throbber
Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 40 PageID# 1302
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`NORFOLK DIVISION
`
`
`CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 40 PageID# 1303
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) Standard ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................. 3
`
`Direct Infringement ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Indirect Infringement .............................................................................................. 4
`
`Willful Infringement ............................................................................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`The ’062 and ’917 Patents Are Patent-Ineligible Under Section 101 ..................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’062 and ’917 Patents and Their Representative Claims ..................... 5
`
`Alice Step One: The Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Filtering Data ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claims Lack An Inventive Concept ....................... 17
`
`B.
`
`Centripetal Fails to Plausibly Allege Direct Infringement of Any Accused
`Product (or Combination Thereof) ........................................................................ 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Centripetal’s Allegations of What Constitute “Accused Products”
`Are Unintelligible, Inconsistent, and Fail To Provide Proper Notice ....... 21
`
`Centripetal Fails to Show How the Accused Products Plausibly
`Infringe the Asserted Patent Claims ......................................................... 22
`
`C.
`
`Centripetal Fails to Plausibly Show Willful Infringement ................................... 24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Centripetal Fails to Show Plausible Knowledge of the Asserted
`Patents ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`Centripetal Fails to Plausibly Show Knowing or Intentional
`Infringement .............................................................................................. 27
`
`D.
`
`Centripetal Fails to Plausibly Show Indirect Infringement................................... 28
`
`1.
`
`Centripetal Fails to Plausibly Show Keysight Had Pre-Suit
`Knowledge of the Asserted Patents .......................................................... 28
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 40 PageID# 1304
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Centripetal’s Indirect Infringement Claims Also Fail Because
`Centripetal Has Not Alleged the Required Elements of Those
`Claims ....................................................................................................... 29
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 40 PageID# 1305
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Addiction & Detoxification Inst. LLC v. Carpenter,
`620 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................................30
`
`Adidas America, Inc., v. Skechers USA, Inc.,
`No. 3:16-CV-1400, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89752 (D. Or. June 12, 2017) ............................25
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com,
`838 F.3d 1266 (2016) ...............................................................................................................14
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................15, 18, 19
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..............................................................................1, 3, 17
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................15
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`950 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................25
`
`Asghari-Kamrani v. United Services Automobile Ass’n,
`No. 15-cv-478, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87065 (E.D. Va. July 5, 2016), aff’d
`737 F. App’x 542 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2018) .............................................................................3
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .........................................................................................................3, 4, 23
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................12, 20
`
`In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
`989 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................18
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................3, 4
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 40 PageID# 1306
`
`
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00528-ADA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17605 (W.D. Tex.
`Feb. 1, 2022) ......................................................................................................................26, 27
`
`Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................4
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communs., Inc.,
`778 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019) ...............................................................................17
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................19
`
`Bushnell Hawthorne, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`No. 1:18-CV-760, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228284 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2019) .........................27
`
`CarFax, Inc. v. Red Mountain Techs., Inc.,
`119 F. Supp. 3d 404 (E.D. Va. 2015) ........................................................................................4
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00094, Docket No. 127 (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2019)...............................................24
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:18-cv-94-MSD-LRL, Dkt. No. 29 (E.D. Va. March 29, 2018) ............................27
`
`Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00137-RCY-RJK, Docket No. 95 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2021) .................24, 27
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. Zynga, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-859-RCJ-VCF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23313 (D. Nev. Feb. 17,
`2017) ........................................................................................................................................28
`
`Chan Soo Kim v. Green Tea Ideas, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-CV-00449-JAG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37068 (E.D. Va. March 6,
`2018) ........................................................................................................................................28
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) .......................................................................................................4, 29, 30
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................8, 11, 17
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................16
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 40 PageID# 1307
`
`
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................20
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................5
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................11, 12, 16, 17
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................13, 14, 18
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-2621, 2019 WL 955000 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2019) ................................................24
`
`Glasswall Solutions, Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.,
`754 F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................1, 12, 15
`
`Golden v. Apple Inc.,
`819 F. App’x 930 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) ...............................................................................................................5, 28
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................19
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporation,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................18, 19, 20
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................12
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56092 (S.D.N.Y. April 28, 2015) ............................................6, 12, 17
`
`Intelligent Verification Systems, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. et al.,
`2013 WL 12109895 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2013) .........................................................................30
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 40 PageID# 1308
`
`
`
`Jenkins v. v. LogicMark, LLC,
`No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10975 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25,
`2017) ................................................................................................................................4, 5, 28
`
`Kirsch Rsch. & Dev., LLC v. Tarco Specialty Prods., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00318-ADA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191685 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 04,
`2021) ........................................................................................................................................26
`
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................4
`
`Macronix Int’l Co. v. Spansion Inc.,
`4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014) ..........................................................................................23
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ..............................................................................3, 17, 18
`
`MONEC Holding AG v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.,
`897 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D. Del. 2012) .........................................................................................27
`
`MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC,
`2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 24764 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2021) .......................................................16
`
`Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc.,
`591 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Nomula v. Hirshfeld,
`2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179240 (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2021) ......................................................16
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................3
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................15
`
`PersonalWeb Techs LLC v. Google LLC,
`8 F. 4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................13
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`696 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................13
`
`Rembrandt Soc. Media LP v. Facebook, Inc.,
`950 F. Supp. 2d 876 (E.D. Va. 2013) ..................................................................................5, 27
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 40 PageID# 1309
`
`
`
`Simio, LLC v. Flexsim Software Prods.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................16
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`680 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................14
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................15
`
`State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
`751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..........................................................................................25, 26
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................18
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Communs., LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................14, 17
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................19
`
`Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB,
`No. 15–871, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91226 (D. Del. July 12, 2016).......................................28
`
`Venkee Communications, LLC v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.,
`Case No. SACV 21-1009 PSG, 2022 US Dist. LEXIS 25454 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
`26, 2022) ..................................................................................................................................29
`
`Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`983 F. Supp. 2d 700 (E.D. Va. 2013) ................................................................................26, 27
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 40 PageID# 1310
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Defendant Keysight Technologies, Inc. (“Keysight”)
`
`submits this Memorandum in support of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Centripetal Networks,
`
`Inc.’s (“Centripetal”) Complaint on the basis that (1) two Asserted Patents claim patent-ineligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) Centripetal fails to plausibly state claims of direct,
`
`indirect, or willful infringement.
`
`First, the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,609,062 and 10,193,917 fail the two-step patent
`
`eligibility test established by Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347
`
`(2014). At step one, the ’062 and ’917 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of filtering
`
`data, an age-old concept the Federal Circuit repeatedly has held reflects a patent-ineligible abstract
`
`idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(filtering emails based on rules abstract); Glasswall Solutions, Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd., 754 F. App’x
`
`996, 997-98 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“filtering electronic files and data” by comparing content to rules
`
`abstract). As the shared specification of the ’062 and ’917 patents admits, conventional
`
`methodologies for filtering data had long existed. The claims merely purport to accelerate this
`
`conventional activity using a generic computing device. The claims do not improve computer
`
`functionality but instead use computers as tools to implement their abstract concepts. Thus, like so
`
`many other functionally-claimed data filtering and processing patents the Federal Circuit has found
`
`ineligible, the patents here are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`As for step two, the claims do not recite any inventive concept that would save them from
`
`abstraction. Using an admittedly generic “packet filtering device” to perform the abstract concept
`
`of data filtering amounts to nothing more than stating an abstract idea while adding the words
`
`“apply it with a computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. The purely-functional packet filtering “rules”
`
`and “instructions” of the claims add nothing inventive, either, because they provide only a result-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 40 PageID# 1311
`
`
`
`oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Thus, in line with
`
`Federal Circuit precedent invalidating similar “black box” software claims focused on data
`
`filtering and processing, nothing in the claims of the ’062 or ’917 patents – individually or
`
`collectively – transforms their abstract focus into a patent-eligible application.
`
`Second, each infringement count fails because Centripetal has not put Keysight on notice
`
`of what is being accused of infringement. Centripetal asserts eleven patents, spanning 445 claims,
`
`against countless possible “Accused Products” and “accused technologies,” whether standing
`
`“alone or in conjunction with one another.” Centripetal does not identify the claims it asserts or
`
`show how the elements of a single claim are found in any of the accused products. Having to
`
`theoretically prepare to defend against 445 patent claims and endless product combinations puts
`
`Keysight at an unfair disadvantage. Many of the “Accused Products,” moreover, pre-date the
`
`Asserted Patents, adding further confusion. Because liability for indirect infringement (both
`
`inducement and contributory) arises only if there is direct infringement, this lack of notice is fatal
`
`to both the direct and indirect infringement claims.
`
`Finally, Centripetal’s claims for willful and indirect infringement fail for several reasons.
`
`For one, Centripetal has not alleged facts to support a plausible inference that the accused products
`
`have no substantial non-infringing uses, which is required for contributory infringement. Nor has
`
`it pleaded facts from which one could plausibly infer that Keysight had the requisite knowledge of
`
`ten of the eleven Asserted Patents. Nor does Centripetal offer any allegations from which the intent
`
`required for a charge of willfulness and indirect infringement could plausibly be inferred, or that
`
`would support that Keysight behaved egregiously. Accordingly, Centripetal’s complaint should
`
`be dismissed.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
`
`II.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 40 PageID# 1312
`
`
`
`To survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
`
`matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
`
`“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,
`
`do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A plaintiff cannot
`
`satisfy this burden through “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments”
`
`masquerading as factual allegations. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d
`
`250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009).
`
`B.
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is determined pursuant to the two-part test set forth
`
`in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). First, the court
`
`must determine whether the patent claims are directed to one of the patent-ineligible concepts—
`
`laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Id. at 217. If so, the court proceeds to the
`
`second step, and determines whether the claims contain “an element or combination of elements
`
`that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
`
`upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–218 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
`
`Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
`
`Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law suitable for resolution on a motion to
`
`dismiss. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also
`
`Asghari-Kamrani v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, No. 15-cv-478, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`87065 at *20 (E.D. Va. July 5, 2016) (granting 12(b)(6) motion and finding ineligible patent
`
`relating to centralized identification and authentication to increase security in e-commerce), aff’d
`
`737 F. App’x 542 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2018).
`
`C.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 12 of 40 PageID# 1313
`
`
`
`Direct infringement claims are subject to Iqbal/Twombly, and require more than “vague
`
`generalities” and “conclusory formulaic recitations” of infringement. Golden v. Apple Inc., 819 F.
`
`App’x 930, 931 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
`
`Although “[a] plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on an element-by-element basis,” it
`
`must nonetheless provide enough specificity to “place the alleged infringer ‘on notice of what
`
`activity . . . is being accused of infringement.’” Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342,
`
`1352 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017)). “[R]eciting the claim elements and merely concluding that the accused product has
`
`those elements” is not enough. Id. at 1353. “There must be some factual allegations that, when
`
`taken as true, articulate why it is plausible that the accused product infringes the patent claim.” Id.
`
`D.
`
`Indirect Infringement
`
`There are two forms of indirect infringement: inducement and contributory. To plead
`
`induced infringement, a complaint must contain facts plausibly showing the defendant knew of the
`
`patents. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639 (2015). The complaint must also
`
`contain facts plausibly showing the defendant “specifically intended its customers to infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit and knew that the customer’s acts constituted infringement.” CarFax, Inc. v. Red
`
`Mountain Techs., Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 404, 415 (E.D. Va. 2015) (citing In re Bill of Lading
`
`Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`“Like induced infringement, contributory infringement requires knowledge of the patent in
`
`suit and knowledge of patent infringement.” Commil, 575 U.S. at 639. In addition, a plaintiff must
`
`plead facts plausibly showing that the accused products have “no substantial non-infringing use.”
`
`Jenkins v. v. LogicMark, LLC, No. 3:16-CV-751-HEH, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10975, at *9 (E.D.
`
`Va. Jan. 25, 2017); Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1337.
`
`E. Willful Infringement
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 13 of 40 PageID# 1314
`
`
`
`To plead a claim of willful infringement, the complaint must allege the defendant (1) knew
`
`of the patents-in-suit and (2) knowingly or intentionally infringed the patents after acquiring that
`
`knowledge. Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., 946 F.3d 1367, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020); see also Rembrandt Soc. Media LP v. Facebook, Inc., 950 F. Supp. 2d 876, 884 (E.D. Va.
`
`2013) (dismissing willful infringement claims because “[Plaintiff] has not pled sufficient facts to
`
`invite the plausible inference that [Defendant] had the requisite pre-suit knowledge”). A plaintiff
`
`must “plead facts sufficient to support an inference ‘plausible on its face’ that the alleged conduct
`
`is of the egregious nature described in [Halo].” Jenkins, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10975, at *12. The
`
`Supreme Court described such conduct as “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate,
`
`consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse
`
`Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 103 (2016).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`The ’062 and ’917 Patents Are Patent-Ineligible Under Section 101
`1.
`
`The ’062 and ’917 Patents and Their Representative Claims
`
`The ’062 and ’917 patents1 share the same specification and relate to filtering data packets
`
`by comparing it against criteria specified in rules. The idea at the heart of these patents is the age-
`
`old concept of filtering data.2
`
`The patents admit that filtering data for network threats (e.g., viruses or malware) was well
`
`known before their April 17, 2015 priority date. ’062 patent at 1:19-32, 3:22-38.3 For example,
`
`
`1 The ‘062 patent is filed at Dkt. 1-7 and the ‘917 patent is filed at Dkt. 1-3.
`2 Packets are standard ways computer exchange digital data.
`3 Filtering or screening data for computer viruses was likewise “well-known” by 1998, seventeen
`years before the 2015 priority date of the ’917 and ’062 patents, and performing such filtering on
`an intermediary computer—so as to ensure files are scanned before they can reach a user’s
`computer—was a “perfectly conventional” approach. Intellectual Ventures I, 838 F.3d at 1319,
`1321.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 14 of 40 PageID# 1315
`
`
`
`they acknowledge “[m]any organizations subscribe to network-threat services” that provide
`
`reports identifying “network-threat indicators” (e.g., uniform resource locators (URLs)),
`
`associated with network threats. Id. at 1:23-37. They further acknowledge organizations used this
`
`information to review logs their network devices generated “for data corresponding to the network-
`
`threat indicators provided by such services.” Id. at 1:27-32. But this methodology was often
`
`“tedious and time consuming” and “exacerbated by the continuously evolving nature of potential
`
`threats.” Id. at 1:32-36.
`
`The ’062 and ’917 patents’ proposed solution is “rule-based network-threat detection.” Id.
`
`at 1:48-49.4 It uses packet-filtering rules applied by a packet-filtering device to determine whether
`
`packets correspond to criteria such as network-threat indicators (e.g., URLs) associated with
`
`network threats (e.g., malware). Id. at 1:49-57. Based on that determination, the packet-filtering
`
`device either prevents the packets from continuing toward their destination or allows them to
`
`continue toward their destination, by applying a metaphorically-dubbed “operator” specified by
`
`the packet-filtering rule. Id. at 1:57-61. The packet-filtering device may also generate a log entry
`
`that identifies network-threat indicator(s) and whether the packet-filtering device prevented or
`
`allowed the packet to continue toward its destination. Id. at 1:61-67. It may also communicate such
`
`information to a user device for display in a user interface. Id. at 2:1-9. A user using the interface
`
`can prompt the packet-filtering device to prevent future packets corresponding to the criteria from
`
`continuing to their respective destinations. Id. at 2:9-14.
`
`
`4 Rule-based network threat detection long predates the ’062 and ’917 patents. See, e.g.,
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56092, at *7, 28–
`34 (S.D.N.Y. April 28, 2015) (invalidating as patent-ineligible U.S. Patent No. 6,826,694, which
`issued in 2005 (11 years before the priority date of the ’062 and ’917 patents) and disclosed an
`“improved method for detecting and preventing entry of a packet containing ‘malware’” using
`“access rules”) (“Intellectual Ventures II”).
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM Document 26 Filed 02/25/22 Page 15 of 40 PageID# 1316
`
`
`
`The ’062 and ’917 patents admit the claims are implemented with generic and conventional
`
`computer components. For example, the claimed “packet-filtering device” is a generic computing
`
`device that includes “memory 208, one or more processors 210, one or more communication
`
`interfaces 212, and data bus 214.” Id. at 3:60-63. The “packet-filtering rules” that are purportedly
`
`the crux of the invention are generated in some undisclosed fashion from the reports of third-party
`
`network-threat-intelligence providers, and the packet-filtering device somehow “update[s]” its
`
`packet-filtering rules to include them. Id. at 4:65-5:12. The “operators” that cause the packet-
`
`filtering device to either prevent or allow packets to continue toward their destinations are
`
`described purely by their functions. Id. at 5:26-32. The “interface” of the user device can display
`
`an unbounded list of information, such as graphical depictions like pie charts (id. at 7:56-62),
`
`information about network threats (id. at 8:5-17), and block options (id. at 9:47-67).
`
`Additionally, the patents do not disclose any programming or other meaningful technical
`
`detail. Instead, they state that the functionality of the claimed invention can be generically
`
`“embodied in computer-usable data or computer-executable instructions, such as in one or more
`
`program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices to perform one or more
`
`functions described herein.” Id. at 16:63-67. The “program modules,” in turn, are broadly and
`
`functionally described as “routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that
`
`perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types when executed by one or more
`
`processors in a computer or other data processing device.” Id. at 16:67-17:4.
`
`The patents also do not disclose any specific arrangement of components. Instead, “[a]ny
`
`and all features in the [] claims m

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket