Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 37 Page ID #:735
`
`
`Ekwan E. Rhow - State Bar No. 174604
` erhow@birdmarella.com
`Grace W. Kang - State Bar No. 271260
` gkang@birdmarella.com
`A. Howard Matz - State Bar No. 55892
` hmatz@birdmarella.com
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER,
`WOLPERT, NESSIM,
`DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW, P.C.
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
`
`Nicholas Groombridge (pro hac vice)
` ngroombridge@paulweiss.com
`Jenny C. Wu (pro hac vice)
` jcwu@paulweiss.com
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
`WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10019-6064
`Telephone: (212) 373-3000
`Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
`
`
`
`David J. Ball, Jr. (pro hac vice)
` dball@paulweiss.com
`J. Steven Baughman (pro hac vice)
` sbaughman@paulweiss.com
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
`WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`2001 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1047
`Telephone: (202) 223-7300
`Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
`
`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
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Twitter, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
` CASE NO. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`
`REPLY MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT
`TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`
`
`Date: September 5, 2019
`Time: 8:30 a.m.
`Crtrm.: 9D
`
`
`Assigned to Hon. George H. Wu
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED, a Canadian
`corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`TWITTER, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 2 of 37 Page ID #:736
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 2 
`I.  Recurrent Flaws In BlackBerry’s Arguments ....................................................... 2 
`A.  Asserting a Technological Field of Use and Benefits Cannot Render Claims
`Patent Eligible ................................................................................................. 2 
`B.  Asserting Unclaimed Features Cannot Render Claims Patent Eligible ......... 4 
`C.  Asserting Purported Novelty Cannot Make Abstract Ideas Patentable .......... 6 
`D.  BlackBerry Cannot Avoid Dismissal With Conclusory Assertions About
`Dependent Claims That are Not Referenced in the FAC ............................... 8 
`E.  BlackBerry Cannot Avoid Dismissal With Conclusory Assertions About
`Unspecified Factual or Claim Construction Disputes .................................. 10 
`II.  The ’089 Patent .................................................................................................... 11 
`A.  The ’089 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Flagging New
`Messages Until an Inbox Has Been Checked ............................................... 11 
`B.  The ’089 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 12 
`III.  The ’182 Patent .................................................................................................... 13 
`A.  The ’182 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Inferring the
`Status of Messages in a Conversation .......................................................... 13 
`B.  The ’182 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 15 
`IV. The ’059 Patent .................................................................................................... 15 
`A.  The ’059 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Communicating Availability of Content Through a Networked Hub .......... 15 
`B.  The ’059 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 17 
`V.  The ’777 Patent .................................................................................................... 18 
`A.  The ’777 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Screening
`Repetitive Content When It Becomes Excessive ......................................... 18 
`i
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 3 of 37 Page ID #:737
`
`
`B.  The ’777 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 21 
`VI. The ’351 and ’929 Patents (the “Advertising Patents”) ...................................... 22 
`A.  The Advertising Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Assembling Targeted Advertising ................................................................ 22 
`B.  The Advertising Patents Claims Add No Inventive Concept ....................... 24 
`VII.  The ’120 Patent................................................................................................ 27 
`A.  The ’120 Patent Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Sorting,
`Analyzing, and Presenting New Messages ................................................... 27 
`B.  The ’120 Patent Claims Add No Inventive Concept .................................... 29 
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 30 
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`ii
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 4 of 37 Page ID #:738
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 2, 7
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ................................ 7, 9
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 30
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 14, 30
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ........................................................................................ 21-22
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-01844-GW(KSx), 2018 WL 4847053 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21,
`2018) ................................................................................................................. 9, 27
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) ............................................................................................. 27
`Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. 2018-1697, F. App’x. , 2019 WL 2896449
`(Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019) .................................................................................. passim
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................... passim
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 26
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... passim
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 10
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`iii
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 5 of 37 Page ID #:739
`
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc.,
`211 F. Supp.3d 669 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................... 10
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc.,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 10
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ..................................................................................... 1, 7, 27
`Dynamic Digital Depth Research PTY Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 15-5578-GW(Ex), 2016 WL 7444561 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016) ................ 8, 9
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 3, 25
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......... 13, 29
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 19-20, 23
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... passim
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 9
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 21
`Prod. Ass’n Techs. LLC v. Clique Media Grp.,
`No. CV 17-05463-GW(PJWx), 2017 WL 5664986 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
`12, 2017), aff’d, 738 F. App’x 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................ 1, 8, 10, 11
`Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service,
`868 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017), rev’d on other grounds, 139 S. Ct.
`1853 (2019) ............................................................................................................. 4
`SAP Am., Inc. v. INVESTPIC, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................. 3, 17, 18
`Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.,
` F.3d , 2019 WL 3418471 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) .................................. 7, 24
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 5
`iv
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 6 of 37 Page ID #:740
`
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 4
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CGQ, Inc.,
`675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... 29
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................... 12, 24, 28, 29
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 29
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................... passim
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`v
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 7 of 37 Page ID #:741
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`BlackBerry’s opposition is based on denial, distortion and delay. BlackBerry
`denies that its patents claim abstract ideas but fails to identify anything that would
`make them patent-eligible. It distorts the record using careful wording to suggest,
`incorrectly, that the claims purportedly recite “technological” features that in truth, if
`they are present at all, are disclosed only in the specifications. It distorts the law by
`arguing that restricting the application of an abstract idea to a particular technological
`field of use makes it patent-eligible—it does not, see ChargePoint, Inc. v.
`SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 768 (Fed. Cir. 2019)—and by arguing that novelty
`can make an abstract idea patent-eligible—it cannot, see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
`175, 190 (1981). BlackBerry attempts to delay resolution of these very serious issues
`with conclusory assertions regarding purported fact and claim construction disputes.
`But BlackBerry does not identify any actual disputes of fact and none exists.
`Similarly, there are no disputes over claim construction that would affect this motion,
`particularly in view of the Court’s Facebook/Snap claim construction order, which
`resolved all disputed constructions that BlackBerry has identified. Finally,
`BlackBerry’s attempt to delay the resolution of this motion by relying on dependent
`claims unspecified in the complaint also fails—BlackBerry itself has characterized
`the independent claims addressed in detail in Twitter’s opening brief as “exemplary,”
`and the dependent claims contain nothing patent-eligible.
`BlackBerry’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is ripe for dismissal. As this
`Court has already recognized, dismissal is warranted when the only claims
`specifically identified in the complaint are all patent-ineligible. The complaint does
`not survive just because it asserts additional unspecified claims. Under such
`circumstances, “there is insufficient factual information to state a plausible claim for
`relief.” See Prod. Ass’n Techs. LLC v. Clique Media Grp., No. CV 17-05463-
`GW(PJWx), 2017 WL 5664986, at *9–*10 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2017), aff’d, 738 F.
`App’x 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`1
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 8 of 37 Page ID #:742
`
`
`
`Recent developments in the Federal Circuit’s § 101 jurisprudence only further
`clarify that every one of BlackBerry’s asserted patents is fatally defective, and there
`is no reason for this expensive and time-consuming litigation to continue. On July 5,
`2019, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential but instructive opinion in Bridge
`and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2018-1697, ___ F. App’x. ____, 2019
`WL 2896449 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019), affirming the grant of a § 101 motion to dismiss
`despite patentee arguments that, as will be discussed further below, were strikingly
`similar to BlackBerry’s here. The district court was unmoved by the patentee’s
`arguments, and the Federal Circuit agreed: “As the district court correctly noted, it
`was not required to accept Bridge and Post’s legal conclusions as true, even if couched
`as factual allegations. That includes Bridge and Post’s repeated characterization of
`its inventions as ‘technical innovations.’” Id. at *10 (internal citation omitted). Nor
`can a patentee escape dismissal by arguing that its abstract ideas were novel:
`“Regardless of whether it is novel, the [disputed] limitation does not render the ’747
`patent-eligible. Where a claim’s ‘essential advance’ is abstract, a novel method of
`performing that advance ‘does not avoid the problem of abstractness.’” Id. at *8
`(quoting Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016)). The same is true here.
`ARGUMENT
`Recurrent Flaws In BlackBerry’s Arguments
`A. Asserting a Technological Field of Use and Benefits Cannot Render
`Claims Patent Eligible
`BlackBerry argues that the asserted claims are “technological,” by, for example
`repeatedly asserting that they cover “novel architecture.” See, e.g., Opp. 1, 4, 14.1
`But BlackBerry does not point to anything in the claims that actually provides
`technological improvements. The elements of the asserted claims describe generic
`
`1 “Opp.” refers to BlackBerry’s Opposition to Twitter’s Motion, Dkt. No. 40.
`
`I.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`2
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 9 of 37 Page ID #:743
`
`
`
`and routine computer components—even if those generic components are sometimes
`cast in jargon, such as a “proxy content server.” Mot. 24.2
`BlackBerry attempts to overcome this by asserting that its claims are directed
`to a technological context or field of use. For example, BlackBerry asserts that the
`claims are “not abstractly apply[ing] generic rules in a computer environment” and
`instead are purportedly specific to communication threads or user interfaces of
`communication devices, see Opp. 17 (’120 patent), 20 (’089 patent); provide
`purported “improvements rooted in” mobile communication, Opp. 3 (’182 patent);
`are purportedly “specifically [for] the technological environment in which social
`networks are implemented,” Opp. 4 (’777 patent); or are purportedly “in the specific
`technological context of IM communications systems,” Opp. 21 (’182 patent). But
`claiming an abstract idea within a particular context or field of use does not make the
`claims “technological” and patent-eligible. “The prohibition against patenting
`abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of [the idea] to a
`particular technological environment.” ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 768.
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly explained that so limiting an abstract idea
`does not transform the abstract idea into something more that is patent-eligible. Elec.
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We have
`treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which
`does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.”);
`SAP Am., Inc. v. INVESTPIC, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have
`already noted that limitation of the claims to a particular field of information—here,
`investment information—does not move the claims out of the realm of abstract
`ideas”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (“performing otherwise abstract activity on the Internet does not save the
`idea”). This remains true even if the abstract idea is implemented in a specific
`
`
`2 “Mot.” refers to Twitter’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Dkt. No. 39-1.
`
`3
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 10 of 37 Page ID #:744
`
`
`
`physical setting involving electronic devices, such as mobile telephone systems or
`mail processing systems. In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (“[A]lthough the claims limit the abstract idea to a particular
`environment—a mobile telephone system—that does not make the claims any less
`abstract for the step 1 analysis.”); Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service,
`868 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017), rev’d on other grounds, 139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019)
`(“[L]imiting the abstract idea to a particular environment, here a mail processing
`system with generic computing technology, does not make the claims any less
`abstract.”). Thus, it makes no difference to the eligibility inquiry if the claims are set
`in “specifically the technological environment in which social networks are
`implemented,” or “in the specific technological context of IM communications
`systems.” Opp. 4, 21.
`Moreover, a claim to an abstract idea that produces certain benefits or
`advantages is still just a claim to an abstract idea and thus still not patent-eligible. The
`benefits that can flow from abstract ideas must not be confused with what is required
`to confer patent eligibility (and wholly absent from BlackBerry’s patents)—specific
`technological improvements, claimed with particularity as to how such improvements
`are achieved. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. illustrates this distinction. 899 F.3d
`1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In BSG “the asserted claims [were] directed to the abstract
`idea of considering historical usage information while inputting data.” Id. at 1286.
`The claims “allow[ed] users to quickly and efficiently access hundreds of thousands
`or even millions of records, and still find only those few records that are relevant.”
`Id. at 1288. The Federal Circuit nonetheless concluded that “[t]hese benefits,
`however, are not improvements to database functionality. Instead, they are benefits
`that flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with a well-known database
`structure.” Id. at 1288.
`B. Asserting Unclaimed Features Cannot Render Claims Patent Eligible
`Binding precedent requires patent eligibility to be evaluated based on what is
`4
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 11 of 37 Page ID #:745
`
`
`
`actually claimed and not any additional “technological” features that might be present
`in the specification. “The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted
`Claims themselves.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839 F.3d 1138, 1149
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). In ChargePoint, the Federal Circuit explained that:
`[A]ny reliance on the specification in the § 101 analysis must always
`yield to the claim language. Ultimately, the § 101 inquiry must focus
`on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves, and the
`specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if
`those details are not claimed. Even a specification full of technical
`details about a physical invention may nonetheless conclude with
`claims that claim nothing more than the broad law or abstract idea
`underlying the claims, thus preempting all use of that law or idea.
`
`920 F.3d at 769 (quotation marks and citations omitted).
`BlackBerry repeatedly breaks this rule by invoking unclaimed features to argue
`that the patents are not directed to abstract ideas and that the claims supply an
`inventive concept. For example, the ’182 patent claims the abstract idea of inferring
`the status of earlier messages based on the status of a later message. To argue that
`“the claims specify the architecture behind the computer improvement,” BlackBerry
`cites to parts of the specification that purportedly “disclose[ ] particularized
`embodiments,” “describ[e] algorithm and data structures used to implement a
`particular embodiment,” and “detail[ ] algorithms on how to reduce notifications.”
`Opp. 22. But all such details in this and all of the asserted patents are unclaimed.
`BlackBerry does not identify any claim construction dispute to be decided by the
`Court in which BlackBerry might attempt to read such details into the claims.
`The Federal Circuit has specifically cautioned against importing non-claim
`language into the analysis where patentees assert that their inventions are based on
`“new architecture,” as BlackBerry does here, even though the new architecture is not
`found in the claims. For example in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
`Commc’ns, “[w]hile acknowledging that the specification of the ’187 patent describes
`a system architecture as a technological innovation, the district court concluded that
`
`5
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 12 of 37 Page ID #:746
`
`
`
`the claim does not recite this architecture, even taking into account [patentee’s]
`proposed constructions.” 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit
`affirmed the dismissal, reasoning “the claim—as opposed to something purportedly
`described in the specification—is missing an inventive concept.” Id. at 1338-39.
`So too here. Even where structural or architectural features that BlackBerry
`argues support eligibility may be in the patent specifications, that is insufficient,
`because “the claim[s] do[ ] not recite this architecture.” Id. As another example, in
`the Advertising Patents, one of the unclaimed features that BlackBerry argues should
`confer eligibility is that “the architecture of the inventions is scalable.” Opp. 9. This
`very feature was also at issue in Two-Way Media and specifically dismissed by the
`Federal Circuit as unclaimed: “While the specification may describe a purported
`innovative ‘scalable architecture,’ [the asserted claim] does not.” 874 F.3d at 1339.
`Indeed, BlackBerry’s arguments should fare even worse, because the purported
`“scalability” that BlackBerry invokes appears nowhere in any of its asserted patents.
`BlackBerry’s improper reliance on language not found in the claims is
`pervasive, as is BlackBerry’s use of careful wording to suggest the claims contain
`limitations that they do not in fact contain. For example, BlackBerry asserts without
`citation that the ’351 Patent “allows for selective transmission of only certain parts,
`cutting down on data transmission and battery usage” when the patent never mentions
`batteries or anything about minimizing data transmission. Opp. 9. Likewise,
`BlackBerry bases its arguments for the ’182 Patent on specification Figures 2-8 but
`none of these implementation details are captured in the claims. Opp. 22. And
`BlackBerry quotes the ’777 specification as describing a “hazard to bandwidth and
`other traffic resources,” but this is not contained in or addressed by the claims. Opp.
`27. Many further examples appear in the patent-by-patent analysis below.
`C. Asserting Purported Novelty Cannot Make Abstract Ideas Patentable
`BlackBerry repeatedly urges that the asserted claims are novel over the prior
`art. See, e.g., Opp. 1 (asserting “novel architectures”), 2, 4, 15, 20, 23, 26; see also
`
`6
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 13 of 37 Page ID #:747
`
`
`
`Opp. 15, 20, 23, 26 (describing patents “against the technological context of” the
`alleged invention date). But this comparison of the claims against the prior art misses
`the point. A novel abstract idea is still ineligible: “The question therefore of whether
`a particular invention is novel is wholly apart from whether the invention falls into a
`category of statutory subject matter.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 190 (internal quotation
`marks omitted).
`On July 5, 2019, the Federal Circuit confirmed once again that the eligibility
`inquiry is distinct from the novelty inquiry: “Regardless of whether it is novel, the
`‘embedding’ limitation does not render the ’747 patent-eligible. Where a claim’s
`‘essential advance’ is abstract, a novel method of performing that advance ‘does not
`avoid the problem of abstractness.’” Bridge and Post, 2019 WL 2896449, at *8
`(quoting DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1263). And on July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit
`repeated: “[M]erely reciting an abstract idea by itself in a claim—even if the idea is
`novel and non-obvious—is not enough to save it from ineligibility.” Solutran, Inc. v.
`Elavon, Inc., ___ F.3d __, 2019 WL 3418471, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019). These
`holdings confirm that un-patentable subject matter does not become patentable just
`because someone is the first to think of it. DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1263 (“Affinity
`asserts that the [purported invention] was novel as of the priority date of the patent.
`Even assuming that is true, it does not avoid the problem of abstractness.”). Thus,
`BlackBerry’s assertions that it is an innovator are, in the § 101 context, window
`dressing, even if assumed true for purposes of this motion to dismiss.
`BlackBerry’s repeated assertions that the asserted patents provide advances
`over the prior art thus elide the relevant question under § 101, namely, whether the
`claims supply inventive concepts beyond the abstract ideas to which they are directed.
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 221 (2014). Here, the claims
`do not. A comparison to the prior art cannot substitute for a proper step-two analysis.
`DIRECTV, 838 F.3d at 1263. Under the proper step-two analysis, the asserted claims
`are directed to abstract ideas implemented on “a generic computer to perform generic
`
`7
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 14 of 37 Page ID #:748
`
`
`
`computer functions.” Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1313, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`generally Mot. Even if BlackBerry were the first to practice these abstract ideas, that
`would not make them patent-eligible.
`D. BlackBerry Cannot Avoid Dismissal With Conclusory Assertions
`About Dependent Claims That are Not Referenced in the FAC
`In its opening brief, Twitter addressed all of the claims BlackBerry asserted in
`the FAC, and Twitter also pointed out that the FAC alleges that those claims are
`“exemplary.” See FAC ¶¶ 80, 96, 113, 143, 164, 188, 215. BlackBerry now asserts
`that the Court must also consider dependent claims that BlackBerry did not mention
`in the FAC. See Opp. 7. BlackBerry’s suggestion that this Court must specifically
`analyze unidentified claim limitations to grant dismissal is incorrect. See Clique,
`2017 WL 5664986, at *9–*10 (granting dismissal where the complaint asserted “at
`least Claim 1” and the Court held that claim to be patent-ineligible), aff'd 738 F.
`App’x 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Court should grant Twitter’s motion because all of
`the claims identified in the FAC are ineligible.
`BlackBerry’s argument that Twitter did not analyze whether the identified
`claims are representative of claims not specified in the FAC also should be rejected.
`It was BlackBerry that pleaded in the complaint that the asserted claims are
`“exemplary.” See FAC ¶¶ 80, 96, 113, 143, 164, 188, 215. And despite its conclusory
`denials, BlackBerry does not seriously identify any error in Twitter’s observations
`that, for example, Claim 1 of the ’182 patent “is merely Claim 4 drafted as a method
`claim,” Mot. 7, and Claim 1 of the ’059 Patent “is a method claim that recites the acts
`of the claimed apparatuses of Claims 11 and 16,” Mot. 10. BlackBerry’s citation to
`Dynamic Digital Depth Research PTY Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc. is thus unavailing. Opp.
`7 (citing No. 15-5578-GW(Ex), 2016 WL 7444561 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2016)). In that
`case, unlike here, the movant’s representative-claim discussion consisted of “a
`footnote” and, unlike here, the plaintiff had not pled that the asserted claims were
`“exemplary.” 2016 WL 744561 at *6.
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW (KSx)
`8
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’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 43 Filed 08/15/19 Page 15 of 37 Page ID #:749
`
`
`
`BlackBerry also provides an Appendix of dependent claims that BlackBerry
`did not mention in the FAC and thus Twitter did not address in its motion. This would
`be insufficient to avoid dismissal, as in Clique, even if BlackBerry had attempted to
`provide r