`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`BLU PRODUCTS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 1 of 31
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`Case Number: 16-23535-CIV-MORENO
`
`Hon. John J. O’Sullivan, Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT BLU PRODUCTS’ MOTION
`TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211.0028
`
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1011
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................4
`
`III.
`
`BLACKBERRY’S PATENTS ARE PATENT-ELIGIBLE UNDER § 101 .......................6
`
`A.
`
`The ‘868 Claims Are Patent-Eligible Under § 101 ..................................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Background of the ‘868 Patent ....................................................................7
`
`The ‘868 Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea...............................9
`
`The ‘868 Claims Include an Inventive Concept ........................................12
`
`B.
`
`The ‘466 and ‘384 Claims Are Patent-Eligible Under § 101.................................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Background of The ‘466 and ‘384 Patents ................................................13
`
`The ‘466 and ‘384 Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea .............15
`
`The ‘466 and ‘384 Claims Include an Inventive Concept .........................17
`
`C.
`
`The ‘149 Claims Are Patent-Eligible Under § 101 ................................................18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Background of the ‘149 Patent ..................................................................18
`
`The ‘149 Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea.............................20
`
`The ‘149 Claims Include an Inventive Concept ........................................22
`
`IV.
`
`BLACKBERRY’S COMPLAINT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT INFORMATION; IT
`DOES NOT FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM ........................................................................22
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
`
`REQUEST FOR HEARING ..........................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`_ U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. V. Openet Telecom, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) ......................................... passim
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`No. 15-CV-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ..............................3, 23
`
`Avago Techs. General IP v. Asustek Computer Inc.,
`Case Nos. 15-cv-04525, 15-cv-00451-EMC, 2016 WL 1623920 (N.D. Cal.
`Apr. 25, 2016) ......................................................................................................................3, 24
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................3
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................................3, 23
`
`Conley v. Gibson,
`
`355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) ........................................................................................................3, 23
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................6
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................................12, 21, 22
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`
`773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................9,11,17
`
`Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 4 of 31
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................21
`
`Global Tech LED, LLC v. Every Watt Matters, LLC,
`Case No. 15-cv-61933 (May 27, 2016) ...................................................................................24
`
`Iron Gate Sec. Inc. v. Loew’s Cos. Inc.,
`Case No. 15-cv-8814 (SAS), 2016 WL 1070853 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2016) ......................3, 23
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ...............................................................................................................4
`
`McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Mort. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................13
`
`Openwave Sys. Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................................5
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................20
`
`Uniloc USA Inc. v. Avaya Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-1168, slip op. (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2016) ...................................................3, 23, 24
`
`Werteks Closed Joint Stock Co. v. GNC Corp.,
`No. 16-60688-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016) .................................................24, 25
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..............................................................................................................................12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 .........................................................................................................................3, 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .......................................................................................................................1, 25
`
`L.R. 7.1(b)(2) .................................................................................................................................25
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 5 of 31
`
`Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”) hereby opposes Defendant BLU Products,
`
`Inc.’s (“BLU”) November 4, 2016 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (D.I.
`
`24-25), directed to (1) the patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of four (4) of the 15 asserted
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,402,384 (the “‘384 patent”); 8,489,868 (the “‘868 patent”),
`
`8,713,466 (the “‘466 patent”); and 8,745,149 (the “‘149 patent”) (collectively “BlackBerry’s
`
`Patents”1); and (2) the sufficiency of BlackBerry’s Complaint (D.I. 16).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`BlackBerry’s Patents are directed to specific technological inventions that claim
`
`significant advances over prior art technology directed to the usability and security of mobile
`
`devices. These patents are inventive, and the claimed inventions are not well-known, routine, or
`
`conventional. Indeed, BlackBerry’s inventions have been instrumental in making BlackBerry an
`
`innovator and market leader in the mobile communication industry. For over 30 years,
`
`BlackBerry has provided a broad array of transformative, patented technologies in ground-
`
`breaking mobile communication devices and services used by tens of millions of consumers and
`
`organizations around the world, including by over 90% of Fortune 500 companies.
`
`Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s two-step Alice inquiry, a claim is patent-eligible under
`
`§ 101 if it either (1) is directed to a patent-eligible concept, i.e., something other than “laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas,” or (2) includes an “inventive concept” sufficient
`
`to transform any patent-ineligible concept into a patent-eligible claim.2
`
`The most recent Federal Circuit precedent in Bascom3 and Enfish4 has significantly
`
`clarified the § 101 case law landscape, and the Federal Circuit has reinforced these clarifications
`
`
`1 BLU refers to these as the “101 Patents” in its motion.
`2 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, _ U.S. _, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354, 2357 (2014).
`3 Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`4 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211.0028
`
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 6 of 31
`
`in even more recent cases, including McRo5 and Amdocs6.
`
`In Enfish, the Federal Circuit clarified that step one of the Alice inquiry “cannot simply
`
`ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept” because “all inventions at some level
`
`embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas”
`
`(emphasis in original). Instead, the claims must be “considered in light of the specification,
`
`based on whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter” and courts
`
`may inquire into “the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.”7 Moreover, just last
`
`month in McRo, the Federal Circuit again “cautioned that courts must be careful to avoid
`
`oversimplifying the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific
`
`requirements of the claims.”8
`
`Regarding step two of the Alice inquiry, BLU’s arguments regarding inventive concept
`
`are exactly those rejected in the Bascom decision. The Federal Circuit in Bascom held: “The
`
`‘inventive concept’ may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered
`
`combination of the limitations.”9 It further clarified: “The inventive concept inquiry requires
`
`more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. As is the case
`
`here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
`
`known, conventional pieces.” Id. (emphasis added). BLU, however, provides no rationale or
`
`support (and is unable to do so) for its conclusory argument that the combination of the claimed
`
`elements failed to provide any inventive concept.
`
`Collectively, these recent cases pointedly reject the very same arguments put forward by
`
`
`5 McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`6 Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. V. Openet Telecom, Inc. et al., No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed.
`Cir. Nov. 1, 2016).
`7 Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`8 McRo, 837 F.3d at 1313 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added).
`9 Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350 (emphasis added).
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`2
`
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 7 of 31
`
`BLU—(1) abstracting and oversimplifying claims by ignoring their specific requirements and
`
`their disclosed advantages over the prior art, and (2) arguing that the claims are ineligible based
`
`solely on allegations that their individual elements are well-known and conventional in the art,
`
`without any showing that the character of the claims as a whole or that the claimed combinations
`
`of specific elements are well-known and conventional.
`
`Although satisfying either one of the two Alice steps is sufficient for the Court to find
`
`eligibility, each of BlackBerry’s patent claims (1) is directed to a patent-eligible concept and (2)
`
`includes an “inventive concept.” Accordingly, BLU’s § 101 challenge should be denied for two
`
`independent reasons.10
`
`With respect to BLU’s challenge to the sufficiency of BlackBerry’s Complaint, courts
`
`consistently hold that pleading infringement through the use of exemplary claims, as BlackBerry
`
`has done, satisfies the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules which requires “a short and
`
`plain statement of the claim” that “gives the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
`
`grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
`
`Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).11 Thus, the remainder of BLU’s challenge also
`
`
`10 The Court also may delay resolution of the § 101 challenge until after claim construction is
`complete. The Federal Circuit has instructed that while “claim construction is not an inviolable
`prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101” courts should still find it “desirable—and
`often necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, for the
`determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the
`claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d
`1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`11 See also Uniloc USA Inc. v. Avaya Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1168, slip op. at 7 (E.D. Tex. May 13,
`2016) (finding exemplary claims sufficient); Avago Tech. Gen. IP v. Asustek Comput. Inc., Case
`Nos. 15-cv-04525, 15-cv-00451-EMC, 2016 WL 1623920 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2016) (finding
`complaint sufficient that alleged infringement of “one or more claims” (see Complaint, Dkt.
`20)); Iron Gate Sec. Inc. v. Loew’s Cos. Inc., Case No. 15-cv-8814 (SAS), 2016 WL 1070853
`(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2016) (same); Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., No. 15-CV-05469-
`EDL, 2016 WL 1719545, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (declining to dismiss the complaint
`because it relied on exemplary claim) (dismissed on other grounds).
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`3
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 8 of 31
`
`should be rejected because BlackBerry is not required to provide every detail for every possible
`
`claim of its infringement case within the Complaint.12
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Section 101 serves to promote scientific and technological advancement by excluding
`
`“[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” from the realm of patentable subject
`
`matter, thus preventing patentees from monopolizing “the basic tools of scientific and
`
`technological work.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
`
`Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, (2013)). “[H]owever, too broad an interpretation
`
`of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law. For all inventions at some level
`
`embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
`
`Indeed, the Federal Circuit’s recent guidance on applying step one of the Alice inquiry
`
`cautions against glossing over the question of what the claim is directed to:
`
`The “directed to” inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a
`patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim
`involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature or natural
`phenomenon—after all, they take place in the physical world. For all inventions at
`some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`phenomena, or abstract ideas. Rather, the “directed to” inquiry applies a stage-one
`filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether their
`character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.
`
`Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). Instead, courts should
`
`inquire into “the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
`
`The Federal Circuit found that the Enfish claims are not directed to an abstract idea but are
`
`“directed to an improvement of an existing technology” based on the specification’s teachings
`
`that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional technology. Id. at 1337; see
`
`
`12 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`4
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 9 of 31
`
`also Openwave Sys. Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d 509, 513-514 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding that a
`
`specification’s disparagement of the prior art is relevant to determine the scope of the invention).
`
`Just last month, the Federal Circuit again “cautioned that courts must be careful to avoid
`
`oversimplifying the claims” because “a court must look to the claims as an ordered combination
`
`without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.” McRo, 837 F.3d at 1313 (emphasis
`
`added). In addition, courts should consider whether the claims “improve[] 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.” Id. at 1314 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`For step two, the Federal Circuit in Bascom vacated the district court’s finding of
`
`ineligibility because of the district court’s failure to assess the combination of limitations and
`
`provided the following guidance:
`
`We agree with the district court that the limitations of the claims, taken
`individually, recite generic computer, network and Internet components, none of
`which is inventive by itself. BASCOM does not assert that it invented local
`computers, ISP servers, networks, network accounts, or filtering. Nor does the
`specification describe those elements as inventive.
`
`However, we disagree with the district court’s analysis of the ordered combination
`of limitations. In light of Mayo and Alice, it is of course now standard for a § 101
`inquiry to consider whether various claim element simply recite “well-understood,
`routine, conventional activit[ies].” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. …. The inventive
`concept requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was
`known in the art. As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-
`conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.
`
`Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350 (emphasis added). In holding that the claims contain an inventive
`
`concept, the Federal Circuit found that “the patent describes how its particular arrangement of
`
`elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id.; see also
`
`Amdocs, 2016 WL 6440387, at *15 (Claims are patentable where they “describe a specific,
`
`unconventional technological solution, narrowly drawn to withstand preemption concerns to a
`
`technological problem.”).
`
` Indeed, claims that “involve[] some arguably conventional
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`5
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 10 of 31
`
`components” are patentable when they “also involve[] limitations that when considered
`
`individually and as an ordered combination recite an inventive concept.” Amdocs, 2016 WL
`
`6440387, at *11 (emphasis added).
`
`In applying § 101 at the pleading stage, the court construes the patent claims in a manner
`
`most favorable to the non-moving party. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
`
`Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For § 101 analysis, the
`
`narrowest proposed construction would be the most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.
`
`(“manner most favorable … necessarily assum[es] that all of [challenged] claims required a
`
`machine, even though several claims do not expressly recite any hardware structures”).
`
`III. BLACKBERRY’S PATENTS ARE PATENT-ELIGIBLE UNDER § 101
`
`Founded in 1984, BlackBerry revolutionized the mobile communication industry. Its
`
`pioneering, cutting-edge products changed the way millions of people around the world connect,
`
`converse, and share digital information. It is an originator of today’s multibillion-dollar modern
`
`smartphone industry. Crucial to this success is BlackBerry’s history of technological innovation.
`
`In the past five years alone BlackBerry has invested more than $5.5 billion in research and
`
`development. Many of BlackBerry’s innovations are embodied in its massive patent portfolio
`
`covering an array of technologies. The challenged BlackBerry patents result from this history of
`
`innovation.
`
`BLU’s motion should be rejected for the very same reason that the Federal Circuit in the
`
`recent Enfish, Bascom, McRo, and Amdocs decisions rejected the lower courts’ analysis of the
`
`“abstract idea” step one and “inventive concept” step two of the Alice inquiry. When analyzed
`
`according to the latest Federal Circuit guidance, BlackBerry’s Patents are specific, inventive, and
`
`do not present preemption concerns.
`
`
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`6
`
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 11 of 31
`
`A.
`
`The ‘868 Claims Are Patent-Eligible Under § 101
`
`1.
`
`Background of the ‘868 Patent
`
`Security is a paramount concern for mobile devices. The ‘868 patent provides the
`
`groundwork for a secure software architecture and represents a significant advance in the field.
`
`The invention of the ‘868 patent is particularly relevant to a mobile computing platform wherein
`
`various third parties, some untrusted, are allowed to develop and distribute software applications
`
`directly to consumers who may be vulnerable to data theft or other digital risks. Software
`
`applications require access to various hardware resources. (‘868 patent at 3:14-45.) For
`
`example, a photo-taking software application requires access to the device’s camera, and an
`
`application for mapping and navigation will require access to the device’s location data.
`
`Application programming interfaces (“APIs”) are provided to software developers to facilitate
`
`such access and bridge the software application to system resources. (Id. at 3:14-22.)
`
`The claims of the ‘868 patent are directed to a software architecture that employs a
`
`library of APIs wherein certain APIs are restricted, while others are not. Any software
`
`application attempting to access the restricted APIs would be subjected to a digital verification
`
`step before access is granted. For example, a cryptographic verification performed at the end
`
`user device at runtime allows for confirmation that the application is indeed authorized to access
`
`sensitive APIs. Within this framework, mobile device end-users are relieved of the burden of
`
`verifying the trustworthiness of each individual software developer, while software developers
`
`are given appropriate tools to efficiently build new applications.
`
`Contrary to BLU’s assertions, the ‘868 patent does not merely claim “[c]hecking proper
`
`authorization to access certain resources by verifying a signature.” (D.I. 25 at 9.) For example,
`
`the language of Claim 1 of the ‘868 patent shows much more is involved:
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`7
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 12 of 31
`
`A mobile device containing software instruction which when executed on the
`mobile device cause the mobile device to perform operations for controlling
`access to an application platform of the mobile device, the operation comprising:
`
`storing a plurality of application programming interfaces (APIs) at the mobile
`device, wherein at least one API comprises a sensitive API to which access is
`restricted;
`
`receiving, at the mobile device, an indication that a software application on the
`mobile device is requesting access to the sensitive API stored at the mobile
`device;
`
`determining, at the mobile device, whether the software application is signed,
`wherein a signed software application includes a digital signature generated
`using a private key of a private key-public key pair, wherein the private key is
`not accessible to the mobile device;
`
`the mobile device using a public key of the private key-public key pair to verify
`the digital signature of the software application; and
`
`based upon verifying the digital signature at the mobile device, the mobile device
`allowing the software application access to the sensitive API.
`
`As illustrated by claim 1, the claims of the ‘868 patent are directed to a software architecture that
`
`designates only certain APIs as restricted. (‘868 patent at 3:26-29; see also Figure 3.) Any
`
`software application attempting to access the restricted APIs must pass a cryptographic “code
`
`signature” digital verification step using a private key-public key pair. (Id. at 3:50-61.)
`
`The specification of the ‘868 patent makes clear that the specific combination of elements
`
`in the claimed inventions improve upon prior art wherein “the user typically must use his or her
`
`judgment to determine whether or not the software application is reliable, based solely on his or
`
`her knowledge of the software developer’s reputation.” (Id. at 1:33-36.) “Because typical code
`
`signing protocols are not secure and rely solely on the judgment of the user, there is a serious
`
`risk that destructive, ‘Trojan horse’ type software applications may be downloaded and installed
`
`onto a mobile device.” (Id. at 1:39-43.) In one embodiment, a single trusted party (e.g., an
`
`application marketplace provider) may be entrusted with evaluating security risks of third-party
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`8
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 13 of 31
`
`software applications, thereby relieving end-users of this responsibility. (Id. at 3:54-60.) The
`
`claimed inventions further satisfy the needs of network operators to “maintain control over
`
`which software applications are activated on mobile devices” and “control the types of software
`
`on the devices issued to its employees.” (Id. at 1:44-50.)
`
`2.
`
`The ‘868 Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea13
`
`The ‘868 patent addresses problems unique to computers, and nothing in the brick and
`
`mortar context motivates the claimed inventions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`
`773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding claims not directed to abstract idea because “the
`
`claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
`
`specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.”) Indeed, there is much more to the ‘868
`
`claims than merely “basic manual tasks traditionally performed by humans as part of an
`
`authorization process for granting access to a ‘sensitive resource’,” as argued by BLU. (D.I. 25
`
`at 9-10.) As an initial matter, “processes that automate tasks that humans are capable of
`
`performing are patent eligible if properly claimed.” McRo, 837 F.3d at 1313. Viewing, for
`
`example, Claim 1’s character as a whole, in light of the specification, it is clear that the claim is
`
`directed to a specific invention that allows for controlled access to sensitive APIs and
`
`uncontrolled access to other APIs through an inventive architecture involving cryptographic
`
`verification of software applications. (‘868 patent at 14:42-63.) It cannot be disputed that this
`
`invention overcomes a problem specifically arising in the technical field of mobile devices.
`
`Like the invention in Enfish, the ‘868 claims are directed to “a specific improvement in
`
`the way computers operate” and “improv[ing] an existing technological process,” which is not an
`
`
`13 After addressing steps 1 and 2 of the Alice inquiry, BLU included a third, separate section for
`each BlackBerry Patent alleging that the Patent does not “improve the functioning of the
`computer itself.” This analysis is more properly addressed as part of step 1 of the Alice inquiry
`and BlackBerry has done so in the ‘step 1’ section for each of the BlackBerry Patents.
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0028
`
`9
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-23535-FAM Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 14 of 31
`
`abstract idea. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59). The specification
`
`makes clear that the claimed invention is an improvement to prior art security protocols:
`
`Security protocols involving software code signing schemes are known. Typically,
`such security protocols are used to ensure the reliability of software applications
`that are downloaded from the Internet. In a typical software code signing scheme, a
`digital signature is attached to a software application that identifies the software
`developer. Once the software is downloaded by a user, the user typically must use
`his or her judgment to determine whether or not the software application is
`reliable, based solely on his or her knowledge of the software developer's
`reputation. This type of code signing scheme does not ensure that a software
`application written by a third party for a mobile device will properly interact with
`the device's native applications and other resources. Because typical code signing
`protocols are not secure and rely solely on the judgment of the user, there is a
`serious risk that destructive, “Trojan horse” type software applications may be
`downloaded and installed onto a mobile device.
`
`(‘868 patent at 1:27-43 (emphasis added).) The claimed invention further satisfies certain
`
`security-related needs of network operators, such as those that do not trust employees to keep
`
`malicious software off mobile devices:
`
`There also remains a need for network operators to have a system and method to
`maintain control over which software applications are activated on mobile devices.
`
`There remains a further need in 2.5G and 3G networks where corporate clients or
`network operators would like to control the types of software on the devices issued
`to its employees.
`
`For example, a company may wish to prevent its employees from executing any
`software applications onto their devices without first obtaining permission from a
`corporate information technology (IT) or computer services department. All such
`corporate mobile devices may then be configured to require verification of at least
`a global signature before a software application can be executed. Access to
`sensitive device APIs and Libraries, if any, could then be further restricted,
`dependent upon verification of respective corresponding digital signatures.
`
`(Id. at 1:44-50; 4:3-7 (emphasis added).) The claimed system allows the mobile device to check
`
`whether an already-installed and running software application has been digitally signed by an
`
`entity that is known to be trustworthy when the application attempts to access sensitive APIs that
`
`could be used to compromise the employer’s computer network. (See, e.g., 4:24-45; FIG. 1
`
`DM_US 77906111-1.092211. 0