`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID 411Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 25 PageID 411
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`TARGETED RADIO, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-002299-K
`
`PANDORA MEDIA, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF
`INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID 412Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 25 PageID 412
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`THE ’756 PATENT .................................................................................................3 
`
`THE ’684 PATENT .................................................................................................6 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................7 
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................9 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`ALICE STEP ONE: THE ASSERTED PATENTS ARE DIRECTED
`TO AN ABSTRACT IDEA AND NOTHING MORE ............................................9 
`
`A. 
`
`Courts Have Routinely Held Similar Ideas to be Abstract Ideas ...............13 
`
`ALICE STEP TWO: THE ASSERTED PATENTS’ CLAIMS LACK
`AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT ................................................................................16 
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................20 
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID 413Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 25 PageID 413
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................19
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................12
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC, v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................11
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................19
`
`Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................16
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .............................................................................................................9, 19
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. 2018-1697 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 5, 2019) ....................................................................................15
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................17
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................20
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Assoc.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................5, 7, 12
`
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID 414Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 25 PageID 414
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................14, 15, 17
`
`Doe v. My Space, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Elec. Commun. Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC,
`958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................8
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................11, 12, 18, 19
`
`Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc.,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 733 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................11
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................8, 10
`
`Glasswall Sols. Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.,
`754 F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................8
`
`In re Morsa,
`No. 2019-1757, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 11395 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2020) ........................15, 16
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed.Cir. 2016).......................................................................................11, 16, 18
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................13
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................19
`
`Jericho Sys. Corp. v. Axiomatics, Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-2281, 2015 WL 2165931 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015),
`aff’d 642 Fed. Appx. 979 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................5, 7, 13, 16
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................2, 17
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID 415Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 25 PageID 415
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`No. 3:16-cv-2689, 260 F.Supp.3d 705 (N.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ......................................7, 17
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`No. 3:13-cv-03009, 2015 WL 6703221 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2015)
`(Kinkeade, J.), aff’d 2017 WL 371375 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2017) ........................................7, 19
`
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`No. 3:13-cv-3009-K, Dkt. 193 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2015) .......................................................19
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................9, 14
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................8
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) .........................................................................................1, 7
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID 416Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 25 PageID 416
`
`
`
`Pandora Media, LLC (“Pandora”) moves for a judgement on the pleadings because the
`
`two patents Plaintiff Targeted Radio, LLC (“Targeted Radio) asserts claim patent ineligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents are directed to the abstract idea of delivering
`
`location-based advertising during a break in a program. Neither claims any inventive concept to
`
`transform this abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Consequently, Targeted Radio’s
`
`patents fail the two-step test for patent eligibility set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`573 U.S. 208 (2014), and are therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pandora respectfully
`
`requests that the Court to grant it judgement on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(c).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The asserted patents are directed to the abstract idea of delivering location-based
`
`advertising during a break in a program. This idea is abstract because it is a conventional
`
`activity long performed by content providers, such as television and radio broadcasters.
`
`Well before the Internet and streaming were household terms, families across the nation
`
`gathered around televisions to watch programs broadcast across the nation—such as the evening
`
`news, sporting events, Macy’s Thanksgiving parade, etc. The broadcasts of those programs
`
`contained breaks in the programming during which advertisements were inserted and played. A
`
`portion of those breaks were dedicated to national advertisements and would be shown to the
`
`entire viewing audience. Another portion of the program breaks were reserved for local
`
`advertisements, which local stations would insert and deliver to the audience located in the local
`
`geographic area. In this way, a local car dealership, for example, would not waste money paying
`
`for its advertisement to be shown to views across the country. Radio broadcasters have likewise
`
`long delivered location-based advertising during a programming break.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID 417Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 25 PageID 417
`
`
`
`The asserted patents recite nothing other than routine computer functionality to carry out
`
`this abstract idea over the Internet on a mobile device. They claim no specific technical
`
`improvements to mobile devices or existing computing and streaming technology. Because the
`
`asserted patents are directed to nothing more than an abstract idea, they are directed to patent-
`
`ineligible subject matter.
`
`The asserted patents also lack any inventive concept that transforms this abstract idea into
`
`a patent-eligible application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 221-23. The remaining limitations of the
`
`claims recite merely conventional, generic equipment like “mobile devices,” “memory,”
`
`“processor,” “communication server,” “databases,” and “communication interface.” Those
`
`generic components perform well-understood, routine and conventional activities like
`
`transmitting, detecting, and receiving information. Such limitations cannot confer patent-
`
`eligibility on otherwise ineligible claims. See, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan
`
`Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Accordingly, Pandora respectfully requests that the Court grant judgment on the
`
`pleadings because the asserted patents are drawn to ineligible subject matter.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Targeted Radio asserts infringement of two related patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,644,756
`
`(the “’756 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,948,684 (the “’684 Patent”) (collectively, the “asserted
`
`patents”). (See Dkt. 1, ¶ 9.) The ’684 Patent is a continuation of the ’756 Patent, and the two
`
`share an identical specification and claim priority to a provisional application filed on October
`
`31, 2008. (See generally ’756 Patent (Dkt. 1-2); ’684 Patent (Dkt. 1-3)).1 The asserted patents
`
`
`1 All citations to the asserted patents’ shared specification will be to the ’756 Patent only unless
`otherwise stated.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID 418Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 25 PageID 418
`
`
`
`are titled “Methods and Systems for Selecting Internet Radio Program Break Content Using
`
`Mobile Device Location.” (Id.) They are directed to delivering location-based content to a
`
`mobile device during a program break in an Internet radio stream. (’756 Patent at 1:18-22.) The
`
`asserted patents purport to improve existing Internet radio streams that are comprised of “audio
`
`programs of specified durations” that “include program breaks during which audio content that is
`
`distinct from the program content is delivered,” e.g., an advertisement. (Id. at 1:28-34.) They
`
`explain that the audio content, or advertisement, played during the breaks “is often outputted to
`
`all listeners without regard to where they are listening.” (Id. at 1:28-42.) In these prior art
`
`Internet radio systems, the break content “may be of limited value to listeners, advertisers and
`
`broadcasters because it addresses topics that are not sufficiently local” and “such indiscriminate
`
`outputting limits the pool of business that can afford to purchase Internet radio ad spots.” (Id. at
`
`1:38-47.) To solve these problems, the asserted patents “seamlessly select[] content for
`
`outputting on a mobile device during a program break in an Internet radio stream using mobile
`
`device location information and program break markers.” (Id. at 1:62-65.) According to the
`
`asserted patents, this “facilitates selection of program break content that addresses topics highly
`
`relevant to the listener, advertiser, and broadcaster” and “[u]sing program break markers
`
`facilitates the real-time content selection required for seamless Internet radio.” (Id. at 1:65-2:6.)
`
`I.
`
`THE ’756 PATENT
`
`The ’756 Patent has three independent claims (claims 1, 28 and 47) and 70 dependent
`
`claims. Targeted Radio asserts claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13–20, 26–29, 32–35, 37, 38, 40–48, 51–
`
`54, 56, 57, 59–66, 72, and 73 in this action. (See Dkt. 1, ¶ 44.) Claim 28 recites:
`
`A method for streaming localized content to a mobile device during an advertising
`break in an Internet radio audio stream, comprising:
`streaming from an Internet radio source to a mobile device an Internet radio
`audio stream;
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID 419Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 25 PageID 419
`
`
`
`receiving by the Internet radio source from the mobile device a report
`including a location of the mobile device;
`detecting electronically by the Internet radio source a marker indicating a
`start of an advertising break in the Internet radio audio stream;
`streaming from the Internet radio source to the mobile device during the
`advertising break an advertisement selected by the Internet radio source
`using the reported location and an advertising break duration indicator
`configured for the advertising break indicating a duration of the
`advertising break; and
`resuming by the Internet radio source streaming to the mobile device of the
`Internet radio audio stream after the advertising break.
`
`
`(’756 Patent, claim 28.) It generally claims a method involving four steps: (1) receiving a
`
`location report for a mobile device; (2) detecting an advertising break marker in an Internet radio
`
`stream; (3) streaming an advertisement selected for the
`
`reported location and break duration; and (4) resuming the
`
`Internet radio stream after the advertising break. Figure 6,
`
`to the right, illustrates the claimed method. The other
`
`independent claims recite essentially these same four steps.
`
`Independent claim 1 is nearly identical to claim 28, except
`
`claim 1 expands the type of content to be streamed during
`
`the program break—removing the limitation that it be an
`
`advertisement. (See ’756 Patent, claim 1.) Independent
`
`claim 47 claims the system comprising “at least one
`
`communication interface” and “a processor
`
`communicatively coupled with the communication
`
`interface, wherein under control of the processor the
`
`Internet radio source is configured to [execute the method of claim 1].” (See id., claim 47.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 25 PageID 420Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 25 PageID 420
`
`
`
`The ’756 Patent’s dependent claims largely repeat. One group of dependent claims
`
`specifies how the “selection of the program break content” occurs, by: “consulting . . . an
`
`advance program script” (claims 2, 29, and 48), consulting a database (claims 5, 32, and 51), and
`
`comparing data for two matches (claims 6, 33, and 52). Claims 7, 34, and 53 add that a plurality
`
`of program break content can be streamed during a break. Claims 8, 35, and 54 add that the
`
`location report includes a time and it is verified to ensure it is sufficiently current. Claims 10, 11,
`
`and 13 (and their counterparts 37, 38, 40 and 56, 57, 59) specify how location is reported, by:
`
`GPS (claims 10, 37, and 56), user input (claims 11, 38, and 57), or Internet access device (claims
`
`13, 40, and 59). Claims 14, 15, and 16 (and their counterparts 41, 42, 43 and 60, 61, 62) specify
`
`what the mobile device is: mobile phone (claims 14, 41, 60), portable computer (claims 15, 42,
`
`61), or passenger vehicle (claims 16, 43, 62). Claims 17, 18, and 19 (and their counterparts 44
`
`and 63, 64, 65) specify what the Internet radio program is: a music program (claims 17, 44, and
`
`63), a talk show program (claims 18, and 64), or a news program (claims 19, and 65). Claims 20
`
`and 66 specify the program break content is an advertisement. Claims 26, 45, and 72 add the
`
`limitation that the “reported location has a degree of accuracy selected by a user of the mobile
`
`device.” Claims 27, 46, and 73 add the limitation that the “program break content comprises
`
`audio content and print content identifying a business entity sponsoring the program break
`
`content.”
`
`Because all of the asserted claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract
`
`idea,” claim 28 can be treated as representative of the other claims of the ’756 Patent. See Content
`
`Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Assoc., 776 F.3d 1343, 1348
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that for purposes of the § 101 analysis, claims are deemed representative
`
`when they are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea”); Jericho Sys. Corp. v.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 11 of 25 PageID 421Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 11 of 25 PageID 421
`
`
`
`Axiomatics, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-2281, 2015 WL 2165931, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015)
`
`(Kinkeade, J.) (“not[ing] that a court may select a representative claim for analysis and apply that
`
`analysis to other claims that are sufficiently similar to the representative claim”). Claim 28 of the
`
`’756 Patent is also representative of the claims of the ’684 Patent for the reasons set forth below.
`
`II.
`
`THE ’684 PATENT
`
`The ’684 Patent has five independent claims (claims 1 and 6-9) and four dependent
`
`claims that all depend from claim 1 (claims 2-5). Targeted Radio asserts claims 1, 3, 4, and 5 in
`
`this action. (See Dkt. 1, ¶ 54.) Claim 1 recites:
`
`A method for streaming localized content to a mobile device during an advertising
`break in an Internet radio stream, comprising:
`streaming from an Internet radio source to a mobile device an Internet radio
`stream;
`receiving by the Internet radio source from the mobile device recurring
`location reports reporting new locations of the mobile device resolved by
`the mobile device;
`detecting electronically by the Internet radio source a marker indicating a
`start of an advertising break in the Internet radio stream;
`streaming from the Internet radio source to the mobile device during the
`advertising break at least one advertisement selected by the Internet radio
`source using at least one of the reported locations and a duration
`indicator indicating a duration of the advertising break; and
`resuming by the Internet radio source streaming to the mobile device of the
`Internet radio stream after the advertising break.
`
`(’684 Patent, claim 1 (emphasis added)). The underlined portions above show the most
`
`significant differences between claim 1 of the ’684 Patent and claim 28 of the ’756 Patent.
`
`Dependent claims 3 and 4 add a location reporting selection feature in which a user enables
`
`location reporting (claim 3) or disables location reporting (claim 4). Dependent claim 5 specifies
`
`that the reported locations are GPS locations. Independent claims 6-9 (not asserted in this
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 12 of 25 PageID 422Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 12 of 25 PageID 422
`
`
`
`action) differ only in the type of program break content: local political content (claim 6), local
`
`news report (claim 7), local traffic report (claim 8), and local weather report (claim 9).
`
`Ultimately, as both the ’756 and ’684 Patents’ claims recite a nearly identical method of
`
`selecting Internet radio break content based on mobile device location and break duration, claim
`
`28 of the ’756 Patent can properly be treated as representative for purposes of this Section 101
`
`analysis. Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The scope of subject matter eligible for patent protection is defined in Section 101 of the
`
`Patent Act: “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. This provision,
`
`however, contains “an important implicit exception:” abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural
`
`phenomena, which form the “basic tools of scientific and technological work,” are not
`
`patentable. Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,
`
`Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). This case concerns the “abstract ideas” category, which
`
`embodies “the longstanding rule that ‘[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.’” Id. at 218 (quoting
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`
`When a party asserts patents that claim ineligible subject matter, it fails to state a cognizable
`
`legal theory and judgment on the pleadings should be granted. See Doe v. My Space, Inc., 528
`
`F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008); Jericho Sys. Corp., 2015 WL 2165931 at *1 (granting Rule 12(c)
`
`motion based on § 101 invalidity), aff’d 642 Fed. Appx. 979 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Securus Techs., Inc.
`
`v. Global Tel*Link Corp., No. 3:13-cv-03009, 2015 WL 6703221, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2015)
`
`(Kinkeade, J.) (same), aff’d 2017 WL 371375 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 27, 2017); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
`
`LLC, No.3:16-cv-2689, 260 F.Supp.3d 705, at 707 (N.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) (Kinkeade, J.)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 13 of 25 PageID 423Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 13 of 25 PageID 423
`
`
`
`(same). Whether a patent is impermissibly directed to an abstract idea can be determined on the
`
`pleadings. See, e.g., SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(affirming this Court’s judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under § 101, emphasizing that
`
`eligibility under § 101 is “frequently” resolved at the pleading stage); Glasswall Sols. Ltd. v.
`
`Clearswift Ltd., 754 F. App’x 996, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding “no error in the district court’s
`
`resolution of the patent ineligibility of the claims on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion”); Elec. Commun.
`
`Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding “that
`
`the district court properly resolved patent eligibility at the pleadings stage of the proceedings” even
`
`prior to claim construction).
`
`In determining patent eligibility under Section 101, courts use a two-step approach
`
`mandated by the Supreme Court. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. First, the court determines whether
`
`the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, such as longstanding commercial or
`
`human activities. Id. In making this inquiry, courts often consider “whether the claims focus on
`
`‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that
`
`qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool’” to perform an
`
`abstract idea. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Second, if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court must then consider
`
`whether the claims include additional elements—contain an “inventive concept”—sufficient to
`
`“‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 208-09
`
`(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012)). This is
`
`to “ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
`
`[abstract idea] itself.” Id. at 218 (emphasis added). As the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit
`
`have repeatedly held, merely implementing an abstract idea using well-known computer
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 14 of 25 PageID 424Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 14 of 25 PageID 424
`
`
`
`components or functions, limiting the idea to a particular technological environment, or adding
`
`other token steps is insufficient. Id. at 221-26; see, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602,
`
`610-11 (2010); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`ALICE STEP ONE: THE ASSERTED PATENTS ARE DIRECTED TO AN
`ABSTRACT IDEA AND NOTHING MORE
`
`To determine whether the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court
`
`examines the “focus of the claims.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (finding that although there were additional
`
`limitations in the claim, “the concept embodied by the majority of the limitations describes only”
`
`an abstract idea). As explained above, representative claim 28 of the ’756 Patent generally
`
`claims the following series of steps: (1) receiving a location report for a mobile device; (2)
`
`detecting an advertising break marker; (3) streaming an advertisement selected for the reported
`
`location and break duration; and (4) resuming the Internet radio stream after the advertising
`
`break. The focus of the claims of the asserted patents is therefore delivering location-based
`
`advertising during a break in a program. This is an abstract idea.
`
`These four steps are the logical and conventional steps required to execute the basic idea
`
`of inserting located-based advertising during a break in program delivered over the Internet. In
`
`order to target advertisements based on location, it logically follows that identification of the
`
`relevant location—here, the mobile device—must be received. Likewise, in order to play an
`
`advertisement during a break in a program, the break and its duration must be identified—so it is
`
`known when to play the advertisement and how long of an advertisement will fit in the break.
`
`Here, the patents recite doing so by detecting a “marker” that marks the beginning/end of a
`
`program break. It should go without saying that playing an advertisement during a break in a
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 15 of 25 PageID 425Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 15 of 25 PageID 425
`
`
`
`program is necessary to implement the idea, and the patents simply recite doing so via an
`
`Internet stream. Finally, after the advertisement concludes, it naturally follows that the system
`
`will resume the radio program stream.
`
`The specification makes clear that the central focus of the purported invention is to select
`
`advertising targeted to a listener’s location to play during a programing break. (’756 Patent at
`
`1:62-65.) This idea has been employed by radio and television broadcasters for decades, and
`
`thus predates the Internet and modern computing. This confirms the abstract, non-technical
`
`nature of the claims. That is, selecting advertising based on location and fitting it into a radio
`
`streaming break is not a technological solution to a technology-specific problem.
`
`Nor do the asserted patents claim any novel way of achieving their purported
`
`advancement. Conventional mobile device and computing equipment are merely “invoked as a
`
`tool” to execute this abstract idea, which cannot confer patent-eligibility. Finjan, 879 F.3d at
`
`1303; see also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable
`
`improvement in computer technology” (citations omitted)). Indeed, the shared specification
`
`acknowledges that many of the elements of the claims were generic, routine, well-known, and
`
`conventional at the time of the patents. The specification recognizes in its “Background of the
`
`Invention” that Internet radio streams were well known at the time of invention. (’756 Patent at
`
`1:23-27 (“Many radio stations deliver audio programming via the Internet. Some Internet radio
`
`streams are simulcasts of radio broadcasts transmitted by conventional over-the-air radio
`
`stations. Other Internet radio streams originate from Internet-only sources.”).) It further
`
`recognizes that existing “Internet radio streams are sometimes comprised of audio programs of
`
`specified durations” that “will normally include program breaks during which audio content that
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 16 of 25 PageID 426Case 3:19-cv-02299-K Document 33 Filed 06/05/20 Page 16 of 25 PageID 426
`
`
`
`is distinct from the program content is delivered.” (Id. at 1:28-34.) The specification describes a
`
`broad range of existing technologies that can be used to implement the claimed invention,
`
`including a variety of mobile devices, Internet access devices, communication networks, and
`
`GPS and navigational systems. (Id. at 4:35-65.) But the use of “existing computers as tools in
`
`aid of processes focused on ‘abstract ideas’” is not sufficient to remove a claim from the
`
`abstract-idea category. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (citations omitted). The only aspect of the claims that remain is the streaming of location-
`
`based advertising during a programming break of a certain duration. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
`
`v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the focus of the claims for Alice step 1
`
`is the “claimed advance over the prior art”). This is not patentable.
`
`This concept of delivering location-based advertising during a programming break is
`
`something that has long been done in the television and radio broadcasting industries. That
`
`national broadcasts have advertising breaks of a certain duration, during which local
`
`advertisements are selected and inserted to play to local audiences, was we