`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`OPENTV, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PINTEREST, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301-JCG
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`[Denying Defendant’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.]
`
`Dated: November 26, 2025
`
`Anne Shea Gaza and Robert M. Vrana, Young, Conway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP,
`of Wilmington, DE; Cyrus A. Morton and Benjamen C. Linden, Robins Kaplan
`LLP, of Minneapolis, MN; Travis K. Waller, Robins Kaplan LLP, of New York,
`N.Y. Attorneys for Plaintiff OpenTV, Inc.
`
`Karen Jacobs and E. Paul Steingraber, Morris, Nichols, Arsht, & Tunnel LLP, of
`Wilmington, DE; Matthias A. Kamber, Paul Hastings LLP, of San Francisco, CA;
`Joshua Yin, Paul Hastings LLP, of Palo Alto, CA; David M. Tennant, Jacob
`Rothenberg, and Charles Ziscovici, Paul Hastings LLP, of Washington, D.C.;
`Grace Wang, Paul Hastings LLP, of New York, N.Y.; Robert W. Unikel, Paul
`Hastings LLP, of Chicago, IL. Attorneys for Defendant Pinterest, Inc.
`Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiff OpenTV, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “OpenTV”)
`filed this case against Defendant Pinterest, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Pinterest”)
`alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Numbers 10,419,817 (“the ’817 Patent”),
`9,699,503 (“the ’503 Patent”), 7,669,212 (“the ’212 Patent”), and 7,055,169 (“the
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1536
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 2
`
`
`’169 Patent”). Pl.’s First Am. Compl. Patent Infringement (“Am. Compl.”) (D.I.
`16); see U.S. Patent Number 10,419,817 (“’817 Patent”) (D.I. 16-1); Patent
`Number 9,699,503 (“’503 Patent”) (D.I. 16-2); Patent Number 7,669,212 (“’212
`Patent”) (D.I. 16-3); Patent Number 7,055,169 (“’169 Patent”) (D.I. 16-4).
`Defendant filed Pinterest’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings.
`Def.’s Mot. Partial J. on the Pleadings (“Def.’s Mot.”) (D.I. 39); Def.’s Opening
`Br. Supp. Mot. for J. on Pleadings (“Def.’s Br.”) (D.I. 40). Plaintiff opposed the
`motion and Defendant filed its reply. Pl.’s Answering Br. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. for
`Partial J. on Pleadings (“Pl.’s Resp. Br.”) (D.I. 45); Def.’s Reply Supp. Mot. for J.
`on Pleadings (“Def.’s Reply Br.”) (D.I. 49).
`For the reasons discussed below, Pinterest’s Motion for Partial Judgment on
`the Pleadings is denied.
`BACKGROUND
`OpenTV is a Delaware corporation that develops television and internet
`content delivery technologies and complementary technologies, such as “personal
`video recording [], video-on-demand [], television home networking, advanced
`advertising methodologies, and tools for recommending content to viewers.” Am.
`Compl. ¶¶ 5, 23–25. The technologies offered by OpenTV include “software that
`enables intuitive and personalized viewing experiences for consumers.” Id. at ¶ 25.
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 1537
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 3
`
`
`OpenTV was acquired by the Kudelski Group in 2007 and is a wholly
`owned subsidiary of Kudelski Corporate, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary
`of Kudelski SA. Id. at ¶ 27. The Kudelski Group’s business is focused on digital
`media, and they specialize in “digital security and convergent media solutions for
`the delivery of digital and interactive content” by providing technological
`“solutions to manage, organize, enhance, market and secure digital content” in the
`digital TV space. Id. at ¶¶ 17–18.
`OpenTV is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the Patents. Id. at
`¶ 96. The ’503 Patent, issued on July 4, 2017, and the ’817 Patent, issued on
`September 17, 2019, are each titled “Smart Playlist” (collectively, “Playlist
`Patents”). ’817 Patent; ’593 Patent. The ’817 Patent claims priority to the ’503
`Patent. ’817 Patent at 1:3–7. The Playlist Patents describe a system “to collect
`information from a great number of viewers’ client devices, determine a list of
`popular content items based on the collected information, customize the list of
`items based on the collected information, customize the list for a particular viewer,
`and send the list to the viewer’s device.” Id. at 2:11–15, Abstract; ’503 Patent at
`2:5–13, Abstract.
`The ’212 Patent, titled “Service Platform Suite Management System,” was
`issued on February 23, 2010. ’212 Patent. The ’212 Patent describes a “Service
`Platform Suite, a method and apparatus for managing the presentation and
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 1538
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 4
`
`
`regulation of E-Commerce, content and service providers access in a distributed
`computer system.” Id. at 2:40–43.
`OpenTV alleges that Pinterest, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that acts as a
`“visual discovery engine for finding ideas.” Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 33–34. Pinterest is
`a platform that individuals can access via website or phone application where users
`save and organize their ideas using images called “Pins.” Id. at ¶¶ 34–35.
`Individuals create boards for topics of interest and organize their Pins there. Id. at
`¶ 35. Pinterest developed a native video platform in or around 2016. Id. at ¶ 36.
`In September 2020, Pinterest launched “story pins” that allowed for the use of
`videos. Id. at ¶ 37. In or around the following year, Pinterest expanded the tools
`available to users and introduced video-first features. Id. at ¶ 37.
`OpenTV filed a Complaint in November 2024, alleging infringement of the
`Patents and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. Compl. (D.I. 1).
`Pinterest filed a motion to dismiss OpenTV’s Complaint, arguing that OpenTV
`failed to plausibly plead infringement of the Patents. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (D.I.
`11); Def.’s Opening Br. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss (D.I. 12). An Amended Complaint
`was filed on February 18, 2025. Am. Compl. Pinterest withdrew its First Motion
`to Dismiss and filed its Second Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2025, arguing that
`the ’817 Patent, ’503 Patent, and ’212 Patent (collectively, “the Patents”) were
`ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Stipulation & Proposed
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 1539
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 5
`
`
`Order Withdraw Mot. to Dismiss & Extend Time (D.I. 18); Def.’s Partial Mot. to
`Dismiss (D.I. 19); Def.’s Opening Br. Supp. Mot. to Dismiss (D.I. 20). On July
`16, 2025, the Court dismissed Pinterest’s Second Motion to Dismiss, concluding
`that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2), Pinterest waived its ability to challenge
`patent eligibility by not raising the defense in its First Motion to Dismiss. Opinion
`and Order (July 16, 2025) (D.I. 35). Pinterest filed its Motion for Partial Judgment
`on the Pleadings on August 13, 2025, arguing that the ’817 Patent, ’503 Patent, and
`’212 Patent are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Def.’s Mot.;
`Def’s Br.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, which
`grant the Court jurisdiction over civil actions relating to patents, plant variety
`protection, copyrights, and trademarks. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338. Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 12(c) permits a party to move for judgment on the pleadings after
`the pleadings are closed, but early enough to not delay trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
`In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court “must accept the
`truth of all factual allegations in the complaint and must draw all reasonable
`inferences in favor of the non-movant.” Revell v. Port Auth. of New York & New
`Jersey, 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Gross v. German Found. Indus.
`Initiative, 549 F.3d 605, 610 (3d Cir. 2008)). Generally, the purpose of a judgment
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 1540
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 6
`
`
`on the pleadings is “to dispose of claims where the material facts are undisputed
`and judgment can be entered on the competing pleadings and exhibits thereto, and
`documents incorporated by reference.” Venetec Int’l, Inc. v. Nexus Med., LLC,
`541 F. Supp. 2d 612, 617 (D. Del. 2008). A motion for judgment on the pleadings
`can be granted “only if no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could
`be proved.” Turbe v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991)
`(citing Unger v. Nat’l Residents Matching Program, 928 F.2d 1392, 1394–95 (3d
`Cir. 1991)).
`Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law, based on
`underlying facts. See Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882
`F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364–65
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). Disputes over eligibility can be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or
`Rule 12(c) motion “where the undisputed facts, considered under the standards
`required by that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the substantive
`standards of law.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018) (citing Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874
`F.3d 1329, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d
`1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
`1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369,
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 1541
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 7
`
`
`1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (“Ultramercial”), 772 F.3d
`709, 717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`DISCUSSION
`Pinterest moves for judgment on the pleadings for Counts I, II, and III of
`OpenTV’s Amended Complaint, which allege infringement of the ’503 Patent,
`’817 Patent, and ’212 Patent respectively, arguing that the Patents are ineligible for
`patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Def.’s Mot.; Def.’s Br.
`35 U.S.C. § 101 makes patentable “any new and useful process, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. This broad provision has an important exception:
`“[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice
`Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l (“Alice”), 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The
`purpose of these exceptions is to protect the “basic tools of scientific and
`technological work.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
`(“Mayo”), 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012). Eligibility “is a question of law” with
`“underlying questions of fact.” Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983
`F.3d 1353, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`In Alice, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the two-step framework set
`forth in Mayo, for distinguishing patents that claim ineligible subject matter from
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 1542
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 8
`
`
`those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. Alice, 573 U.S. at
`217.
`In step one, the court must determine whether the claims are drawn to a
`patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Id. The court examines the
`focus of the claim and its character as a whole. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Courts must consider whether the focus of
`the claims is on “the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or,
`instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are
`invoked merely as a tool.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc. (“Finjan”), 879 F.3d
`1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (“Enfish”),
`822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`If the claims are drawn to an abstract idea at step one of the analysis, the
`court then turns to step two to examine “the elements of each claim both
`individually and as an ordered combination” to see if there is an “inventive
`concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure
`that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
`ineligible concept itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (internal quotations omitted).
`“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include additional features to ensure that
`the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.”
`Id. at 221 (internal quotations omitted). Such “additional features” are not enough
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 1543
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 9
`
`
`to constitute an inventive concept if they are “well-understood, routine,
`conventional activities.” Id. at 225. To transform an unpatentable concept into a
`patent-eligible application, “one must do more than simply state the [ineligible
`concept] while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72 (emphasis
`omitted).
`I. The ’212 Patent (Advertising Patent)
`A. Representative Claim
`Pinterest contends that the Court should treat Claim 44 as representative of
`dependent Claims 2–22, 24–43, 45–64, and non-asserted Claims 1 and 23 of the
`’212 Patent for purposes of determining patent eligibility. Def.’s Br. at 15–16.
`Defendant argues that the other ’212 Patent claims are directed to the same abstract
`idea of targeted advertising and add only generic components for executing the
`process. Id. OpenTV counters that the dependent claims “add additional
`specificity and improvements” to the claimed inventions. Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 12–13.
`A court may limit its analysis of a 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge to
`representative claims when the claims at issue are “substantially similar and linked
`to the same ineligible concept.” Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. (“Mobile
`Acuity”), 110 F.4th 1280, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (internal quotation omitted).
`Courts may treat a claim as representative “if the patentee does not present any
`meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 1544
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 10
`
`
`found in the representative claim or if the parties agree to treat a claim as
`representative.” See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365 (citations omitted).
`The patent challenger asserting that a claim is representative of multiple
`claims bears the initial burden of making a prima facie showing that the group of
`claims are substantially similar and linked to the same ineligible concept. Mobile
`Acuity, 110 F.4th at 1290 (citation omitted). If a prima facie showing is made, the
`burden shifts to the patent owner to demonstrate why the eligibility of the
`purported representative claim is not decisive of the eligibility of the other claims
`within the identified group. Id. If the patent owner cannot make a non-frivolous
`argument against treating the identified claim as representative, it is precluded
`from arguing the eligibility of the other claims in the group. Id. (citations omitted).
`Claim 44 of the ’212 Patent recites:
`A service platform for use in an interactive television system, the
`service platform comprising:
`
`an advertising manager, and
`a delivery manager;
`wherein the advertising manager is configured to:
`access a campaign rule, wherein the campaign rule specifies
`which one or more advertisements of a plurality of
`advertisements are to be delivered to a target, said target
`comprising at least one client device;
`based on the campaign rule, select one or more advertisements
`for delivery to the target;
`send the selected one or more advertisements to the delivery
`manager for delivery to the client device;
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 1545
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 11
`
`
`apply one or more rules to a client device user response to the
`selected one or more advertisements to predict further user
`interests;
`generate a new campaign rule based on the predicted further user
`interests;
`based on the new campaign rule, select a new advertisement to
`be delivered to the target; and
`trigger the delivery manager to include the new advertisement in
`the one or more advertisements for delivery to the target.
`’212 Patent at 35:25–47. OpenTV’s Amended Complaint alleges that Pinterest
`infringed one or more of the claims of the ’212 Patent, but discusses only Claim
`44. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 238–274.
` As the party challenging the ’212 Patent, Pinterest has the initial burden to
`make a prima facie showing that the claims are “substantially similar and linked to
`the same” allegedly abstract concept of targeted advertising. Mobile Acuity, 110
`F.4th at 1290. The ’212 Patent includes sixty-four claims, with three independent
`claims: method Claim 1, and apparatus Claims 23 and 44. ’212 Patent at 32:25–
`48; 33:49–34:4; 35:25–47. Pinterest contends that the independent claims are
`“materially the same” as Claim 44 but add generic components to execute basic
`processes such as a computer, a rule generating component on a server, and a
`business filter at the client. Def.’s Br. at 4, 15. With regard to the remaining
`dependent claims, Pinterest contends that they add minor structural or functional
`features, none of which are specific or inventive. Def.’s Br. at 15–16. In support
`of this position, Pinterest provides a breakdown of the dependent claims, grouping
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 1546
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 12
`
`
`the claims by the feature or function they add and stating that the lack of specificity
`fails to transform the abstract idea alleged into an inventive concept. Id. Pinterest
`argues that Claims 2, 24, and 45 store user profile information in a database for
`interest prediction, which is abstract and not inventive absent further specificity.
`Id.; compare ’212 Patent at 35:25–47 with ’212 Patent at 32:49–55; 34:5–18;
`35:48–60. Pinterest avers that Claims 3–4, 6–8, 20, 22, 25–27, 29–31, 47–48, 50–
`52, and 64 describe using different types of data to select an advertisement, while
`Claims 14, 37, and 58 describe measuring data such as click or purchase rates, but
`none of these claims specify how to use the data or improve computer functionality
`in a manner that transforms the abstract idea into an inventive concept. Def.’s Br.
`at 15; compare ’212 Patent at 35:25–47 with ’212 Patent at 32:56–61; 35:65–33:9;
`33:23–25; 33:41–42; 33:47–48; 34:19–30; 34:35–49; 35:1–3; 36:1–7; 36:11–24;
`36:42–44; 36:61–63. Pinterest states that Claims 5, 10–11, 28, 33–34, 49, and 54–
`55 add sending a “delivery plan,” “product catalog,” or “business filter” to the
`client, which are neither specific nor inventive. Def.’s Br. at 16; compare ’212
`Patent at 35:25–47 with ’212 Patent at 32:62–64; 33:12–16; 34:31–34; 34:53–59;
`36:8–10; 36:28–33. Pinterest asserts that Claims 9, 13, 32, 36, 53, and 57 add
`unspecified processing or generating a report of the user response. Def.’s Br. at
`16; compare ’212 Patent at 35:25–47 with ’212 Patent at 33:10–11; 33:19–22;
`34:50–52; 34:63–67; 36:25–27; 36:37–40. Pinterest contends that Claims 12, 15,
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 1547
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 13
`
`
`35, 38, 56, and 59 describe the client device as a “gadget” that measures the
`response or renders advertisements, and that this is a generic computer component
`performing basic functions. Def.’s Br. at 16; compare ’212 Patent at 35:25–47
`with ’212 Patent at 33:17–18; 33:26–28; 34:60–62; 35:4–7; 36:34–36; 36:44–46.
`Pinterest argues that Claims 16, 39, and 60 recite a simulation that attempts to
`determine the timing of an ad campaign but does not specify how such a
`simulation occurs. Def.’s Br. at 16; compare ’212 Patent at 35:25–47 with ’212
`Patent at 33:29–32; 35:8–12; 36:47–50. Pinterest avers that Claims 17–19, 40–42,
`and 61–63 specify that the advertisements include video, audio, or games, but none
`transform the abstract idea. Def.’s Br. at 16; compare ’212 Patent at 35:25–47 with
`’212 Patent at 33:33–40; 35:13–20; 36:51–56. Pinterest states that Claims 21, 43,
`and 46 use rules and measurements to predict user interests, but fail to specify the
`rules or measurements. Def.’s Br at 16; compare ’212 Patent at 35:25–47 with
`’212 Patent at 33:43–46; 35:21–24; 35:61–65.
` OpenTV contends that the dependent claims add “additional specificity and
`improvements to the claimed inventions.” Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 12–13. For example,
`OpenTV states that dependent Claims 2, 24, 45, and 58–59 add elements that
`further limit how new campaign rules, as mentioned in Claim 44, are generated and
`thus do not claim the abstract idea of targeted advertising. Id. Pinterest argues that
`the dependent claims neither improve the generic computer technology used to
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 1548
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 14
`
`
`perform the basic functions claimed, nor specify how the desired result is achieved.
`Def.’s Br. at 15–16.
`The Court observes that the dependent claims describe using generic
`computers to perform the functions of advertising through the receiving, storing,
`measuring, organizing, searching, and providing of data and the selection of
`various advertisements. ’212 Patent at 32:25–36:65. These functions are
`substantially similar to the service platform described in Claim 44, which includes
`selecting and delivering advertisements based on predicted user interests. Id. at
`35:25–47.
`The Court holds that Pinterest has made a prima facie showing that the
`remaining patent claims are “substantially similar to the same and linked to the
`same” allegedly abstract concept of targeted advertising. Mobile Acuity, 110 F.4th
`at 1290.
` The burden now shifts to OpenTV to present a non-frivolous argument for
`why the eligibility of Claim 44 cannot be treated as representative of all claims. Id.
`OpenTV does not address Pinterest’s contention that Claims 1 and 23 are
`materially the same as Claim 44. Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 12–13. Although OpenTV
`argues that the physical components and functional requirements recited in the
`dependent claims constitute patent-eligible subject matter, OpenTV has not
`articulated a meaningful argument for why the claims should be differentiated from
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 1549
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 15
`
`
`Claim 44 for purposes of determining eligibility. Merely providing examples of
`physical components does not demonstrate why those claims are not “substantially
`similar” to Claim 44 or do not relate to the same allegedly patent-ineligible concept
`such that they require a separate eligibility analysis. See Mobile Acuity, 110 F.4th
`at 1290. The Court notes further that OpenTV’s Amended Complaint does not
`address any of the ’212 Patent’s claims other than Claim 44. See Am. Compl.
`Accordingly, the Court will consider Claim 44 of the ’212 Patent as representative
`of the other ’212 Patent claims.
`B. Alice Step One
`Pinterest argues that Claim 44 of the ’212 Patent is directed to the abstract
`concept of rule-based targeted advertising and recites only general rules for
`selecting advertisements and predicting interests. Def.’s Br. at 7–10. Pinterest
`avers that Claim 44 does not specify how the claimed result is achieved, provides
`no improvement to computer functionality, and recites no new computer
`component or hardware. Id. at 11–12.
`OpenTV contends that Claim 44 of the ’212 Patent is not directed to targeted
`advertising but is an “improved technical approach to implementing adaptive
`advertising in a computing environment in response to technical shortcomings in
`the art.” Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 6 (citing ’212 Patent at 2:28–36). OpenTV argues that
`the predictive technology and adaptive nature of the advertising manager respond
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 1550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 16
`
`
`to 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.” Id. at 7 (citing ’212 Patent at
`2:28–31).
`Step one of the Alice analysis requires the Court to “determine whether the
`claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea.
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 218. The Court considers the claim’s “character as a whole.”
`Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. Eligible patent claims must “focus on a specific means
`or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result
`or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and
`machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). The claims must do more than
`break down and organize the steps that humans regularly go through in their minds
`when performing tasks. See In re Jobin, 811 Fed. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has held
`repeatedly that targeted advertising, in which content recommendations or the
`manner in which information is presented are based on a user’s prior use history, is
`an abstract concept. See Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`(“Broadband”), 113 F.4th 1359, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (concluding that a
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 1551
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 17
`
`
`method for maintaining an electronic program guide database and a usage history
`database to generate viewer-individualized electronic program guides was
`“directed to the abstract idea of collecting and using viewing history data to
`recommend categories of video content.”); Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso
`Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1362–65 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (concluding that claims that gather
`information on a television viewer’s history to match with other content and send
`that content to the viewer were directed to the abstract idea of targeted
`advertising); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d
`1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (concluding that claims directed to tailoring
`television advertisements to the time of day were abstract). As the CAFC has
`observed, information tailoring is “a fundamental . . . practice long prevalent in our
`system . . . .” Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 792 F.3d at 1369 (quoting Alice, 573
`U.S. at 219).
`Claims that are merely directed to an abstract idea and applied with generic,
`conventional computer components have been held consistently to be patent
`ineligible. See id. at 1367–69 (claims adding generic computer components to
`financial budgeting); OIP Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc, 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–
`64 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims implementing offer-based price optimization using
`conventional computer activities); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 714–17 (claims
`applying an exchange of advertising for copyrighted content to the internet);
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 1552
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 18
`
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims
`adding generic computer functionality to the formation of guaranteed contractual
`relationships).
`The limitations of Claim 44 are similar to the claims of Ultramercial, where
`the CAFC determined that “[a]lthough certain additional limitations [. . .] add a
`degree of particularity, the concept embodied by the majority of the limitations
`describes only the abstract idea of showing an advertisement before delivering free
`content.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. The results of Claim 44 overall are
`directed to improving the abstract concept of using a computer to deliver targeted
`advertisements to a user. This is analogous to those concepts that have previously
`been deemed abstract.
`OpenTV argues that the predictive technology and the adaptive nature of the
`advertising manager to generate campaign rules are features that render the claim
`to be not abstract. Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 6–8 (citing Int. Business Machines Corp. v.
`Zynga Inc., C.A. No. 22-590-GBW, 2024 WL 3967402, at *5 (D. Del. Aug. 28,
`2024); Attentive Mobile Inc. v. 317 Labs, Inc., C.A. No. 22-1163-CJB, 2023 WL
`6215825, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2023)). In the cases cited by Plaintiff, the courts
`held that claims involving targeted advertising were patent-eligible at Alice step
`one because they were directed ultimately to systems that improved the overall
`capacity and function of the network system. See Int. Business Machines Corp.,
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 1553
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 19
`
`
`2024 WL 3967402, at *3–5 (holding that claims for structured advertising were
`directed at improving the functional capacity of computer systems by offloading
`processing and storage to lower the functional load on the host computer and
`prioritize its primary functions); Attentive Mobile Inc., 2023 WL 6215825, at *5
`(holding that claims involving targeted advertising were directed at a method of
`custom-generated deeplinking that improved how mobile electronic devices enroll
`customers in promotions). The features OpenTV addresses may be an
`improvement over traditional methods of selecting advertisements. However, to
`determine whether claims are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to
`computer functionality, the inquiry “often turns on whether the claims focus on
`‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a
`process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are merely invoked
`as a tool.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36).
`Claim 44 is not directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality, but
`addresses a problem in advertising and aims to improve the abstract idea of
`delivering targeted advertisements to users by using a computer as a tool. See also
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”); Customedia Techs,
`LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1362-65 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding
`that claims that recited reserving memory to ensure storage space was available for
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 1554
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 20
`
`
`advertising data were “at most an improvement to the abstract concept of targeted
`advertising wherein a computer is merely used as a tool” rather than an
`improvement in computer functionality).
`The Court concludes that representative Claim 44 of the ’212 Patent is
`directed to the abstract idea of targeted advertising. The Court now turns to step
`two of the Alice analysis.
`C. Alice Step Two
`At step two, the Court looks at “the elements of each claim 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; see also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73 (explaining that steps of the claim must
`amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”).
`Pinterest argues that Claim 44 does not recite a technological advance but
`uses only uses generic computer components and technology, such as the
`advertising manager and the delivery manager, to access data, generate and apply
`rules, and select advertisements for delivery. Def.’s Br.at 13–14.
`OpenTV asserts that there is a factual dispute regarding whether the claimed
`service platform and the configuration of an advertising manager to make
`predictive selections based on user responses was well-understood, routine, or
`conventional. Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 11–12.
`Case 1:24-cv-01301-JCG Document 61 Filed 11/26/25 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 1555
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court No. 1:24-cv-01301 Page 21
`
`
`The ’212 Patent describes a “Service Platform Suite, a method and apparatus
`for managing t