Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 836
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`OPENTV, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PINTEREST, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 24-1301-JCG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF OPENTV, INC.’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT PINTEREST, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`Dated: April 15, 2025
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Benjamen C. Linden
`Brandon A. Carmack
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`(612) 349-8500
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`blinden@robinskaplan.com
`bcarmack@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093)
`Robert M. Vrana (No. 5666)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`agaza@ycst.com
`rvrana@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff OpenTV, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 837
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`B.
`
`Nature and Stage of Proceedings ..................................................................... 2
`I.
`Summary of Argument .................................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. Counterstatement of Factual Background ....................................................... 3
`A.
`The ’212 Patent ..................................................................................... 3
`B.
`The ’503 and ’817 Patents. .................................................................... 4
`IV. Section 101 Legal Standards ........................................................................... 5
`V. Argument ......................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Pinterest Invites Legal Error With Its Second Motion to
`Dismiss. ................................................................................................. 6
`The ’212 Patent Claim 44 Recites Eligible Improvements to
`Prior Methods of Generating and Delivering Digital
`Advertising. ........................................................................................... 8
`1. Claim 44 claims a technical solution to shortcomings in prior
`digital advertising systems (Step one). ............................................. 8
`2. Claim 44 includes non-conventional features for generating
`new campaign rules based on predicted user interests (Step
`two). .................................................................................................12
`3. Pinterest has not shown that claim 44 is representative of all
`claims of the ’212 patent. ................................................................13
`The ’817 and ’503 Patent Claims Recite Eligible Improvements
`to Prior Methods of Generating and Providing Playlists to a
`User. .....................................................................................................14
`1. Claim 1 of the ’817 and ’503 patents claim technical solutions
`to shortcomings in prior content management systems (Step
`one). .................................................................................................14
`
`C.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 838
`
`
`
`2. Claim 1 of the ’817 and ’503 patents include non-conventional
`features of generating a customized playlist using a two tiered
`approach based on specific scoring criteria (Step two). .................18
`3. Pinterest has not shown that claim 1 of each of the ’817 and
`’503 patents are representative. .......................................................20
`VI. Conclusion .....................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 839
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 6, 13
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ........................................................... 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18
`Attentive Mobile Inc. v. 317 Labs, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 22-1163-CJB,
`2023 WL 6215825 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023) ....................................................... 10
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 6, 13
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 12
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. CV 18-1844 GW(KSx),
`2018 WL 4847053 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) ................................................... 13
`Bluebonnet Internet Media Servs., LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC,
`No. 2022-2215, 2024 WL 1338940 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 29, 2024) .......................... 15
`Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
`113 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ........................................................................... 9
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc,
`955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 16
`Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc.,
`734 F. Supp. 3d 315 (D. Del. 2024).......................................................... 8, 16, 17
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 6
`Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
`1:23-CV-581, 2024 WL 3733437 (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2024) ............................... 18
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 840
`
`
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 10, 17
`Helios Streaming, LLC, et al. v. Vudu, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 19-1792-CFC-SRF,
`2021 WL 254069 (D. Del. Jan 26, 2021) ......................................................... 7, 9
`Improved Search LLC v. AOL Inc.,
`170 F. Supp. 3d 683 (D. Del. 2016).................................................................. 6, 9
`International Business Machines Corp. v. Zynga Inc.,
`C.A. No. 22-590-GBW,
`2024 WL 3967402 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2024) ................................................... 9, 10
`Leyse v. Bank of Am. Nat. Ass’n,
`804 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2015) ................................................................................. 7
`Nice Ltd. v. Callminer, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 18-2024-RGA-SRF,
`2020 WL 529709 (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2020) ................................................ 13, 14, 20
`Palo Alto Research Center, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Case No.: 2:20-cv-10753-AB-MRW,
`2021 WL 1583906 (C.D. Cal. March 16, 2021) ..................................... 15, 16, 20
`Pucs, Inc. v. Hulu, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-RGK-KES,
`2021 WL 4780576 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021) ................................................... 13
`Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 22-305-JLH-CJB,
`2025 WL 580350 (D. Del. Feb. 21, 2025) .......................................................... 15
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Blaze Mobile, Inc.,
`Case No. 5:21-cv-02989-EJD,
`2022 WL 4625102 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) ................................................... 13
`Search & Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Inc., 346 F. Supp. 3d 626 (D. Del. 2018) ........................................................... 19
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 841
`
`
`
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Delaware Diagnostic & Rehab.
`Ctr., P.A.,
`C.A. No. 18-1806-MN-SRF,
`2021 WL 1929365 (D. Del. May 13, 2021) ..................................................... 6, 7
`
`Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics,
`LLC,
`C.A. No. 17-1390-LPS-CJB,
`2019 WL 8641303 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2019) ........................................................... 7
`T-Rex Property, AB v. Cedar Fair, L.P.,
`Civil No. 16–2018, 2017 WL 2414482 (D. Minn. June 2, 2017) ...................... 13
`VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 19-1410 (MN),
`2020 WL 5549088 (D. Del. Sept. 16, 2020) ....................................................... 13
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 11
`Wiesner v. Google LLC,
`51 F.4th 1073 (Fed Cir. 2022) ............................................................................ 19
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................3, 5, 7, 11, 16, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 11
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ......................................................................................... 3, 6, 7, 13
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 842
`
`
`
`Pinterest’s second motion to dismiss invites legal error and should be denied
`
`on procedural grounds alone because Pinterest could have raised, but chose not to,
`
`its Section 101 challenges in its first motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2).
`
`Even on the merits, Pinterest’s motion should be denied because the ’212, ’503, and
`
`’817 patents claim technical innovations developed by OpenTV in response to
`
`challenges it was facing in delivering interactive applications, personal video
`
`recording features, video-on-demand, and television home networking services in
`
`the early 2000s. (See D.I. 16, ¶¶20-27.)
`
`As a part of The Kudelski Group, OpenTV and a related family of companies
`
`have a long history of award-winning innovations resulting in a cumulative portfolio
`
`of over 3,000 worldwide pending and issued patents and successful licensing of a
`
`vast majority of streaming and social media companies (among others). (D.I. 16,
`
`¶¶11-19, 26.) The ’212 patent innovations improve upon prior art approaches to
`
`digital advertising by implementing adaptive campaign rules using predicted further
`
`user interests based on user responses to past digital advertisements. And the ’503
`
`and ’817 patent innovations improve upon prior art technical approaches to
`
`recommending video content among a “paradox of choices” by way of a playlist
`
`generated using a two-tiered architecture and customized using the viewing history
`
`of a target viewer and/or a social connection.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 843
`
`
`
`Pinterest’s motion erroneously (1) suggests that claims involving targeted
`
`advertising or customized playlists cannot be patentable when courts have found the
`
`opposite, see, e.g., International Business Machines Corp. v. Zynga Inc., C.A. No.
`
`22-590-GBW, 2024 WL 3967402, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2024); Search and Social
`
`Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., et al., 346 F.Supp.3d 626, 641 (D. Del.
`
`2018); (2) argues individual limitations are abstract rather than considering the
`
`claims as a whole; and (3) ignores the record and factual allegations to-date,
`
`including that the PTO expressly found that the ’817 patent satisfied the Alice
`
`Section 101 framework. At a minimum, this Court should deny Pinterest’s motion
`
`because the record evidence and pleadings support a plausible claim of patent
`
`eligibility for the ’212, ’503, and ’817 patents.
`
`I.
`
`Nature and Stage of Proceedings
`After unsuccessful licensing discussions, OpenTV commenced this action on
`
`November 27, 2024, alleging infringement of at least claim 44 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,669,212 (the “’212 patent” or “’212”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,419,817 (the
`
`“’817 patent” or “’817”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,699,503 (the “’503 patent” or
`
`“’503”), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169 (the “’169 patent” or “’169”).
`
`(See D.I. 1.) Pinterest filed its first Rule 12(b)(6) motion, asserting that OpenTV
`
`failed to state a claim for, inter alia, direct infringement and in response OpenTV
`
`filed its First Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”). (D.I. 12, 16). Pinterest again
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 844
`
`
`
`moved to dismiss, but this time challenging the subject matter eligibility of the ’212,
`
`’503, and ’817 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (D.I. 19.)
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Argument
`1. Pinterest’s second motion to dismiss should be denied under Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 12(g)(2) because Pinterest may not raise a Rule 12 defense or objection that was
`
`available, but omitted, from its first motion to dismiss.
`
`2. On the merits, Pinterest’s motion to dismiss should be denied because
`
`Claim 44 of the ’212 patent is directed to a non-conventional technical solution for
`
`adaptively managing digital advertising based on user responses. Claim 1 of each
`
`of the ’503 and ’817 patents are directed to non-conventional technical solutions for
`
`generating a customized playlist.
`
`3. At a minimum, Open TV has plausibly alleged infringement of patent
`
`eligible claims at this stage of the litigation.
`
`III. Counterstatement of Factual Background
`A. The ’212 Patent
`The ’212 patent is directed toward a technical solution to an internet-based
`
`problem: the “need for an architecture that provides a comprehensive management
`
`solution for regulation of content, advertising, and E-Commerce . . . [and the] need
`
`for a comprehensive architecture that provides adaptive control of access, content,
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 845
`
`
`
`and scheduling in an interactive television environment.”1 (See ’212 at 2:28-31.)
`
`Prior digital advertising systems collected user responses to ads but did not provide
`
`predictive and adaptive capabilities. ( Ex-I at 28-30.)2
`
`The inventors improved upon the prior art by “provid[ing] ‘prediction’
`
`technology for analysing previous orders/requests to guess what the viewer might
`
`be interested in. Those technologies use a mixture of statistics and rule based system
`
`for intelligent ‘guessing’.” (Id. at 24:43-47; see also id. at Abstract, 3:42-56, 23:33-
`
`39, 23:58-24:4, 24:28-34.) Thus, the ’212 patented invention goes beyond matching
`
`advertisements to users interests. Instead, it claims adaptively predicting additional
`
`user interests to generate new advertising campaign rules. (Ex-I at 28 (explaining
`
`that the prior art “does not disclose a component that applies rules to the user
`
`responses to predict further interest” (emphasis in original)).) These innovations are
`
`embodied in claim 44 of the ’212 patent.
`
`The ’503 and ’817 Patents.
`B.
`The ’503 and ’817 patents share a specification3 and are directed to
`
`improvements in the fields of multimedia and entertainment, particularly to a smart
`
`
`
`1 The inventions are not limited to the interactive TV environment. (See ’212
`at 32:17-23.)
`2 Citations to exhibits refer to the exhibits accompanying OpenTV’s FAC at
`D.I. 16.
`3 Citations to the common specification are made to the ’503 patent.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 846
`
`
`
`playlist system. (See ’503 at 2:5-9; see also D.I. 16 ¶99.) The ’503 and ’817 patents
`
`describe a technical problem that is particularly acute with digital video content:
`
`curating efficiently the vast volume of viewable content found in social media,
`
`conventional media, and other online environments. (’503 at 1:29-33; see also D.I.
`
`16 ¶99.)
`
`The claimed solution relies on a two-tiered approach of first generating a “hot
`
`list” of currently popular content across a user base and then customizing that list
`
`through scoring criteria based on, inter alia, profile data for a target viewer (the ’817
`
`patent) and/or viewing information for social connections of the target viewer (the
`
`’503 patent). (See ’503 at 2:14-43, 6:52-7:10, 7:11-28, 9:47-54.) Embodiments of
`
`the invention are covered by claim 1 of each of the ’503 and ’817 patents.
`
`The ’817 overcame Section 101 objections during prosecution. (See Ex-F.)
`
`The applicants explained how the inventions “solve a technological problem of …
`
`processing content utilization data of a plurality of client devices associated with a
`
`plurality of viewers to generate playlist data for a specific viewer and, based on
`
`generating the playlist data, automatically sending an instruction that causes a client
`
`device to perform an operation.” (Ex-F at 10.)
`
`IV. Section 101 Legal Standards
`When applying Alice at the pleading stage, courts uphold claims that recite
`
`improvements to prior computing processes that do not encompass all processes that
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 847
`
`
`
`achieve the claim’s purpose or result. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
`
`L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (step one); BASCOM Global Internet
`
`Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (step
`
`two); see also Improved Search LLC v. AOL Inc., 170 F. Supp. 3d 683, 690 (D. Del.
`
`2016) (observing the current “apparent” standard for patent eligibility requires “the
`
`patent claims in suit (1) disclose a problem ‘necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology,” and (2) claim a solution that (a) not only departs from the ‘routine and
`
`conventional’ use of the technology, but (b) is sufficiently specific so as to negate
`
`the risk of pre-emption.”) “[P]atent eligibility can be determined at the Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`stage … only when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent
`
`resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law” and that such allegations include
`
`the claims’ improvements over prior computing processes. Aatrix Software, Inc. v.
`
`Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125-28 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`V. Argument
`Pinterest Invites Legal Error With Its Second Motion to Dismiss.
`A.
`This Court need not reach the merits of Pinterest’s motion because “[e]xcept
`
`as provided in Rule 12(h)(2) or (3), a party that makes a motion under [Rule 12]
`
`must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was
`
`available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2).
`
`Failure to apply 12(g)(2) “is error.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Delaware
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 848
`
`
`
`Diagnostic & Rehab. Ctr., P.A., C.A. No. 18-1806-MN-SRF, 2021 WL 1929365, at
`
`*4 (D. Del. May 13, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, C.A. No. 18-1806-
`
`MN-SRF, 2021 WL 2212295 (D. Del. June 1, 2021). This is true even when the
`
`second motion to dismiss is in response to an amended pleading. See, e.g., id. at *3,
`
`Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, C.A.
`
`No. 17-1390-LPS-CJB, 2019 WL 8641303, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2019), report and
`
`recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1527321 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2020).
`
`There is no dispute that Pinterest’s challenge under Section 101 was available
`
`when it filed its first motion to dismiss. In fact, Pinterest’s second motion does not
`
`cite any new allegations from the First Amended Complaint. Thus, Pinterest’s
`
`motion violates Rule 12(g)(2) and should be denied.
`
`Judicial expediency in this specific case does not justify reaching the merits
`
`of Pinterest’s present motion. As the Third Circuit has explained:
`
`Although some courts and commentators believe that allowing
`successive pre-answer motions to dismiss avoids delay, this seems to
`us
`like short-term
`thinking.…[O]ver
`the
`long
`term, stringent
`application of Rule 12(g)(2) may motivate defendants to consolidate
`their arguments in a single pre-answer motion, especially if they know
`that the district court will not stay discovery while a post-answer Rule
`12(c) motion is pending.
`Leyse v. Bank of Am. Nat. Ass’n, 804 F.3d 316, 322 n.5 (3d Cir. 2015). Thus, courts
`
`in this District strictly apply Rule 12(g)(2). See, e.g., State Farm, 2021 WL 1929365,
`
`at *3; Sunoco Partners, 2019 WL 8641303, at *3; Helios Streaming, LLC, et al. v.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 849
`
`
`
`Vudu, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1792-CFC-SRF, 2021 WL 254069, at *8 n.19 (D. Del. Jan
`
`26, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 1138024 (D. Del. Mar.
`
`25, 2021). Likewise, Pinterest’s second motion to dismiss should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`The ’212 Patent Claim 44 Recites Eligible Improvements to Prior
`Methods of Generating and Delivering Digital Advertising.
`1. Claim 44 claims a technical solution to shortcomings in
`prior digital advertising systems (Step one).
`If this Court reaches the merits, Claim 44 of the ’212 patent is not directed
`
`simply to the abstract idea of “targeted advertising” but rather to an improved
`
`technical approach
`
`to
`
`implementing adaptive advertising
`
`in a computing
`
`environment in response to technical shortcomings in the art. (See ’212 at 2:28-36;
`
`D.I. 16 ¶108.) Prior systems simply “perform[ed] data analysis to monitor and reveal
`
`interests that users have expressed … [they] d[id] not disclose a component that
`
`applies rules to the user responses to predict further user interests.”4 (Ex-I at 28.)
`
`Claim 44 improved upon the prior art by claiming an advertising manager built
`
`around campaign rules generated based on predicted user interests derived from the
`
`application of one or more rules to a prior user response.
`
`
`
`4 An asserted patent’s prosecution history may be considered at this stage as
`material relied on in the complaint and/or as a public record of which judicial
`notice may be taken. Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc., 734 F.
`Supp. 3d 315, 320-22 (D. Del. 2024).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 850
`
`
`
`The ’212’s Claim 44 is not simply directed to a pre-Internet practice. The
`
`inventors described a “need for an architecture that provides a comprehensive
`
`management solution for regulation of content, advertising, and E-Commerce …
`
`[and the] need for a comprehensive architecture that provides adaptive control of
`
`access, content, and scheduling in an interactive television environment.” (’212 at
`
`2:28-31.) The invention “provides ‘prediction’ technology for analyzing previous
`
`orders/requests to guess what the viewer might be interested in. Those technologies
`
`use a mixture of statistics and rule based system for intelligent ‘guessing.’” (Id. at
`
`24:43-47.) The adaptive nature of the advertising manager is possible with data and
`
`analytics—such as “[i]mpression tracking, polling and view counts”—collected in a
`
`digital environment. (See id. at 23:58-60, 24:28-34.) Pre-Internet analogies to
`
`predicting user interests (such as based on survey responses, D.I. 20 at 8-9) are inapt.
`
`See Improved Search, 170 F. Supp. 3d at 694 (“That a method may be broken down
`
`into a series of steps performed by a human does not resolve whether such method
`
`is an ‘abstract idea.’”).
`
`Like a number of decisions involving targeted advertising from this District
`
`and others, Claim 44 is eligible under step one of Alice.5 See International Business
`
`
`
`5 Pinterest argues that Claim 44 is similar to the patent ineligible claim in
`Broadband iTV. but in that case, the claims “d[id] not claim a technological solution
`to a technological problem.” Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 113 F.4th
`1359, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2024). Further, unlike the Broadband iTV patent which did
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 851
`
`
`
`Machines Corp. v. Zynga Inc., C.A. No. 22-590-GBW, 2024 WL 3967402, at *5 (D.
`
`Del. Aug. 28, 2024) (finding claims involving “targeted advertising” eligible
`
`because the claims as a whole were directed to improvement in functional capacity
`
`of prior art computer systems); Attentive Mobile Inc. v. 317 Labs, Inc., C.A. No. 22-
`
`1163-CJB, 2023 WL 6215825, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023) (finding claims
`
`allegedly directed to “providing a streamline[d] process to sign up for marketing
`
`promotions or services” eligible because, inter alia, the patents were not directed to
`
`all possible ways of accomplishing the alleged abstract idea).
`
`Pinterest’s analysis under Alice step one is wrong. First, Pinterest erroneously
`
`attacks limitations, not claims as a whole. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
`
`F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Pinterest argues that because “targeted
`
`advertising”, “[p]redicting ‘interests’ based on the user’s ‘response’ to an
`
`advertisement”, and “rules” are individually abstract, then the claim as whole must
`
`be abstract. (See D.I. 20 at 7-9.) But “[a]t some level, all inventions embody, use,
`
`reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” See
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014); see also
`
`International Business Machines, 2024 WL 3967402, at *5 (“while it is true that the
`
`
`
`not claim how to reorder a listing of category names based on viewer history, the
`’212 patent claims the use of campaign rules and the application of rules to user
`responses to predict further user interests. See ’212, claim 44.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 852
`
`
`
`Challenged Claims ‘involve [some] patent-ineligible concept[s],’ including targeted
`
`advertising and local storage, the claims as a whole are directed at using smart user
`
`terminals to improve the functional capacity of prior art interactive computer
`
`systems” (alterations in original)).
`
`Second, Pinterest is wrong on preemption. Notably, Pinterest does not argue
`
`OpenTV’s invention pre-empts “targeted advertising”—nor could it. Instead,
`
`Pinterest argues that the claims pre-empt a narrower concept of “all rule-based
`
`targeted advertising relying on user responses to predict the user’s interests.” (See
`
`D.I. 20 at 10.) But claim 44 does not preempt either. The claim carves out a specific
`
`architecture using “campaign rules” and adaptively generating new campaign rules
`
`based on predicted further user interests from the application of one or more rules to
`
`a user response. (See ’212, claim 44.) Systems not using “campaign rules” or
`
`predicting further user interests would not be preempted.
`
`Finally, Pinterest’s argument that the individual claim limitations are not
`
`“specific” and do not explain “how” to apply the claimed rules (D.I. at 9-10) is
`
`relevant to other sections of the Patent Act such as Section 112 (enablement and
`
`written description). See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,
`
`1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (rejecting the argument that a limitation requires more
`
`specificity because, inter alia, that presents questions of enablement under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, not eligibility under § 101). Here, the claim elements specify exactly how the
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 853
`
`
`
`claimed system as a whole works using “an advertising manager” configured to
`
`perform certain discrete steps using “campaign rules”. (See ’212, claim 44.)
`
`2. Claim 44 includes non-conventional features for generating
`new campaign rules based on predicted user interests (Step
`two).
`The record to-date merits denial of Pinterest’s motion on the ’212 patent at
`
`Alice step two. “The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements
`
`is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field
`
`is a question of fact. Any fact, such as this one, that is pertinent to the invalidity
`
`conclusion must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Berkheimer v. HP
`
`Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`There is record evidence that the claimed service platform, including an
`
`advertising manager that is configured to make a prediction and select a new
`
`advertisement based on user responses to one or more previously selected
`
`advertisements, was not well-understood, routine, or conventional. For example, in
`
`amending their claims to add adaptive prediction based on prior user responses the
`
`inventors explained that the prior art “does not detail an interactive system where
`
`new campaign rules are built” and “does not disclose a component that applies rules
`
`to the user responses to predict further user interests.” (Ex-I at 26, 28.) “Nor does
`
`[the prior art] disclose generating a new campaign rule based on the predicted further
`
`user interests. [The prior art] merely discloses that the interests are revealed.” (Id. at
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 854
`
`
`
`28.) This record at least raises a factual dispute inappropriate for resolution on a
`
`motion to dismiss. See BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349-50 (vacating Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`dismissal where intrinsic evidence indicated factual disputes); Aatrix, 882 F.3d at
`
`1128-1130; VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 19-1410 (MN), 2020 WL
`
`5549088, at *10 (D. Del. Sept. 16, 2020) (finding that at the pleadings state, the
`
`prosecution history, as alleged in the complaint, evidenced that the claim steps were
`
`not conventional, routine, or well-understood); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Blaze Mobile, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-02989-EJD, 2022 WL 4625102, at *7-8 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Sept. 30, 2022) (finding alleged inventive concept for claims directed to
`
`“targeted advertising” plausible at the pleading stage); T-Rex Property, AB v. Cedar
`
`Fair, L.P., Civil No. 16–2018 (DWF/BRT), 2017 WL 2414482, at *6 (D. Minn. June
`
`2, 2017); Pucs, Inc. v. Hulu, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02302-RGK-KES, 2021 WL
`
`4780576, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021); BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al.,
`
`Case No. CV 18-1844 GW(KSx), 2018 WL 4847053, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21,
`
`2018). Here too, Pinterest’s motion should be denied.
`
`3. Pinterest has not shown that claim 44 is representative of all
`claims of the ’212 patent.
`Pinterest “bears the initial burden of persuasion to justify treating the claims
`
`as representative of other asserted claims because each claim must be presumed
`
`independently valid.” Nice Ltd. v. Callminer, Inc., C.A. No. 18-2024-RGA-SRF,
`
`2020 WL 529709, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2020), report and recommendation adopted,
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24 Filed 04/15/25 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 855
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 18-2024-RGA, 2020 WL 1502290 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2020). “[A] claim is
`
`not representative just because it is an independent claim or because it generally
`
`deals with the same subject matter as the other asserted claim.” Id. Pinterest’s
`
`“groupings” based on alleged similar subject matter and bare assertions that the
`
`claims are not “transformative or inventive” does not satisfy its burden.
`
`Regardless, the dependent claims add additional specificity and improvements
`
`to the claimed inventions. For example, dependent claims 2, 24, and 45 describe
`
`accumulation of user response data in a user profile and using the user profile or
`
`demographics to enhance the prediction of user interests. The specification describes
`
`how the use of user profile information to complement individual user responses to
`
`an advertisement improves the system by predicting user interests “based on long
`
`term and short-term viewing and buying trends of the viewer/client.” (Id. at 13:12-
`
`13; see also id. at 24:28-34.) These elements thus further limit the claims such that
`
`they are not simply an attempt to claim the alleged abstract idea of “targeted
`
`advertising.”
`
`C. The ’817 and ’503 Patent Claims Recite Eligible Improvements to
`Prior Methods of Generating and Providing Playlists to a User.
`1. Claim 1 of the ’817 and ’503 patents claim technical
`solutions to shortcomings in prior content management
`systems (Step one).
`Claim 1 of each of the ’817 and ’503 patents are directed to a tiered solution
`
`of customizing a playlist of viewable content by first generating a list of popular
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 24