution), the FAC confirms the invention is for “adaptive control of
`
`access, content, and scheduling in an interactive television environment” (id., ¶¶
`
`108, 115), so that select advertisements can be ultimately “sent to the Target” (id., ¶
`
`113). But this is just the abstract concept of targeted advertising.
`
`The other components of claim 44 (e.g., service platform in an interactive
`
`television system in 44[pre] and target client device in 44[c][1]) are generic
`
`components performing basic processes. The claim only “implement[s] a computer
`
`to achieve the abstract idea of providing targeted advertising to the mobile device
`
`user,” with no “improvement to computer functionality.” Free Stream, 996 F.3d at
`
`1364-65. Even if directed to an improvement, the claim would “merely improve the
`
`abstract idea of targeted advertising” because it does nothing more than “provid[e]
`
`a user with targeted content using generic processes and machinery.” Id.; see also
`
`Chewy, Inc. v. IBM Corp., 94 F.4th 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (deeming abstract
`
`targeted advertising claim for being “not directed to any challenges unique to
`
`computer networks, or specific improvements to [computer] functionality.”);
`
`Customedia Techs., 951 F.3d at 1365 (deeming abstract targeted advertising claims
`
`that merely use computer as a tool).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 19 of 33 PageID #: 816
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Claim 44 has no saving inventive concept (step 2).
`
`Claim 44 has no inventive concept transforming the abstract idea. See
`
`Chamberlain Grp. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2019). It
`
`simply recites generic components (advertising manager in 44[a] and delivery
`
`manager in 44[b]) performing ordinary processes (e.g., accessing data, generating
`
`and applying rules, and selecting advertisements for delivery). See III.A. Limiting
`
`to a service platform in interactive TV (44[pre]) only “confine[s] the abstract idea to
`
`a particular technological environment,” which does “not render the claim[] any less
`
`abstract.” Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (citation omitted); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
`
`1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The claim recites the same “basic functions of a computer” and “purely
`
`functional and generic” components that simply automate the abstract idea in a
`
`“particular technological environment”—insufficient to add an inventive concept.
`
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. Indeed, the Federal Circuit “has ruled many times that
`
`‘such invocations of computers and networks … are not even arguably inventive.’”
`
`SAP, 898 F.3d at 1170 (citation omitted). So too here.
`
`The patent’s purported advance is integrating “targeted advertisements … into
`
`iTV applications.” ’212 Patent, 10:59-63. But that is “the abstract idea itself, which
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 20 of 33 PageID #: 817
`
`
`
`‘cannot supply an inventive concept.’” Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.,
`
`983 F.3d 1353, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,
`
`Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also Universal Secure Registry v.
`
`Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Claim 44 recites no specific
`
`technological advance for targeted advertising. Humans have performed the core
`
`functions of the advertising manager, and the other claimed functions need only
`
`generic computer technology. This provides nothing inventive.
`
`Even when viewed as an “ordered combination,” the claim “ad[ds] nothing …
`
`that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.” Alice, 573 U.S.
`
`at 225 (citation omitted). The claimed arrangement performs concepts mirroring
`
`what humans have long done to use predicted user interests to target advertisements.
`
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
`
`(ordered combination has no saving inventive concept when the claims are
`
`“organized in an expected way”). Indeed, “it is clear … these limitations require no
`
`improved computer resources … just already available computers, with their already
`
`available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.” SAP,
`
`898 F.3d at 1169-70. The claim’s functional and results-oriented language adds
`
`nothing inventive. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d
`
`1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-CFC Document 20 Filed 03/18/25 Page 21 of 33 PageID #: 818
`
`
`
`3. Other claims are directed to the same abstract idea with no
`inventive concept.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 23 recite the same features as claim 44 (targeted
`
`advertising), but add a generic computer, rule generating component on a server, and
`
`business filter at the client, which are generic components executing basic processes.
`
`The dependent claims fare no better and are abstract without an inventive concept:
`
`• Claims 2, 24, and 45 store user profile information in a database and
`
`use it to predict interests. In Broadband iTV, maintaining a database
`
`was abstract and not inventive when the claim did “not disclose how to
`
`maintain,” only “recit[ing] functions in the abstract.” 113 F.4th at 1371.
`
`• Claims 3-4, 6-8, 20, 22, 25-27, 29-31, 47-48, 50-52, and 64 specify
`
`using different types of data to select an advertisement (e.g., number of
`
`users watching, time frame, advertisement priority, specified service),
`
`and claims 14, 37, 58 measuring certain data such as click or purchase
`
`rates. But none specify how to use the data or improve computer
`
`functionality. Specifying the type of information used to perform an
`
`abstract ide