Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 357
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`NOVO TRANSFORMA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. A. No. 14-610 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-612 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. A. No. 14- 613 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. A. No. 14-614 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`))))))))
`
`NOVO TRANSFORMA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., VIRGIN MOBILE
`USA L.P. and NEXTEL OPERATIONS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`NOVO TRANSFORMA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`))))))))))
`
`NOVO TRANSFORMA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 71
`
`AT&T EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 358
`
`
`
`
`
`C. A. No. 14-615 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. A. No. 14-616 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`
`NOVO TRANSFORMA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES CELLULAR
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)))))))))))
`
`NOVO TRANSFORMA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
`WIRELESS,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF INVALIDITY FOR FAILURE TO CLAIM
`PATENT ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Page 2 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 359
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendants AT&T Mobility, LLC
`and TracFone Wireless, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`Lindsay M. White
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 320-1800
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Megan E. Dellinger (#5739)
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`mdellinger@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendants Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`Virgin Mobile USA L.P. and Nextel
`Operations, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David E. Finkelson
`Derek H. Swanson
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`One James Center
`901 East Cary Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`(804) 775-1000
`
`Patrick A. Darno
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`1750 Tysons Boulevard
`Suite 1800
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`(703) 712-5000
`
`Jason W. Cook
`MCGUIREWOODS LLP
`2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 932-6400
`
`
`Page 3 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 360
`
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, PA
`Steven J. Fineman (#4025)
`Katharine C. Lester (#5629)
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-651-7700
`Fineman@rlf.com
`Lester@rlf.com
`Attorneys for Defendant United States
`Cellular Corporation
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul E. Veith
`Douglas I. Lewis
`Robert D. Leighton
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`312-853-7000
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093)
`Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`agaza@ycst.com
`swilson@ycst.com
`Attorneys for Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jared B. Bobrow
`Anne M. Cappella
`Andrew L. Perito
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 802-3000
`jaredbobrow@weil.com
`annecappella@weil.com
`andrew.perito@weil.com
`
`SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (Bar No. 2237)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (Bar No. 4601)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`cseitz@seitzross.com
`bschladweiler@seitzross.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Cellco Partnership
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Kevin P. Anderson
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 719-7000
`kanderson@wileyrein.com
`
`March 17, 2015
`
`Page 4 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 361
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`I.
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ........................................................ 1
`II.
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 1
`III.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`THE PARTIES....................................................................................................... 2
`1.
`Plaintiff NTT .............................................................................................. 2
`2.
`Defendants ................................................................................................. 2
`THE ’034 PATENT ............................................................................................... 2
`1.
`The Specification ....................................................................................... 2
`2.
`The Asserted Claims .................................................................................. 4
`IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`THE STANDARD FOR GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS UNDER RULE 12(C) ..................................................................... 7
`THE ’034 PATENT IS INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 FOR
`FAILING TO RECITE PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER. .................. 7
`1.
`The ’034 Patent’s Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea. ..................... 9
`2.
`The Asserted Methods Do Not Contain an Inventive Concept
`Sufficient to Transform the Claimed Abstract Idea Into a Patent
`Eligible Application. ................................................................................ 13
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 19
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 5 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 362
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F. 3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013).........................................................................................13, 15
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`No. 1:10cv910, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152447 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2014) .............................12
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................13, 17
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`964 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Del. 2013) ................................................................................................7
`
`CMG Fin. Servs. v. Pac. Trust Bank, F.S.B.,
` No. CV 11-10344 PSG (MRWx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145557 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29,
`2014) .......................................................................................................................................15
`
`
`Cogent Medicine, Inc. v. Elsevier Inc.,
`No. 13-4479-RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139856 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2104) ...................15
`
`Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P.,
`No. 12-205-RGA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96289 (D. Del. July 16, 2014) .................11, 15, 16
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................16
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................6, 16
`
`Duluth News-Tribune, a Div. of Nw. Publications, Inc. v. Mesabi Pub. Co.,
`
`84 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equip. Corp.,
`No. CV 14-154-GW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125395 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) ..............12, 15
`
`Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. 8:11-cv-2826-T-23TBM, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127369 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11,
`2014) ..................................................................................................................................12, 17
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co.,
`No. 13-1274-SLR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174725 (D. Del. Dec. 18, 2014) ..........................16
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 6 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 363
`
`IpLearn v. K12 Inc.,
`No. 11-1026-RGA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173850 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014) ...............6, 12, 16
`
`Joao Bock Transaction Sys., LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs.,
` No. 12-1138-SLR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172567 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2014) ...............6, 12, 16
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am.Airlines, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-655, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122244 ...................................................................17
`
`Maio v. Aetna, Inc.,
`221 F.3d 472 (3d Cir. 2000).......................................................................................................7
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ..............................................................................................................9
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` No. C-12-1233 EMC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129396 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012) ...............15
`
`O’Reilly v. Morse,
`56 U.S. 62 (1854) .....................................................................................................................10
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`No. 2013-1663, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16412 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2014) .......................13, 17
`
`Rosenau v. Unifund Corp.,
`539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008).......................................................................................................7
`
`Southmark Prime Plus, L.P. v. Falzone,
`
`776 F. Supp. 888 (D. Del.1991) .................................................................................................4
`
`Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc.,
`
`897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990)....................................................................................................4
`
`Turbe v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands,
`938 F.2d 427 (3d Cir. 1991).......................................................................................................7
`
`Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 13-1771-RGA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122457 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014) ....................11, 17
`
`Ubicomm, LLC v. Zappos IP, Inc.,
`No. 13-1029-RGA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161559 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2013) ........................11
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................13, 16, 17
`
`Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 11-318-LPS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122448 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014)..........................6, 12
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 7 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 364
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) .....................................................................................1, 2, 7
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 8 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 365
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiff Novo Transforma Technologies, LLC (“NTT”) asserts a single patent—
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,826,034 (the “’034 Patent”)—against all Defendants in these actions.1 On
`
`November 14, 2014, NTT served its Initial Identification of Asserted Claims and Accused
`
`Products (attached as Exhibit A),2 in which NTT alleges that Defendants infringe method Claims
`
`23, 24, 31, and 34–37 of the ’034 Patent.3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c),
`
`Defendants now move for judgment on the pleadings because the claimed methods of the ’034
`
`Patent are not directed to patentable subject matter and are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`The ’034 Patent is invalid because it claims the well-known, patent-ineligible
`
`abstract idea of sending messages, converting to alternative media if necessary, and notifying the
`
`sender upon receipt. The ’034 Patent summarizes the claimed invention as a “method for end-to-
`
`end ubiquitous payload delivery that is essentially the electronic equivalent to registered
`
`mail . . . .” ’034 Patent, col. 2 ll. 9–11, D.I. 17, Ex. A (emphasis added).4
`
`The claims do not add any innovative concept to this well-known method for
`
`delivering messages. At most, the ’034 Patent merely claims to “automate” the steps of the
`
`
`1 The Defendants are: AT&T Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 14-610-RGA; Sprint Spectrum, L.P.,
`Virgin Mobile USA L.P., and Nextel Operations, Inc., C.A. No. 14-612-RGA; T-Mobile US,
`Inc., C.A. No. 14-613-RGA; TracFone Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 14-614-RGA; United States
`Cellular Corporation, C.A. No. 14-615-RGA; and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,
`C.A. No. 14-616-RGA (collectively, “Defendants”).
`2 The Initial Identification of Asserted Claims and Accused Products attached as Exhibit A are
`those asserted in C.A. No. 14-612-RGA, which are exemplary in terms of the claims asserted.
`3 NTT served its Amended Initial Identification of Asserted Claims and Accused Products on
`February 2, 2015 listing the same method claims.
`4 For ease of reference, all docket references are to documents filed in C.A. No. 14-612-RGA.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 9 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 366
`
`delivery method by employing a general-purpose computer. This is not sufficient to transform
`
`the abstract idea of sending and delivering messages into patentable subject matter.
`
`For these reasons, there is no plausible reading under which NTT’s asserted
`
`claims are addressed to patentable subject matter. Instead, NTT’s patent is drawn solely to an
`
`abstract business practice—disembodied from any particular and meaningfully limited
`
`application—and fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore,
`
`the ’034 Patent should be held invalid and this case should be dismissed with prejudice under
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff NTT
`
`Plaintiff NTT alleges it is the owner by assignment of the ’034 Patent, which NTT
`
`now asserts against Defendants.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendants are wireless telecommunications providers. NTT alleges Defendants
`
`infringe certain method claims of the ’034 Patent during “testing and other internal use” of their
`
`respective Multimedia Messaging Service (“MMS”) services. See, e.g., Second Amended
`
`Complaint (“SAC”), D.I. 17 at ¶ 16. An MMS message is one type of electronic message that
`
`may be sent or received over a cellular network by a wireless device.
`
`B.
`
`THE ’034 PATENT
`
`1.
`
`The Specification
`
`The ’034 Patent, titled “System and Method for Transmission of Communication
`
`Signals Through Different Media,” issued on October 20, 1998 to Paradyne Corporation. It
`
`describes an “end-to-end payload delivery . . . method that effectuates delivery in a media
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 10 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 367
`
`independent manner following the parameters of the delivery that are defined by the sender.”
`
`’034 Patent, col. 1 ll. 7–11.
`
`The claimed invention is summarized as a “method for end-to-end ubiquitous
`
`payload delivery that is essentially the electronic equivalent to registered mail with the
`
`advantages of speed, configurability, convenience, resource conservation, timeliness, but without
`
`the drawbacks of the manual system used with registered mail, e.g., paperwork, delay, time
`
`utilization, and geographic limitation of applicability.” Id., col. 2 ll. 9–15 (emphasis added).
`
`The term “payload” is used in the ’034 Patent to describe a message as a type of
`
`media, including “any digital compilation of data, such as but not limited to a fax, voice mail,
`
`paging message, or email (may comprise one or more of the following: text data, image data,
`
`video data, audio data, or any combination thereof).” Id., col. 3 ll. 24–26. Thus, a payload is
`
`merely the data of an electronic message, equivalent to a letter in an envelope. According to the
`
`’034 Patent, the payload is delivered as specified by particular “parameters,” which are
`
`essentially instructions on how to attempt to deliver the message. Id., col. 2 ll. 15–19. The
`
`specification notes:
`
`[t]he delivery parameters preferably include a preferred media of
`delivery and a number of attempts within a given period of time
`before conversion of the payload to an alternate media that also has
`a number of attempts in a given period of time designated before
`yet further media conversions are performed.
`
`
`Id., col. 2 ll. 19–24. The payload of the ’034 Patent is converted to alternative media as
`
`necessary to satisfy the delivery instructions. A message system with automatic media
`
`conversion was well known in the prior art at the time of the ’034 Patent’s filing. See ’034
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 11 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 368
`
`Patent File History, March 12, 1998 Office Action, Ex. B, at 1.5 The ’034 Patent also discloses
`
`that the claimed system can track delivery and receipt of the message. ’034 Patent, col. 2 ll. 29–
`
`31. This system of tracking and delivery has unquestionably been practiced for many years by
`
`humans in delivering messages.
`
`The alleged invention of the ’034 Patent is further described as “compris[ing] a
`
`computer program that can be located on any one or more of the following: a sender’s desktop
`
`workstation, a server at the sender’s end, a server at the receiver’s end, a server connected to a
`
`digital switch at either the sender’s or recipient’s end, or a server in the Internet environment.”
`
`Id., col. 2 ll. 37–43. In other words, the alleged invention is embodied in software on a general-
`
`purpose computer that does not require specialized equipment.
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Claims
`
`NTT alleges Defendants infringe method Claims 23, 24, 31, and 34-37 of the ’034
`
`Patent.6 Claim 23 is an independent claim, from which Claims 24, 31, 34, and 35 depend.
`
`Claim 36 is likewise an independent claim, with Claim 37 depending from it. The asserted
`
`claims describe a four-step method for delivering messages as per the self-described “registered
`
`mail” system in the ’034 Patent. Independent Claim 23 recites:
`
`
`5 On a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), the Court may take judicial notice
`of facts outside the complaint, including matters of public record such as the prosecution history
`of the patent-in-suit, without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. See
`Southmark Prime Plus, L.P. v. Falzone, 776 F. Supp. 888, 892–93 (D. Del.1991) (taking judicial
`notice of court records and administrative filings on motion for judgment on the pleadings);
`Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 897 F.2d 511, 514 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
`(taking judicial notice, under Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), of an office action in a patent reexamination
`file history).
`6 Although the ’034 Patent contains both system and method claims, NTT only alleges
`infringement of the method claims. See SAC at ¶ 16. Furthermore, in response to the Court’s
`order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, NTT’s allegations are now further limited to
`Defendants’ internal use and testing.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 12 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 369
`
`23. A payload delivery method for providing guaranteed end-to-
`end delivery of a payload from a sender to a recipient, said payload
`being delivered via one or more communication networks,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`generating a payload in a first media;
`
`defining payload delivery parameters by said
`sender;
`
`converting said payload to an alternative media at
`different locations as necessary for completion of
`delivery of said payload; and
`
`automatically nosing [sic, notifying] said sender
`upon receipt of said payload by said recipient.
`’034 Patent, col. 12 ll. 23–33; see also id., Claim 36.7
`
`The asserted dependent claims are as follows:
`
`24. The method of claim 23, further comprising the step of
`administering media conversion from said first media to said
`alternative media for completion of delivery of said payload to said
`recipient.
`
`31. The method of claim 23, wherein an unsuccessful delivery
`results in a notification to said sender.
`
`34. The method of claim 23, wherein said payload comprises more
`than one portion with at least two said portions in a different media,
`and wherein said steps of converting said payloads includes
`converting said portions of said payload independent of one
`another.
`
`35. The method of claim 23, wherein said payload delivery
`parameters includes an ability to group a plurality of recipients of
`said payload for delivery.
`
`37. The method of claim 36, further comprising the step of
`administering media conversion from said first media to said
`
`
`7 Independent Claim 36 is nearly identical to Claim 23, but with the addition of the language “a
`portion of” before “said payload,” and without requiring “converting . . . at different locations”
`in the “converting” method step. ’034 Patent, col. 13 l. 7 – col. 14 l. 6.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 13 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 370
`
`alternative media for completion of delivery of said payload to said
`recipient.
`
`’034 Patent, col. 12 l. 34 – col. 14 l. 11.
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`The asserted claims of the ’034 Patent are invalid as a matter of law because they
`
`claim nothing more than the well-known, abstract concept of message delivery performed on a
`
`conventional, general-purpose computer. For more than 150 years, the law has been settled that
`
`an abstract idea is ineligible for patent protection. The importance of this fundamental principle
`
`was recently confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
`
`International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), resulting in an avalanche of cases in which patents
`
`similar to the ’034 Patent have been invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Both the Federal Circuit
`
`and this Court have repeatedly affirmed that the mere “performance of an abstract business
`
`practice on the Internet or using a conventional computer” is not patentable, in striking down
`
`patents that fail to meet Section 101 standards. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 773
`
`F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see, e.g., Walker Digital, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 11-318-
`
`LPS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122448, at *14 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014); IpLearn v. K12 Inc., No.
`
`11-1026-RGA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173850, at *24 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014); Joao Bock
`
`Transaction Sys., LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., No. 12-1138-SLR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`172567, at *26 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2014). The same result should follow in this case for the same
`
`reasons. While a particular and meaningfully limited application of an abstract idea may be
`
`patentable, NTT’s asserted claims contain no such limitation. Rather, the plain language of the
`
`claims, especially in light of the admissions in the ’034 Patent specification, encompass a very
`
`basic business communications process that was well-known and has been practiced for many
`
`years.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 14 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 371
`
`A.
`
`THE STANDARD FOR GRANTING JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`UNDER RULE 12(C)
`
`Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not
`
`to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). When
`
`evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must accept all factual allegations
`
`in a complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See
`
`Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008); see also Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221
`
`F.3d 472, 482 (3d Cir. 2000). A Rule 12(c) motion will be granted where “the movant clearly
`
`establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to
`
`judgment as a matter of law.” Id. This is the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
`
`dismiss. See Turbe v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991). This Court has
`
`granted a defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings where the Court found
`
`that the patent-in-suit was not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. buySAFE,
`
`Inc. v. Google Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 331, 337 (D. Del. 2013).
`
`B.
`
`THE ’034 PATENT IS INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 FOR FAILING
`TO RECITE PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER.
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act sets forth four categories of subject matter that are
`
`eligible for patent protection:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
`useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject
`to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). However, the Supreme Court has “long held that this
`
`provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (citations omitted). The Supreme
`
`Court has described the concern behind this exclusionary principle as “one of pre-emption.” Id.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 15 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 372
`
`(citations omitted). This is because “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
`
`the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (citations and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly emphasized this . . .
`
`concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of
`
`these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Thus, in determining Section 101 eligibility, courts must look to “distinguish between patents
`
`that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks
`
`into something more, thereby transforming them into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. (citations
`
`and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`The Supreme Court dictates a two-part framework for courts to follow in
`
`“distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from
`
`those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at 2355. First, the court must
`
`“determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.”
`
`In this first step, the Supreme Court emphasizes that to constitute an “abstract idea” under its
`
`jurisprudence, a claim does not need to be directed to a “preexisting, fundamental truth,” such as
`
`a law of nature or mathematical formula. Id. at 2356–57. Rather, a “method of organizing
`
`human activity” may also be impermissibly abstract if it is grounded in a fundamental practice.
`
`Id. Second, if the court determines that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court must
`
`ask “what else is there in the claims?” Id. at 2356–57 (citations omitted). To answer that
`
`question, the court must “consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered
`
`combination to determine whether the additional elements transform that nature of the claim into
`
`a patent-eligible application.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme
`
`Court describes the second step “as a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 16 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 373
`
`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.’” Id. (quoting Mayo
`
`Collaborative Services. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
`
`Under the two-part framework, the asserted method claims of the ’034 Patent are
`
`directed to an abstract idea and do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the
`
`claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Therefore, the asserted claims are
`
`ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`1.
`
`The ’034 Patent’s Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea.
`
`Under any plausible reading, the ’034 Patent merely claims the well-known,
`
`abstract idea of sending messages according to delivery instructions, converting the message if
`
`necessary, and notifying the sender upon receipt.
`
`Each step of the claimed methods of the ’034 Patent can be performed by any
`
`person in any routine, interpersonal business communication. For example, assume Judge A
`
`needs to send a message to another judge, Judge B, to the effect that Judge A needs to reschedule
`
`their meeting because he is traveling. Judge A leaves the message with his clerk, along with
`
`instructions on leaving Judge B a voice mail containing the message. Based on these
`
`instructions, Judge A’s clerk calls Judge B and leaves a voice mail detailing the reasons for
`
`Judge A’s need to reschedule. At Judge B’s office, Judge B’s clerk transcribes the voice mail
`
`containing the message and physically gives the transcription to Judge B. After Judge B reads
`
`the message, Judge B’s clerk calls Judge A and notifies him that Judge B received the message.8
`
`
`8 This system of message transcription has also long been in commercial practice. For example,
`any telegram service in the 1920s would have allowed Judge A to dictate his message to an
`operator. The message would then be sent electronically via telegraph to an office in another
`location, where it would be printed out and physically delivered to the recipient, with the option
`for a delivery report to be sent back to Judge A. As another example, Western Union’s mailgram
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 17 of 71
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-00610-RGA Document 39 Filed 03/17/15 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 374
`
`In this hypothetical scenario, each of the method steps of independent Claims 23
`
`and 36 is present. Judge A “defin[ed] payload delivery parameters” when he left his message
`
`along with instructions on leaving a voice mail containing the message with his clerk. Judge A’s
`
`clerk “generat[ed] a payload in a first media” to a recipient by calling Judge B and leaving a
`
`voice mail containing the message. At another location, Judge B’s clerk “convert[ed] said
`
`payload to an alternative media at [a] different location as necessary for completion of delivery
`
`of said payload” by transcribing the voice mail containing the message.9 Finally, Judge A was
`
`“notif[ied] . . . upon receipt of said payload by said recipient” when Judge B’s clerk called Judge
`
`A to tell him Judge B received the voice mail containing the message.
`
`As noted during prosecution, a message syst