Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 163
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 20-502-CFC
`
`MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
`ASSOCIATES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`DATAVANT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN &
`JENKINS LLP
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Eve H. Ormerod (No. 5369)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Management
`Science Associates, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`James J. Bosco, Jr.
`THE WEBB LAW FIRM
`One Gateway Center
`420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd., Suite 1200
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Tel: (412) 471-8815
`jbosco@webblaw.com
`
`Michael P. Flynn
`DICKIE, MCCAMEY &
`CHILCOTE, P.C.
`Two PPG Place
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Tel: (412) 392-5331
`mflynn@dmclaw.com
`
`Dated: June 26, 2020
`
`
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 1 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 164
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................... I 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... II 
`I. 
`STATEMENT OF THE NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ........ 1 
`II. 
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 1 
`III.  STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................... 2 
`A.  Overview of the ’814 Patent .................................................................... 2 
`IV.  LEGAL STANDARD ...................................................................................... 4 
`V.  ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 5 
`A. 
`The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea (Alice Step One) ........ 5 
`1. 
`Defendants do not articulate an “abstract idea” ............................... 5 
`2. 
`The claims are directed to an improvement in token generation and
`de-identification technology ............................................................ 7 
`Defendants misapprehend the specification of the ’814 Patent and
`focus on portions relevant to other MSA patents ........................... 10 
`Defendants’ “human mind” argument is misplaced ...................... 11 
`4. 
`Even if the Claims were Directed to an Abstract Idea, the Claims are
`Still Eligible (Alice Step Two) ............................................................... 13 
`1. 
`The claim elements are not well-known, routine, and conventional
` ........................................................................................................ 13 
`Defendants have not addressed all of the claims ........................... 17 
`2. 
`The ’814 Patent is Presumed Valid ........................................................ 19 
`C. 
`D.  Defendants’ Motion is Premature .......................................................... 20 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 21 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 2 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 165
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
` 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................. passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
` 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
` 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
` 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 14, 18, 20
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
` 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 5, 13
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
` 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 15
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
` 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Content Extraction and Trans. LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat. Ass’n,
` 776 F.3d 134 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
` 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................... 7, 12
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels. Com, L.P.,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 16
`
`Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.,
` 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A.,
` 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 3 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 166
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................... 6, 7, 9, 15
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
` 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 20
`
`Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside,
` 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009 .................................................................................... 4
`
`Gracenote, Inc. v. Free Stream Media Corp., No. 18-1608-RGA,
` 2019 WL 5684491 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2019) ............................................................. 5
`
`Groove Digital, Inc. v. Jam City, Inc., No. 18-1331-RGA,
` 2019 WL 351254 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2019) .............................................................. 6
`
`Mod Stack LLC v. Aculab, Inc., No. 18-332-CFC,
` 2019 WL 3532185 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2019) ............................................................. 5
`
`SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
` 939 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 13
`
`Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
` 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S.,
` 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................. 9
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
` 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp.,
` 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 7, 15
`
`Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC,
` 765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`iii
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 4 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 167
`
`RULES
`
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................... 4, 20
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 5 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 168
`
`Plaintiff, Management Science Associates, Inc. (“MSA” or “Plaintiff”), by
`
`and through its undersigned counsel, hereby provides its Answering Brief in
`
`Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, as follows:
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`In their Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 10) and accompanying Brief (D.I. 11),
`
`Defendants Datavant, Inc. and Universal Patient Key, Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) asked the Court to dismiss MSA’s Complaint (D.I. 1) due to
`
`Defendants’ allegation that the claims of asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,614,814 (“the
`
`’814 Patent”) are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For
`
`the reasons below, MSA asks for the Motion to be denied.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Defendants’ Brief offers nothing than a pro
`
`forma challenge
`
`that
`
`overgeneralizes the patent claims and omits important facts and limitations to fit a
`
`template. When the correct legal test is applied, there is no question that the claims
`
`pass both steps of the eligibility test (despite only having to satisfy one).
`
`The ’814 Patent claims are eligible under the first step of the Alice test because
`
`they are directed to technical improvements that address specific problems arising
`
`in token generation and data de-identification technology. Through the use of a
`
`client tag in a token generation process, the claimed invention results in improved
`
`tokens unique for each client and individual that can be matched and linked to create
`
`1
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 6 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 169
`
`an improved, linked data set in which records for different clients have unique
`
`tokens, even for the same individual. The analysis can end here because there is
`
`nothing abstract about an improvement to this technological process. Although these
`
`improvements and advantages are described in detail and averred in the Complaint,
`
`Defendants fail to consider this evidence and instead focus on portions of the
`
`description that relate to a different MSA patent that shares the same specification.
`
`Although the second step of Alice is unnecessary because the first step is
`
`dispositive of eligibility, continuing the inquiry confirms the eligibility of the claims
`
`because Defendants offer no evidence that each and every claim element, alone and
`
`in combination, are well-known, routine, and conventional. Defendants dedicate a
`
`scant three pages to the issue and fail to apply the correct standard or even address
`
`independent claim 19, which differs in scope.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. Overview of the ’814 Patent
`
`MSA is an innovator in data management and analytics for a variety of
`
`industries. In particular, MSA is an industry leader in data de-identification
`
`technology, which involves the removal of personally identifiable information from
`
`a data record. Faced with technological problems relating to data security,
`
`computational efficiencies, and access by numerous different parties, among others,
`
`MSA developed several innovations in this field that have been awarded patents by
`
`2
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 7 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 170
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. All of MSA’s de-identification
`
`patents share the same specification as the ’814 Patent.
`
`MSA’s ’814 Patent addresses a specific problem faced by data processors that
`
`de-identify data records for multiple clients: records for an individual processed for
`
`one client may produce the same token as records processed for another client. The
`
`specification explains:
`
`[I]t is envisioned that many clients 106 may be licensed to use the de-
`identification engine 107, and that each client may have a number of
`data suppliers 103. Therefore, it is desirable to provide unique tokens
`for each of the clients 106 or, in other embodiments, each of the data
`suppliers 103. This uniqueness may be provided, at least in part,
`through the use of the configuration file 105. In particular, the
`configuration file 105 may include a client tag (e.g., a client code or
`client key) to use in the token creation process. …
`
`Through the use of client-specific tags, data records processed for one
`client 106 will not produce the same tokens as identical data records
`processed for a different client.
`
`D.I. 1, Ex. A at 6:19-45. Thus, the ’814 Patent identifies a specific problem that
`
`exists in token generation and de-identification technology and provides a specific
`
`solution. In part, the claims involve generating a token based at least partially on a
`
`plurality of data elements and a client tag uniquely identifying the client among the
`
`plurality of clients. As a result, records are matched and a linked data set is created
`
`in which records for the same individual are linked based on the individual and the
`
`client tag.
`
`3
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 8 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 171
`
`
`
`The ’814 Patent includes 20 claims, and claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent.
`
`Claim 1 is a method and claim 10 is a computer program product having similar
`
`limitations. Claim 19 is a system claim that additionally sets forth a unique
`
`arrangement of a data supplier computer, a de-identification engine, and a data
`
`processing entity computer remote from the data supplier computer.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) can be
`
`granted when a complaint fails to allege facts “sufficient to show that the plaintiff
`
`has a ‘plausible claim for relief.’” See, e.g., Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d
`
`203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)); see
`
`also Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 322 (3d Cir. 2014) (holding
`
`that courts accept as true “well-pleaded factual allegations” and then determine
`
`whether those facts “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief”).
`
`In determining whether a patent claim meets the requirements of Section 101,
`
`courts first determine whether the claim is directed to an ineligible abstract idea. If
`
`the claimed invention purports to improve a specific technology or involve a
`
`practical application, it is not directed to an abstract idea and the analysis ends. Alice
`
`Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014). Otherwise, the
`
`elements of the claims are examined “both individually and as an ordered
`
`combination” to determine if they add an inventive concept to the claims. Id. at
`
`4
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 9 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 172
`
`2355. It must be shown that the claim elements, alone and in combination, are “well-
`
`understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan” by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea (Alice Step One)
`
`The claims of the ’814 Patent are eligible because they are directed to non-
`
`abstract, technical solutions to technical problems in the field of token generation
`
`and data de-identification that achieve significant improvements in the operation and
`
`performance of data de-identification processes, token creation processes, record
`
`matching processes, and record linking processes. D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 37-38.
`
`1.
`
`Defendants do not articulate an “abstract idea”
`
`Defendants overgeneralize the claims of the ’814 Patent by contending that
`
`they are directed to the “abstract idea of collecting and manipulating data.” D.I. 11
`
`at 1, 12. This analysis runs afoul of this Court’s warning against “oversimplifying a
`
`patent’s claims when conducting a § 101 analysis.” Mod Stack LLC v. Aculab, Inc.,
`
`No. 18-332-CFC, 2019 WL 3532185, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2019); Gracenote, Inc.
`
`v. Free Stream Media Corp., No. 18-1608-RGA, 2019 WL 5684491, at 5 (D. Del.
`
`Nov. 1, 2019) (rejecting “abstract ideas … [that] are broader than the language of
`
`the asserted claims” such that they encompass other concepts); Groove Digital, Inc.
`
`v. Jam City, Inc., No. 18-1331-RGA, 2019 WL 351254, at *3 (D. Del. Jan. 29, 2019)
`
`5
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 10 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 173
`
`(denying motion to dismiss where the abstract idea failed to “satisfactorily capture
`
`the substance of the claims”).
`
`Defendants’ Section 101 challenge fails from the start because it only
`
`identifies a category of ideas (“collecting and manipulating data”) stated “at such a
`
`high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims” that it fails
`
`to consider the clearly stated goals of the ’814 Patent. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There can be no reasonable dispute
`
`that “collecting and manipulating data” encompasses much more than the specific
`
`claims of the ’814 Patent. In attempting to compare this broad category to other
`
`cases, Defendants incorrectly state that the Federal Circuit found the claims in Smart
`
`Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017), to be “directed to collection, storage, and linking of data.” D.I. 11 at 13-14
`
`(emphasis added). However, the claims in that case were directed to the abstract
`
`idea of “paying for a subway or bus ride with a credit card” which was in a category
`
`relating to “the collection, storage, and recognition of data.” Smart Systems, 873
`
`F.3d at 1372 (emphasis added).1 Swapping “recognition” with “linking” in
`
`paraphrasing Smart Systems does not advance the analysis.
`
`
`1 Defendants also misconstrue the other cited cases. See Electric Power Grp., LLC
`v. Alstrom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims found to be
`directed to “monitoring and analyzing data from disparate sources,” part of an
`“information-based category of abstract
`ideas,” contrary
`to Defendants’
`characterization); Digitech Image Techs. LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758
`
`6
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 11 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 174
`
`2.
`
`The claims are directed to an improvement in token
`generation and de-identification technology
`Under Alice, “claims … ‘improv[ing] an existing technological process’
`
`might not succumb to the abstract idea exception.” See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335
`
`(quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59). When a patented invention purports to
`
`improve a field of technology, the analysis can be resolved without proceeding to
`
`step two. See id.
`
`The inquiry begins and ends with the specification because here, like many
`
`claims found eligible by the courts, “the specification discusses the advantages
`
`offered by the technological improvement” recited in the claims. See Visual Memory
`
`LLC v. Nvidia Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Data Engine Techs.
`
`LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims were
`
`not abstract because they “provide[d] a specific solution to then-existing
`
`technological problems” based on what the “specification teaches”); ChargePoint,
`
`Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The ‘directed to’
`
`inquiry may also involve looking to the specification to understand ‘the problem
`
`facing the inventor’ and, ultimately, what the patent describes as the invention”).
`
`
`F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to “gathering and combining data
`that does not require input from a physical device,” not the category identified by
`Defendants); Content Extraction and Trans. LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (abstract idea was: “1) collecting data, 2)
`recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized
`data in a memory”).
`
`7
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 12 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 175
`
`The specification of the ’814 Patent identifies a technical problem concerning
`
`a de-identification engine being used by multiple different clients:
`
`[I]t is envisioned that many clients 106 may be licensed to
`use the de-identification engine 107, and that each client
`may have a number of data suppliers 103.
`D.I. 1, Ex. A at 6:19-21. In view of many different clients using the de-identification
`
`engine, the ’814 Patent addresses a need to create unique tokens to allow for such
`
`implementations:
`
`Through the use of client-specific tags, data records
`processed for one client 106 will not produce the same
`tokens as identical data records processed for a different
`client. …
`Thus, even if different clients or different data suppliers
`103 were provided with the same data records, unique
`tokens would still exist at the data processing entity 108.
`Id. at 6:34-37; 7:19-21. The specification identifies another benefit that this claimed
`
`feature makes possible: “the actual value being used as the client tag will not be
`
`discernable to the data supplier.” Id. at 6:39-41.
`
`
`
`The claims recite the technological steps that lead to the advantages discussed
`
`by the specification, namely the generation of a unique token (e.g., generating a
`
`token based at least partially on a plurality of data elements and a client tag uniquely
`
`identifying the client among the plurality of clients) and the creation of a linked data
`
`set in which data records are linked based on those unique tokens. The resulting
`
`linked data set avoids the need to search separate, disparate databases for records,
`
`8
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 13 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 176
`
`and allows for a data processing entity to use data storage facilities for multiple
`
`different clients. Id. at 6:19-37. This is comparable to the claims and advantages in
`
`Enfish, where the claims recited a “data storage and retrieval system” that
`
`implemented “an indexing technique [for a database] that allows for faster searching
`
`of data.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1333, 1336. Here, like Enfish, the specification
`
`describes “benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility.” Id.
`
`at 1337; see D.I. 1, Ex. A at 6:19-21.
`
`In Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), claims were
`
`directed to a technological improvement because of novel inputs (arranged inertial
`
`sensors) to a known formula used to determine an orientation of an object “based
`
`on” those inputs. Id. at 1348. Similarly, here, the claims of the ’814 Patent improve
`
`upon a token generation process with a novel and unconventional input parameter to
`
`a token generation process (the client tag), that is unique to a client and provides the
`
`improvements discussed by the specification.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ failure to address these technical benefits is inexcusable because,
`
`in addition to being clearly detailed in the ’814 Patent, the Complaint avers that “the
`
`creation of a token using an unconventional technique and based on a client tag …
`
`allows for efficient matching and linking of de-identified records while maintaining
`
`9
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 14 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 177
`
`data privacy.” D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 37-38 (emphasis added). Defendants knew of these
`
`benefits but its entire analysis is “merely another data input.” D.I. 11 at 8. 2
`
`3.
`
`Defendants misapprehend the specification of the ’814 Patent
`and focus on portions relevant to other MSA patents
`Rather than engage with the above-described technical improvements and
`
`advantages relating to the client tag, Defendants’ arguments become entangled with
`
`a separate part of the specification relating to descriptions of advantages provided
`
`by other embodiments not claimed here (such as those claimed in MSA’s U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,292,707, having the same specification). This error permeates through the
`
`entirety of Defendants’ Brief.
`
`Defendants largely focus on traditional hash algorithms, declaring apparent
`
`victory because MSA did not invent the concept of hashing. See D.I. 11 at 3-5. This
`
`argument fails to consider that many of these statements are background for a
`
`cascading hash algorithm claimed in MSA’s U.S. Patent No. 9,292,707.3 In that
`
`different patent, the claimed algorithm improves upon existing hashing algorithms
`
`that use “concatenated substrings” through a cascading process that provides
`
`
`2 Although Defendants seek to minimize these advantages, Datavant, Inc. marketed
`its product as a “unique method to ensure that encrypted tokens…are…site-specific
`such that each user’s tokens are unique from any other user’s tokens.” D.I. 1, Ex. D
`at 4. This was well after MSA filed the ’814 Patent.
`3 Defendants’ Brief admits that the “cascading hashing algorithm” is not part of the
`claims yet still argues without support that “this technique was well known.” D.I.
`11 at 9 n.6.
`
`
`10
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 15 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 178
`
`“enhanced data security” and “prevent[s] reverse-engineering through statistical
`
`analysis attacks.” D.I. 1, Ex. A at 1:33-36. These same portions of the specification
`
`are cited as apparent proof that MSA did not invent the very different claims of the
`
`’814 Patent. See D.I. 11 at 4. Defendants then suggest that claim 1 of the ’814
`
`Patent includes a typical “hash identifier” like a dependent claim mentioned in Smart
`
`Systems, which it does not. D.I. 11 at 14 (“Similar to claim 1 of the ’814 Patent, [the
`
`patent in Smart Systems] recited the use of a ‘hash identifier’ for verification”).
`
`Contrary to these arguments, the independent claims of the ’814 Patent do not
`
`recite a “hash” or “hash identifier.”4 The claims specify that a token is generated
`
`based at least partially on a client tag and a plurality of data elements, where the
`
`client tag uniquely identifies the client among a plurality of clients. While the token
`
`generation process may involve a hash function, as in dependent claims, this is not
`
`the focus of independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
`
`4.
`Defendants’ “human mind” argument is misplaced
`Defendants argue, under step one, that the claims “can be performed in the
`
`human mind or by using pen and paper.” D.I. 11 at 12. However, the analysis
`
`Defendants attempt to engage in is part of step two and, even there, it is wrong.
`
`The claims recite computer hardware, and claim 19 recites a specific
`
`arrangement of computers, so they do not literally encompass mental steps.
`
`
`4 Several dependent claims recite features relating to hashing.
`
`11
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 16 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 179
`
`Defendants conflate the two steps of the Alice test by arguing, under step one, that
`
`the recited computer hardware is insignificant (i.e., part of step two) and that the
`
`claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea (i.e., a step one conclusion).
`
`Defendants’ single citation to Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America,
`
`Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015), involves a step two analysis. Id. at 1335 (“The
`
`steps in Versata’s claims (e.g., arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating,
`
`determining) are conventional, routine, and well-known”).
`
`
`
`Reciting computer hardware does not render a claim abstract under the first
`
`step nor does it control the outcome of the second step. Defendants further confuse
`
`this issue by combining it with an overbroad, real-world analogy about the ciphers
`
`of Caesar. D.I. 11 at 13. But “[i]t is not enough ... to merely trace the invention to
`
`some real-world analogy.” Data Engine, 906 F.3d at 1011. Instead, the court must
`
`consider the claims as a whole to determine whether they are directed to a functional
`
`improvement or an abstract idea. Id. Defendants offer no explanation or analogy
`
`for how generating a unique token based on a client tag and a plurality of elements,
`
`where the client tag uniquely identifies a client, is abstract or encompasses mental
`
`steps.
`
`Accepting as true the well-pled facts that the claims of the ’814 Patent are
`
`directed to technical improvements in a specific field of technology, Defendants’
`
`Motion should be denied without proceeding to step two.
`
`12
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 17 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: 180
`
`B.
`
`Even if the Claims were Directed to an Abstract Idea, the Claims
`are Still Eligible (Alice Step Two)
`While MSA maintains that the claims of the ’814 Patent are not directed to an
`
`abstract idea, the claims recite an inventive concept that is “significantly more” than
`
`“collecting and manipulating data” or any other concept. Defendants fail to carry
`
`their burden.
`
`1.
`
`The claim elements are not well-known, routine, and
`conventional
`Defendants admit that the claims of the ’814 Patent were found to be novel
`
`and non-obvious by the Patent Office. D.I. 11 at 5. Yet Defendants offer no
`
`evidence that the elements of the claims, alone and in combination, are “well-known,
`
`routine, [and] conventional,” as required. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359; see also
`
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368 (reversing an ineligibility finding because clear and
`
`convincing evidence was not provided showing the claims were “well-understood,
`
`routine and conventional to a skilled artisan”).
`
`Most of the three pages Defendants dedicate to this issue regurgitate the same
`
`argument—that the claims recite generic computer components and are therefore
`
`ineligible—without examining the specific claim language itself. D.I. 11 at 18-19.
`
`This is not the test. See, e.g., SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 939 F.3d 1301,
`
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (rejecting the argument that a claim is ineligible because it
`
`“solves [a] technical problem…with conventional components”); BASCOM Global
`
`13
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 18 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 19 of 27 PageID #: 181
`
`Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“[A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic
`
`arrangement of known, conventional pieces”).
`
`Claim 1 is directed to a method for “de-identifying records received from a
`
`plurality of clients” where “each of the plurality of clients [is] associated with a client
`
`tag unique to the client.” The claim further states “generating, with at least one
`
`processor, a token based at least partially on the plurality of data elements and a
`
`client tag uniquely identifying the client among the plurality of clients.” These
`
`claimed features are far outside Defendants’ asserted abstract idea of “collecting and
`
`manipulating data” and recite an inventive concept with distinct technical
`
`advantages.
`
`Defendants acknowledge
`
`that “the creation of a
`
`token using an
`
`unconventional technique and based on a client tag” is identified as an inventive
`
`concept. D.I. 11 at 20. Yet, given ample opportunity to address this, Defendants
`
`offer a single statement:
`
`[T]he supposed inventive concept that MSA identifies—
`‘the creation of a token using an unconventional technique
`and based on a client tag . . . ,’ … is itself part of the
`abstract idea of collecting and manipulating data to
`achieve a desired result. The client tag is just an input used
`in the creation of the token, and the creation of the token
`is just the manipulation of the data.
`
`14
`
`DATAVANT, INC. EXHIBIT NO. 1009
`Page 19 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00502-CFC Document 15 Filed 06/26/20 Page 20 of 27 PageID #: 182
`
`Id. Defendants attempt to avoid the step two analysis by concluding, without
`
`explanation, that this step “is itself part of the abstract idea.” Id. Defendants cannot
`
`remove detailed, inventive features from a claim by simply declaring them “part of
`
`the abstract idea,” as that would eviscerate the entire test.
`
`The only case that Defendants cite as support for their conclusion that the
`
`client tag features are “part of the abstract idea” of “collecting and manipulating
`
`data” is BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The