Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:119
`
`JOSHUA A. KREVITT, SBN 208552
`jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com
`PAUL E. TORCHIA (pro hac vice)
`ptorchia@gibsondunn.com
`FLORINA YEZRIL (pro hac vice)
`fyezril@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`Telephone: 212.351.4000
`Facsimile: 212.351.4035
`
`JENNIFER J. RHO, SBN 254312
`jrho@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`ANDREW ROBB, SBN 291438
`arobb@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`Telephone: 650.849.5300
`Facsimile: 650.849.5333
`Attorneys for Defendant Infor, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT INFOR, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Hearing
`November 8, 2019
`Time:
`10:30 AM
` Courtroom 10A
`Judge:
`Hon. Josephine L. Staton
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`INFOR, INC.,
`
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:120
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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.
`II.
`
`D.
`
`B.
`
`Page
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`Background ........................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Parties .................................................................................................. 2
`B.
`Uniloc’s Lawsuits Related to the Asserted Patents .................................... 3
`C.
`The 578 Patent ............................................................................................ 4
`1.
`The Specification and Claims of the 578 Patent .............................. 4
`2.
`Judge Schroeder’s Ineligibility Decision ......................................... 5
`3.
`The Federal Circuit’s Opinion ......................................................... 6
`4.
`Uniloc’s Infringement Allegations Against Infor ............................ 7
`The 293 Patent ............................................................................................ 8
`1.
`The Specification and Claims of the 293 Patent .............................. 8
`2.
`Judge Schroeder’s Ineligibility Decision ....................................... 10
`3.
`The Federal Circuit’s Opinion ....................................................... 10
`4.
`Uniloc’s Infringement Allegations Against Infor .......................... 11
`III. Legal Standard .................................................................................................... 12
`A. Dismissal is Warranted When a Pleading Demonstrates Non-
`Infringement ............................................................................................. 13
`Dismissal is Warranted When a Pleading Omits Elements of the
`Claims ....................................................................................................... 14
`IV. Argument ............................................................................................................ 15
`A. Uniloc Has Failed to Plead Plausible Infringement of the 578 Patent .... 15
`1.
`Uniloc’s Infringement Allegations are Inconsistent with Core
`Limitations of the Claims as Recognized by the Federal
`Circuit ............................................................................................ 16
`Uniloc Ignores Other Requirements of the Asserted Claims ........ 19
`2.
`Uniloc has Failed to Plead Plausible Infringement of the 293 Patent ..... 20
`B.
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 21
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:121
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`570 F. App’x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 13, 14, 18, 20
`Apollo Fin., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`190 F. Supp. 3d 939 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................................... 17
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................. 13
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp.,
`189 F. Supp. 3d 768, 775 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ......................................................... 16, 21
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................. 13
`e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-05790, 2016 WL 4427209 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) ....................... 16
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp.,
`No. 8:12-cv-00511, 2012 WL 12905300 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012) ....................... 15
`Horowitz v. Yishun Chen,
`No. 8:17-cv-00432, 2018 WL 6219928 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2018) ............ 16, 18, 21
`In re Bill of Lading Trans. & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................... 14, 18, 20
`Int'l Techs. & Sys. Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd,
`No. 8-17-cv-01748, 2018 WL 4963129 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2018) ............ 15, 18, 21
`Metricolor LLC v. L'Oreal S.A.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00364, 2018 WL 5099496 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018) .................. 15, 17
`N. Star Innovations Inc. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-01833, 2018 WL 3155258 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2018),
`report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-01833,
`2018 WL 3155708 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2018) ................................................... 16, 22
`Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler,
`884 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 15
`Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 8:11-cv-01681, 2012 WL 1835680 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) ........................ 14
`Starr v. Baca,
`652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 17
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 15
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:122
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ............................................................. passim
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................... passim
`Weisbuch v. Cnty. of L.A.,
`119 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:123
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`Abbreviation
`Infor
`
`Uniloc
`
`Complaint
`
`578 patent
`
`293 patent
`
`Uniloc App. Br.
`
`Uniloc Reply App. Br.
`
`Torchia Decl.1
`
`
`
`
`Document
`Defendant Infor, Inc.
`
`Plaintiff Uniloc 2017, LLC
`
`Uniloc’s Original Complaint filed before this Court
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293
`
`Opening Brief of Appellants Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`and Uniloc USA, Inc. filed in Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
`ADP, LLC, No. 18-1132, D.I. 53 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22,
`2018)
`Corrected Reply Brief of Appellants Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. filed in
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, No. 18-1132, D.I. 67
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2018)
`Declaration of Paul E. Torchia in Support of this
`Motion
`
`
`1 Citations in the form “Document (Ex. _)” are citations to documents attached to the
`declaration of Paul E. Torchia in support of this brief.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:124
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc’s Complaint is facially deficient as it fails to plausibly allege that Infor
`meets key requirements of the claims of the asserted patents. Uniloc accuses Infor of
`infringement of two patents that relate to centralized management and distribution of
`software applications over a network. Both patents were held ineligible as abstract in a
`prior district court decision. On appeal, Uniloc narrowly saved the patents by
`convincing the Federal Circuit that the claims require specific technical features,
`including the way in which software is configured and the specific architecture of the
`network. Yet, in its Complaint, Uniloc completely ignores the very requirements it
`convinced the Federal Circuit were at the heart of its alleged invention. Because
`Uniloc does not—and indeed cannot—plead a plausible basis for infringement, its
`Complaint should be dismissed.
`Specifically, with respect to the 578 patent, Uniloc evaded a finding of
`ineligibility by persuading the Federal Circuit to hold that the claims are directed to a
`system “that allows for on-demand installation of two-tier customized applications,”
`whereby the applications are customized for individual users based on both a “user set”
`and an “administrator set” of a “plurality of configurable preferences.” Uniloc USA,
`Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 F. App’x 890, 898 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Uniloc nowhere alleges
`that Infor’s products do this. Similarly, with respect to the 293 patent, Uniloc
`convinced the Federal Circuit that the claims require a network architecture in which
`applications are distributed by an “on demand server” working in conjunction with a
`“centralized network management server” that sends a specific type of “file packet” to
`“enable the further functionality of initiating on-demand registration of the
`application.” Id. at 897. Again, Uniloc fails completely to allege—nor could it
`allege—that Infor’s products meet these limitations.
`Uniloc's failure to make these critical allegations is no mere oversight. It is the
`product of the undeniable fact that the accused product, Infor Workforce Management,
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:125
`
`does not remotely resemble these patents. Infor Workforce Management is not a
`system for on-demand installation of applications customized for individual users, nor
`is it a system for managing centralized distribution of applications to clients. It is a
`web-based human resources software tool that allows employers to better manage their
`businesses, for example by enabling employees to enter their desired shifts or time off,
`and employers to approve or deny those requests. None of these things are mentioned
`in the patents, which do not relate to human resources software. And conversely, none
`of the core patented technologies mentioned by the Federal Circuit appear anywhere in
`the product literature Uniloc cited in the Complaint.
`Infor conferred with Uniloc well in advance of filing this motion and asked it to
`either dismiss the Complaint or explain how it could be cured by an amendment.
`Torchia Decl. at ¶ 2–3. Uniloc did neither, but rather argued that it should be
`permitted to take discovery and present an infringement theory later. Id. That is not
`permitted under settled law, and this Court should not allow it. This case has no merit.
`It is exactly the type of case that the precedent of this Court and the Federal Circuit
`recognize should be dismissed on the pleadings, before a defendant is unjustly forced
`to bear the significant expense and disruption imposed by discovery in a patent case.
`For all of these reasons, Infor requests that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice.
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`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
`
`A. The Parties
`Defendant Infor is an enterprise software provider. Since Infor's inception in
`2002, it has grown into a company with over 17,000 employees in offices around the
`world, including an office in the Los Angeles area. Infor offers an expansive suite of
`software products, servicing thousands of customers across a diverse range of
`industries, including health care providers, industrial manufacturers, food & beverage
`manufacturers, high tech companies, financial institutions, and government agencies.
`The product at issue in this case, Infor® Workforce Management, is a workforce
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:126
`
`management solution that covers all the processes needed to forecast labor needs,
`schedule and deploy the workforce, track the nature and amount of time worked, and
`manage the total cost of labor.
`Uniloc is a patent assertion entity. Uniloc has sued hundreds of companies for
`patent infringement over the past 15 years based on patents it purchased from other
`entities. Uniloc has filed over 500 lawsuits in the past six years alone.
`B. Uniloc’s Lawsuits Related to the Asserted Patents
`Uniloc has sued 26 defendants on the two patents asserted in this case, Uniloc's
`578 and 293 patents. Fourteen cases are currently pending across five different courts.
`Uniloc purchased a series of patents from IBM on February 18, 2016, including
`the two patents in suit. A few months later, Uniloc began a campaign to extract
`payments from a wide array of different companies offering diverse software products
`with a series of lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
`of Texas. Uniloc targeted, for example, software related to antivirus and cybersecurity
`(2:16-cv-00393; 2:16-cv-00394; 2:16-cv-00396) gaming (2:16-cv-00395; 2:16-cv-
`00397; 2:16-cv-00398, 2:16-cv-00858; 2:17-cv-00284), online education (2:16-cv-
`00859), file sharing (2:16-cv-00860), cloud computing (2:16-cv-00744), travel and
`expense management (2:16-cv-00743), payroll (2:16-cv-01316; 2:16-cv-00741), tax
`preparation (2:17-cv-00468), and health care (2:17-cv-00407).
`In 2017, Uniloc sued Infor in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging
`infringement of four of these patents. (E.D. Tex. 2:17-cv-00376). Infor moved to
`dismiss this complaint on the basis of improper venue. In early 2017, after the issue
`was fully briefed, Uniloc voluntarily dismissed the case against Infor and refiled it in
`the Northern District of Texas. Shortly thereafter, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern
`District of Texas determined that all four of Uniloc's asserted patents were ineligible.
`See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 279 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Tex. 2017). Uniloc
`appealed, and dismissed its action against Infor while that appeal was pending.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:127
`
`
`In May of 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Schroeder's finding of
`ineligibility of two of the patents, but reversed with respect to the 578 and 293 patents
`asserted in this case. Uniloc USA, 772 F. App’x 890. Following that appeal, Uniloc
`sued Infor before this Court, alleging infringement of these two surviving patents.
`C. The 578 Patent
`1.
`The Specification and Claims of the 578 Patent
`The specification of the 578 patent is directed to systems and methods for
`managing and installing customized, configurable applications to client devices over a
`network. Specifically, the specification discloses “[a]n application program having a
`plurality of configurable preferences and a plurality of authorized users is installed on
`a server,” which is sometimes referred to as the “application server” or “on-demand
`server.” 578 patent at 3:52–55; 5:11–13. That server distributes an “application
`launcher” for the program to user devices. Id. at 3:61–67 (“The on-demand server also
`provides a second, or application launcher, program to client stations on the network
`and served by the on-demand server.”). The application launcher allows a user to
`request execution of a client application, such as Lotus Notes. Id. at 3:61–65; 12:13–
`16. In the preferred embodiment, only the application launcher is delivered to the
`client at first, and the underlying application code is delivered to the client at the time
`user requests it with execution with the launcher. Id. at 11:32–38; 11:55–12:12. In an
`alternative embodiment, the code for the underlying application code is delivered to
`the client at the same time as the code for the application launcher. Id. at 11:47–54.
`In either situation, the copy of the application delivered to the client is
`customized in accordance with certain “preferences” that the launcher obtains from the
`server. Some of these are user-configurable preferences stored in one location, and
`others are administrator-configurable preferences stored in a separate location. Id. at
`5:11–23. The server retrieves these user preferences and administrator preferences
`from the memory locations, and the program is executed using the retrieved
`preferences. Id. at 9:65–10:32.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 10 of 26 Page ID
` #:128
`
`
`The user and administrator preferences dictate how the application is
`configured. Id. at 9:5–29. For example, the specification teaches that the preferences
`can dictate keyboard mapping or screen configuration. Id. The specification nowhere
`discloses or suggests that the user preferences can be the underlying, substantive data
`in the application. Thus, for example, the user and administrator preferences in a
`hypothetical email application would dictate how the application functions (e.g.,
`keyboarding bindings, how the emails are displayed), but it is not the underlying
`application data (e.g., the substantive contents of the emails).
`These disclosures are reflected in the claims of the 578 patent. For example,
`claim 1 provides:
`A method for management of configurable application programs on a network
`comprising the steps of:
`installing an application program having a plurality of configurable
`preferences and a plurality of authorized users on a server coupled to the
`network;
`distributing an application launcher program associated with the
`application program to a client coupled to the network;
`obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated
`with one of the plurality of authorized users executing the application
`launcher program;
`obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences
`from an administrator; and
`executing the application program using the obtained user set and the
`obtained administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences
`responsive to a request from the one of the plurality of authorized users.
`
`Id. at 14:63–15:13 (emphasis added).
`2.
`Judge Schroeder’s Ineligibility Decision
`On September 28, 2017, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of Texas held
`that all asserted claims of the 578 patent were ineligible. See Uniloc USA, 279 F.
`Supp. 3d 736. Judge Schroeder determined that the 578 patent was “directed to ‘two-
`tiered customization’” (i.e., customization based on two tiers of preferences) in a
`client-server environment, and that it employed off-the-shelf components. Id. at 745.
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 11 of 26 Page ID
` #:129
`
`Uniloc had argued to Judge Schroeder that the patent was eligible because the claimed
`technology resulted in “reduced costs and increased uniformity in managing software
`in a network environment by delivering configured application when demanded by a
`user,” but the court rejected that argument, noting that “increased efficiency” and
`“reduced costs” “are not technological benefits” that confer patent eligibility. Id. at
`744–45.
`3.
`The Federal Circuit’s Opinion
`Uniloc appealed Judge Schroeder’s decision to the Federal Circuit. To convince
`the Federal Circuit to overturn Judge Schroeder’s decision, Uniloc repeatedly stressed
`that the claims were not abstract, but technical. Uniloc argued that the “configuration
`manager” “provide[s] an interface to establish designated administrator-only settable
`preferences,” and that the “application launcher” “causes the server to provide a user
`interface that allows the user to specify user-configurable parameters of the
`application.” Uniloc App. Br. (Ex. 3) at 46–47. Uniloc wrote that this architecture
`“allowed [] a mix of user- and system-administrator-defined configurable preferences
`to be associated with specific application programs.” Id. at 48. In its reply brief,
`Uniloc agreed with Judge Schroeder that the claims “do[] involve two tiered
`customization,” but argued that they further require facilitating “installation of
`configured applications on an on-demand basis, independent of variations in hardware
`and operating systems across a network.” Uniloc Reply App. Br. (Ex. 4) at 23–24.
`The Federal Circuit relied on these arguments and reversed Judge Schroeder’s
`judgment that the claims were ineligible. The court accepted that the claims are
`directed to a system that “that allows for on-demand installation of two-tier customized
`applications” based on both a “user set” and an “administrator set” of a “plurality of
`configurable preferences.” Uniloc v. ADP, 772 F. App’x at 898. The court therefore
`concluded that the claims of the 578 patent were “directed to a particular way of using
`a conventional application server to nevertheless allow on-demand installation of an
`application incorporating preferences from two different sources by adding the
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`6
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 12 of 26 Page ID
` #:130
`
`application manager and configuration manager as additions to each application.” Id.
`The Court noted that “the positioning of these components on the application server
`together with the application launcher on the client computer allows customization by
`both the administrator and the user in such a way as the installation can proceed on-
`demand with both sets of preferences.” Id. at 899.
`4.
`Uniloc’s Infringement Allegations Against Infor
`In its Complaint, Uniloc accuses Infor Workforce Management of infringing the
`578 patent. Complaint ¶¶ 7–15. Workforce Management is a web-based human
`resources application that allows employees to do things like check their work
`schedule, set shift schedules, and check vacation balances. Id. at ¶ 7. Managers can
`use the program to, for example, edit time sheets and approve employee time-off
`requests. Id. ¶ 8. Uniloc alleges that employee's ability to set preferred time shifts,
`preferred days, and preferred types of work constitute the claimed “user preferences.”
`Id. ¶ 10. Uniloc further alleges that a manager's decisions to approve or deny these
`requests, or to set rules, constitute “administrator preferences.” Id. ¶ 11.
`Notably, Uniloc does not allege that these purported “preferences” are actually
`used to configure an application, as the claim expressly requires. That is because the
`Infor documents cited in the Complaint show that these purported “preferences” for
`shifts are the underlying data that employees and employers can enter and manipulate
`when they interact with Workforce Management, and not the user-specific application
`configuration preferences that the patent requires. Id. at ¶¶ 10–11.
`Moreover, Uniloc does not allege that Infor enables on-demand installation of
`any application based on these (or any) preferences, let alone a “two-tier customized”
`application. The only client application that Uniloc identifies in the Complaint is an
`app called Infor Workforce Mobility. Id. at ¶ 7 (referring to a “mobility app for
`employees” and “mobility app for managers”). Uniloc does not, because it cannot,
`allege that copies of this app are customized to particular users, or that the alleged
`“preferences” have any role in their installation. And in fact, images in the Complaint
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 13 of 26 Page ID
` #:131
`
`shows the opposite: that the mobility app is not installed based on employee’s shift
`preferences, but rather is used to set them. Id.2
`Finally, Uniloc also fails to identify anything in Workforce Management that
`meets the supposed “configuration manager” or “application launcher” requirements,
`two parts of the supposed specific architecture that Uniloc argued to the Federal
`Circuit made the claims eligible. Uniloc App. Br. (Ex. 3) at 46–47.3 Uniloc also fails
`to identify the purported “server coupled to the network” that is used to distribute the
`application (i.e., the “on-demand” application server).
`D. The 293 Patent
`1.
`The Specification and Claims of the 293 Patent
`The specification and claims of the 293 patent relate generally to centrally
`managing and delivering applications to client devices over a network. The 293 patent
`specifically teaches a software distribution system in which responsibility for the
`distribution is divided between a centralized “network management server” and one or
`more “on-demand” servers. It explains that the “network management server”
`manages the overall distribution of the program. 293 patent at 4:14–16. That server
`distributes application programs as “file packages (packets)” to second-tier servers,
`described in the specification as “on-demand servers.” Id. at 4:16–18. The “file
`packages” or “file packets” include information necessary to “install and register the
`application program on the on-demand server and make it available to authorized
`users.” Id. at 4:20–22. This information includes “server identifier fields . . . to allow
`a plurality of on demand servers to receive a common file packet and properly install
`
`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
`
`
`2 The Complaint cryptically refers to “solutions for use on desktop computers” without
`identifying them, and without alleging that there is any Infor desktop application that is
`installed on-demand in accordance with the alleged preferences. Complaint at ¶ 9.
`That is because there is none.
`3 The “application launcher” is expressly recited in claim 1. Uniloc told the Federal
`Circuit that the “configuration manager” was required even though not expressly
`recited in representative claim 1, and the court agreed. Uniloc Reply App. Br. (Ex. 4)
`at 23 n.9; Uniloc v. ADP, 772 F. App’x at 898 n.4.
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`8
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 14 of 26 Page ID
` #:132
`
`and register the program for use locally.” Id. at 4:23–25. Users at user stations can
`then connect with the on-demand servers to download and run the program
`applications. Id. at 4:34–43.
`The overall network architecture is reflected in Figure 1. The Network
`Management Server (20) sits at the top (or center) of the network. On-demand servers
`(22) connect to the management server, and client devices (24, 26) connect to the on-
`demand servers.
`
`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
`
`
`The claims of the 293 patent reflect this distribution approach, and in particular,
`the centralized server preparing a file packet for installing the program at the on-
`demand server, so that it may be accessible by the client devices. For example, claim 1
`provides:
`A method for distribution of application programs to a target on-demand
`server on a network comprising the following executed on a centralized
`network management server coupled to the network:
`providing an application program to be distributed to the network
`management server;
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`9
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 15 of 26 Page ID
` #:133
`
`
`specifying a source directory and a target directory for distribution of the
`application program;
`preparing a file packet associated with the application program and
`including a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the
`application program at the target on-demand server; and
`distributing the file packet to the target on-demand server to make the
`application program available for use by a user at a client.
`
`Id. at 21:23–37 (emphasis added).
`2.
`Judge Schroeder’s Ineligibility Decision
`Judge Schroeder, in the same decision discussed above, also determined that the
`asserted claims of the 293 patent were ineligible. Uniloc USA, 279 F. Supp. 3d 736.
`The court explained that the claims were directed “to the centralized distribution of
`software to a plurality of on-demand servers from a central network management
`server,” which it summarized as “the abstract idea [of] ‘centralized distribution of
`software.’” Id. at 746. Uniloc argued to Judge Schroeder that the patent was technical
`and non-abstract because of the file packet limitation (“segment configured to initiate
`registration operations”), but the court determined that the file packet limitation “does
`not amount to more than a routine activity of a commercial network management
`software.” Id. at 745–46.
`3.
`The Federal Circuit’s Opinion
`Uniloc appealed Judge Schroeder’s decision with respect to 293 patent to the
`Federal Circuit. Uniloc repeatedly represented to the Federal Circuit that the 293
`patent claims were directed to technical and concrete improvements. Uniloc explained
`that the 293 patent claims were directed “to preparing and distributing a ‘file packet’
`associated with the application that includes a segment configured to initiate
`registration operations and make the application available for use by a user at a client.”
`Uniloc App. Br. (Ex. 3) at 18. According to Uniloc, this “particular packaging
`technique” was required by the claims. Id. By focusing on the packaging technique,
`Uniloc argued that the claims “are thus directed to a specific and improved means of”
`distributing software. Id. at 20 (emphasis in original). Uniloc further explained that
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS
`
`10
`
`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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 26-1 Filed 09/19/19 Page 16 of 26 Page