`
`
`
`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