Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:688
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188)
`jamesasperger@quinnemanuel.com
`Yury Kapgan (Bar No. 218366)
`yurykapgan@quinnemanuel.com
`865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`Counsel for Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)
`jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION
`Edward R. McGah, Jr (Bar No. 97719)
`emcgah@blackberry.com
`Vice President, Deputy General
`Counsel—Litigation
`41 Ticknor Place
`Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
`Telephone: (650) 581-4750
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`a Canadian corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`TWITTER, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED’S
`OPPOSITION TO
`TWITTER, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Date: August 29, 2019
`Time: 8:30 a.m.
`Courtroom: 9D
`Hon. George H. Wu
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:689
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................... 5
`
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`The ’351 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter .................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step One: The Novel Technical Architecture Is Not Abstract ..... 7
`
`Step Two: The Inventive Concept Precludes Dismissal ............ 11
`
`B.
`
`The ’929 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter .................................. 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step One: The Novel Technical Architecture Is Not Abstract ... 13
`
`Step Two: The Inventive Concept Precludes Dismissal ............ 14
`
`C.
`
`The ’120 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter .................................. 15
`
`1.
`
`Step One: The Novel Graphical User Interface Is Not
`Abstract ....................................................................................... 15
`
`2.
`
`Step Two: The Inventive Concept Precludes Dismissal ............ 17
`
`D.
`
`The ’089 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter .................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`Step One: The Novel Graphical User Interface Is Not
`Abstract ....................................................................................... 18
`
`2.
`
`Step Two: The Inventive Concept Precludes Dismissal ............ 19
`
`E.
`
`The ’182 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter .................................. 20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step One: The Novel Technical Architecture Is Not Abstract ... 20
`
`Step Two: The Inventive Concept Precludes Dismissal ............ 22
`
`F.
`
`The ’059 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter .................................. 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step One: The Novel Technical Architecture Is Not Abstract ... 23
`
`Step Two: The Inventive Concept Precludes Dismissal ............ 25
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:690
`
`
`
`G.
`
`The ’777 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter .................................. 26
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step One: The Novel Technical Architecture Is Not Abstract ... 26
`
`Step Two: The Inventive Concept Precludes Dismissal ............ 29
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 30
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:691
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
` 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................... passim
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
` 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ..................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
` 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 25, 26
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
` 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................ 6
`
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
` 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. passim
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
` 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ......................................................................................... 5
`
`Berg v. Popham,
` 412 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 5
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
` No. 18-1844, 2018 WL 4847053
`(C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) ....................................................................... passim
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
` No. 18-1817, 2019 WL 2588278
`(Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) ......................................................................... passim
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
` 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 24
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
` 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. passim
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
` 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................ passim
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. passim
`
`Dynamic Digital Depth Research PTY Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
` No. 15-5578, 2016 WL 7444561 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016) ............................. 7
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
` 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 12, 16
`
`Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
` 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................ 30
`-iii-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:692
`
`
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................. passim
`
`Erickson v. Pardus,
` 551 U.S. 89 (2007) ........................................................................................... 5
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
` 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 19, 20
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
` 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................ 10, 27
`
`IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc.,
` 757 F. App’x 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................... 27, 29
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 11
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
` 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 16, 28
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
` 896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 28
`
`McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
` 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 11, 29
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
` 76 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................. 11
`
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 22, 29
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
` 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 25
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`
` 918 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................... 10
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, INC.,
` 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................... 9, 10, 16
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
` 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. 9, 19
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
` 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 21
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
` 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`Statutory Authorities
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:693
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Twitter’s Motion fails to address the concrete technological improvements of the
`
`subject inventions. Indeed, this Court previously rejected Facebook and Snap’s
`identical attempts to invalidate three of the same patents at issue here.1 For all seven
`
`patents at issue, Twitter improperly characterizes the claims at a higher level of
`
`abstraction than permitted under relevant precedent, and glosses over key claim terms
`
`and their technological nature. Twitter also improperly draws all inferences in its own
`
`favor, and ignores factual disputes precluding dismissal at this stage. As set forth in
`
`BlackBerry’s pleadings, the inventions here comprise non-abstract, novel architectures
`
`and specific methods to solve technological problems that arose in the context of
`
`wireless communications systems, mobile phones and online social networks.
`
`The ’351 and ’929 patents (which this Court has previously upheld) describe a
`
`novel architecture for packaging and delivering content and advertising information to
`
`mobile devices in a faster and more efficient manner than previously possible. The
`
`inventors were faced with a technological problem of how to efficiently transmit data to
`
`mobile devices with limited processing power, bandwidth and battery life in 2001 and
`
`2002. At that time, information on the Internet was designed for delivery and display
`
`on desktop computers, not mobile devices. To address the constraints of such devices,
`
`these inventions reduce the bandwidth and time required for mobile phone users to
`
`consume content and advertisements. For example, the inventions make only relevant
`
`portions of information available to a mobile device based on specific criteria. These
`
`inventions solve specific technological problems that arose in the context of resource-
`
`constrained mobile communications and the Internet; they are not some abstract idea or
`
`series of steps that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Twitter’s
`
`assertion that the claims do no more than sort and store information amounts to an
`
`
`1 BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-1844, 2018 WL 4847053, at *5-8, *14-
`15 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) (Wu, J.).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:694
`
`
`
`improper description of the claims at a high level of abstraction and untethered from the
`
`claim language—an approach that both the Federal Circuit and this Court have rejected.
`
`The ’120 patent (which this Court has held to be “drawn to a technological
`
`improvement over other communication device messaging systems rather than . . . to an
`
`abstract idea”) addresses a problem that became acute largely after the popularization of
`
`smartphones—namely incessant new message notifications. The invention permits
`
`users to selectively silence such notifications on a per-thread basis, suppressing
`
`notifications for only some rather than all communications. It does so by enabling
`
`users to selectively override notification settings and to display silenced messages in a
`
`visually distinct manner on the device—a specific and substantial improvement over
`
`the all-or-nothing approach in prior messaging systems. Twitter’s claim that the
`
`invention is directed to the abstract idea of sorting, analyzing, and presenting new
`
`messages again improperly glosses over specific claim elements and ignores the
`
`problem that the invention solves and how it does so.
`
`The ’089 patent was the result of a rather counterintuitive observation made by
`
`its inventors: the proliferation of electronic messages for many mobile phone users
`
`rendered largely useless the prior art system of displaying a numeric count to convey
`
`the number of new, unopened messages in the user’s inbox. The count could become
`
`so large as to be ultimately overwhelming or irrelevant. The inventors addressed this
`
`issue with a novel communications system that displays a new message indicator on a
`
`home screen of the device or application when a new message is received, and resets
`
`the indicator when the device switches from the home screen to a screen that contains a
`
`list and preview of received messages (e.g., an inbox) even if the user does not open the
`
`new message. Thus, after exiting the inbox, the user knows that any subsequent change
`
`in the new message indicator indicates the arrival of new messages, not merely that
`
`unopened messages are in the user’s inbox. This obviates the need for users with a
`
`large number of unopened messages to constantly check their inbox to determine
`
`whether a new message was received. Twitter ignores applicable precedent to argue the
`-2-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:695
`
`
`
`patent is abstract, but like other patents the Federal Circuit has upheld, the ’089 patent
`
`is directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in
`
`electronic devices—a specific improvement to conventionally programmed behavior in
`
`prior art graphical user interfaces. It is thus not an abstract idea.
`
`The ’182 patent reduces redundant notifications in electronic messaging systems
`
`based on a novel architecture. Prior to this invention, electronic messaging systems
`
`provided senders with notifications for each sent message, such as that the message
`
`was delivered or read. This required bandwidth and resources that otherwise could
`
`have been used for other communications. The invention optimizes electronic
`
`messaging systems by limiting status notifications to the last sent of a number of
`
`messages and inferring the status for the earlier messages, thereby providing the sender
`
`a single status notification for multiple electronic messages and preserving network
`
`bandwidth and other resources. The claims are therefore directed to a particular manner
`
`of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices and thus are not
`
`abstract. Twitter again glosses over the specific limitations in this patent that provide
`
`concrete technological improvements rooted in mobile communications.
`
`The ’059 patent describes a novel communications system to reduce redundant
`
`data transfers by mobile devices. In the prior art, to share content, a mobile device
`
`would download the content and then upload it to a server for delivery to another
`
`device. Under the system described in the ’059 patent, the same mobile device can
`
`share content via a data hub server that already has the content stored thereon, thereby
`
`avoiding the need for the mobile device to first download and then upload the content
`
`to be shared with another device. Users of this patent benefitted from more efficient
`
`use of bandwidth, battery and other resources in resource-constrained mobile devices.
`
`Twitter’s claim that the patent is directed to an abstract idea of communicating the
`
`availability of content through a networked hub ignores the language of the claims,
`
`which provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem—i.e., a
`
`specific structure that receives and transmits representational data using directed
`-3-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:696
`
`
`
`transmissions to and from mobile wireless devices, thereby minimizing the amount of
`
`data sent by mobile devices and reducing unnecessary traffic on the network.
`
`Finally, the ’777 patent addresses an issue unique to online social networks: how
`
`to constrain the rapid proliferation of potentially harmful or otherwise undesirable
`
`content, such as misinformation, defamatory statements and bullying, which can
`
`cascade through the network, using up valuable resources. It is specifically the
`
`technological environment in which social networks are implemented and exist that
`
`allows for proliferation of such content at a rate that any counterpoint or corrective
`
`communications are rendered ineffective—thereby resulting in potentially irrevocable
`
`damage to the target of the undesirable content, while using up valuable network
`
`resources in the process. The inventors recognized the need for a technological
`
`improvement to prior art systems to curb the proliferation of such content, while
`
`preserving free speech and avoiding censorship. Their solution was a novel
`
`technological architecture using a two-tiered approach to identify potentially harmful
`
`content and selectively adjust notification of new messages containing similar content.
`
`In so doing, the invention interrupts the “circular mill” phenomenon unique to online
`
`social networks, where undesirable content rapidly snowballs and inundates network
`
`resources and user devices. The patent overrides the default programmed behavior of
`
`the prior art systems, which uniformly allow receipt and notification of all messages
`
`regardless of content. Twitter’s argument that the patent is directed to an abstract idea
`
`of screening repetitive content when it becomes excessive again ignores both the
`
`problem in the prior art that the invention solves and how it does so, including specific
`
`claim limitations such as selective overriding of default message sharing settings on the
`
`basis of a specific algorithm. This patent does not protect an abstract idea, but rather a
`
`specific and substantial improvement over prior social networks and systems—prior art
`
`systems that failed to identify, let alone manage, harmful communications.
`
`As explained further below, Twitter fails to carry its heavy burden to prove by
`
`clear and convincing evidence that the asserted claims are invalid.
`-4-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:697
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`An action cannot be dismissed at the pleading stage if a complaint alleges
`
`“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
`
`v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court must accept all allegations of
`
`material fact in the complaint as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable
`
`to the plaintiff, draw all reasonable inferences from well-pleaded factual allegations,
`
`and resolve all doubts in favor of the pleader. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94
`
`(2007); Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005).
`
`“A patent is presumed valid, and the burden of establishing invalidity of a claim
`
`rests on the party asserting invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.” Core Wireless
`
`Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing 35
`
`U.S.C. § 282). The § 101 invalidity inquiry involves a two-step analysis. A challenger
`
`must first demonstrate that the claims as a whole are “directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concept” such as an abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 218
`
`(2014). If the challenger carries its burden at step one, it must then also show that the
`
`claims lack an “inventive concept”—that is, the claim elements when considered both
`
`individually and as a combination involve no more than “well-understood, routine, and
`
`conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v.
`
`Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is necessarily
`
`a question of fact. Id. “[P]lausible and specific factual allegations that aspects of the
`
`claims are inventive are sufficient” to defeat a motion to dismiss. Cellspin Soft, Inc. v.
`
`Fitbit, Inc., No. 18-1817, 2019 WL 2588278, at *8 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) (court
`
`erred by not accepting as true well-pleaded allegations regarding inventiveness).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`The asserted patents are directed to technological solutions to specific technical
`
`problems recognized by the inventors, and thus are not abstract under applicable
`
`precedent. For example, the Federal Circuit has held as patent eligible claims—like
`
`those here—“directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer.” Enfish,
`-5-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:698
`
`
`
`LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, it has upheld
`
`claims—like those here—that are “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order
`
`to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR
`
`Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Also eligible
`
`are claims, as in the ’120, ’089, and ’182 patents, that are “improvements to electronic
`
`graphical user interfaces (GUIs), particularly those that simplify the display of data and
`
`improve the ease of navigation.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1356.
`
`BlackBerry has alleged in detail how each of the inventions was not well-
`
`understood, routine, or conventional and provided specific advantages over the prior
`
`art. Dkt. 36 ¶¶ 72-77, 88-93, 105-110, 134-140, 155-161, 180-185, 206-212. At a
`
`minimum, these allegations raise factual issues precluding dismissal. Aatrix, 882 F.3d
`
`at 1126-28. Moreover, to the extent the factual issues raise claim construction disputes,
`
`“it will ordinarily be desirable—and often necessary—to resolve claim construction
`
`disputes prior to a § 101 analysis.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of
`
`Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Twitter must establish invalidity of each claim by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1364. Twitter offers no record evidence—
`
`let alone the clear and convincing sort—to support its contention that the claims recite
`
`patent-ineligible subject matter. Cellspin, 2019 WL 2588278, at *8 (vacating dismissal
`
`where patentee “made specific, plausible factual allegations that aspects of the claims
`
`are inventive”); Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1008-09 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(vacating court’s holding that patent claims were invalid because determination was
`
`“couched in conclusory language” and “pointed to no record evidence that support[ed]
`
`its ultimate conclusion”). Twitter also directs its arguments to only a cherry-picked
`
`subset of limitations for each claim it chooses to challenge—ignoring other key claim
`
`limitations as well as their combination. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18; BASCOM Glob.
`
`Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Thus Twitter addresses only what it perceives to be the claimed inventions—not the
`-6-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:699
`
`
`
`actual claimed inventions in light of the problem specifically identified in the prior art
`
`systems. Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1007-08 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (focusing on the “particular way” in which the actual “technical solution” solved
`
`the prior art’s “technological problem”); Enfish, 822 F. 3d at 1335-39 (same).
`
`Moreover, while BlackBerry has alleged as “non-limiting example[s]” that
`
`Twitter infringes “at least” certain enumerated claims of each asserted patent, by no
`
`means are such claims representative of all other asserted claims for any validity
`
`determination. Indeed, each claim recites specific limitations that stand on their own.
`
`Given each claim is presumed valid and Twitter bears the burden to prove invalidity of
`
`each claim by clear and convincing evidence, Twitter’s approach of designating claims
`
`as representative without any analysis is improper. Cf. BlackBerry, 2018 WL 4847053,
`
`at *11 (dependent claims did not recite patent-ineligible subject matter as they included
`
`additional concepts unaddressed by challenger’s arguments regarding the representative
`
`independent claim); Dynamic Digital Depth Research PTY Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No.
`
`15-5578, 2016 WL 7444561, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016) (Wu, J.) (“Although
`
`Defendants contend in a footnote that there are no meaningful distinctions among the
`
`claims, this conclusory assertion is far from clear.”). An invalidity analysis under § 101
`
`may be performed based on one or more representative claims, but only after
`
`conducting an analysis to establish the claim(s) as representative—not by a party’s ipse
`
`dixit proclamation that a particular claim is representative, as Twitter has done here.
`
`Mot. 7 n.1. Although Twitter has failed to provide any such analysis, to the extent this
`
`Court considers Twitter’s contention, Appendix A sets forth examples of claims and
`
`highlights distinct claim elements that Twitter has failed to address.
`
`A. The ’351 Patent Claims Eligible Subject Matter
`
`1.
`
`Step One: The Novel Technical Architecture Is Not Abstract
`
`The ’351 patent was conceived and reduced to practice no later than 2001. Back
`
`then, an enormous amount of content was available from such sources as servers on the
`
`Internet. ’351 patent at 1:32-43. In general, though, those information sources were
`-7-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:700
`
`
`
`designed for desktop computers connected through wired connections, not mobile
`
`devices connected over wireless networks where battery life, screen size, and
`
`bandwidth usage are critical considerations for any system design. The inventors thus
`
`recognized that, were conventional mobile devices to obtain information using methods
`
`consistent with “the traditional Internet model” at the time, “the amount of data to be
`
`reconciled between the service provider and the mobile device can become very large
`
`leading
`
`to bandwidth difficulties, particularly when
`
`the mobile device
`
`is
`
`communicating via a wireless packet-switched network or over a traditional paging
`
`network . . . .” U.S. Prov. Pat. App. No. 60/307,265 at 2-3. The inventors also
`
`recognized that directly synchronizing mobile devices with information sources placed
`
`an unreasonable burden on mobile devices themselves, which are inherently
`
`constrained in terms of battery and processing power. The ’351 patent solved this
`
`technological problem by making only relevant portions of the existing information
`
`sources available to a mobile device over a wireless network, with the claims directed
`
`to a novel and improved technical architecture for aggregating, enhancing, storing, and
`
`sending content and advertising information to mobile devices in a targeted and
`
`efficient manner over wireless networks.
`
`Twitter’s claim that the specification lacks any technical challenge (Mot. 20-21)
`
`is belied by the specification’s description of technical challenges in prior art
`
`“[s]ystems for transmitting information from databases in a computer network . . . over
`
`a wireless network to a mobile device . . . [that t]ypically . . . utilize[d] a
`
`‘synchronization’ or ‘pull’ method” “executed at the mobile device” “to connect the
`
`computer network and initiate the transfer of information over the wireless network” to
`
`the mobile device. ’351 patent at 1:32-39. “[S]ome paging networks offer[ed] services
`
`to automatically ‘push’ . . . information,” but they too were limited to pushing “small
`
`amounts of information” to “alphanumeric paging devices.” Id. at 1:39-41. Prior art
`
`systems thus could not transmit large amounts of advertising and content information to
`
`mobile devices over a wireless network—a technological problem the inventions solve.
`-8-
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 40 Filed 07/24/19 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:701
`
`
`
`Moreover, the architecture of the inventions is scalable, capable of pre-processing a
`
`large amount of information. Indeed, claim 1 teaches a specific manner in which to
`
`achieve that scalability: (1) using a specialized proxy content server to preemptively
`
`aggregate information collected from diverse sources, classify each piece of
`
`information by pre-defined “channel” or “category” to quickly determine which
`
`information to send to which mobile device, and store it in a computer memory location
`
`associated with that channel or category; (2) transmit specific data in a specific manner
`
`using three separate categories of advertising information (that is, with static, dynamic,
`
`and default advertising information), id. at 7:35-49, which allows for selective
`
`transmission of only certain parts, cutting down on data transmission and battery usage;
`
`and (3) transmit the specific data to a mobile device based on “feedback signals” that
`
`indicate device location, see, e.g., claim 1, thereby minimizing the data sent to the
`
`mobile device and targeting specific relevant information for the mobile device user.
`
`Because the content is selected and filtered before delivery to the user, neither the
`
`small-screen resource-constra