Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 73 Page ID #:395
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 73 Page ID #:395
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 1 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 73 Page ID #:396
`
`18-1132, -1346, -1448
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`v.
`
`ADP, LLC, BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`2018-1132, -1346
`
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`in Nos. 2:16-cv-00741-RWS and 2:16-cv-00858-RWS,
`Judge Robert W. Schroeder III
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`v.
`
`AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., BITDEFENDER LLC,
`KASPERSKY LAB, INC.,
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`2018-1448
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 2 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 73 Page ID #:397
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`in Nos. 2:16-cv-00393-RWS, 2:16-cv-00394-RWS, and 2:16-cv-00871-RWS,
`Judge Robert W. Schroeder III
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
`UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`Paul J. Hayes
`James J. Foster
`Aaron S. Jacobs
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 456-8000
`jfoster@princelobel.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`August 22, 2018
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 3 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 4 of 73 Page ID #:398
`
`LANGUAGE OF PATENT OR CLAIM AT ISSUE
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’293 patent:
`
`1. 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;
`
`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.
`
`Appx135 at 21:23-37 (emphasis added).
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘466 patent:
`
`1. A method for management of application programs on a network including a
`server and a client comprising the steps of:
`
`installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with the user
`responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop interface including a
`plurality of display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized;
`
`receiving at the server a selection of one of the plurality of application programs
`from the user desktop interface; and
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 4 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 5 of 73 Page ID #:399
`
`
`providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs to
`the client for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`Appx95 at 21:17-36.
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘766 patent:
`
`1. A method for management of license use for a network comprising the steps of:
`
`maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of application
`programs at a license management server, the license management policy
`information including at least one of a user identity based policy, an administrator
`policy override definition or a user policy override definition;
`
`receiving at the license management server a request for a license availability of a
`selected one of the plurality of application programs from a user at a client;
`
`determining the license availability for the selected one of the plurality of
`application programs for the user based on the maintained license management
`policy information; and
`
`providing an unavailability indication to the client responsive to the selection if the
`license availability indicates that a license is not available for the user or an
`availability indication if the licensed availability indicates that a license is available
`for the user.
`
`Appx111-112 at 14:64-15:17 (emphasis added).
`
`
`Claim 6 of the ‘578 patent:
`
`6. [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
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 5 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 6 of 73 Page ID #:400
`
`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]
`
`wherein the step of executing is preceded by the step of storing the obtained user
`set and the obtained administrator set on a storage device coupled to the server and
`wherein the initiating execution step includes the step of retrieving the stored user
`set and the stored administrator set from the storage device.
`
`Appx69-70 at 14:63-15:13.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 6 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 7 of 73 Page ID #:401
`Case 8:19-cv-09P§@—'J1.%—1Al|§§ Dmmfl Fféfleofiamlfilefiagflmllw Page ID #:401
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`Uniloc USA. Inc. et al.
`
`Case No.
`
`ADP LLC Big Fish Games Inc
`7W5 I «Olin—018195031. Inc at .
`mm. “‘3“ 4448
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`AMENDED
`Counsel for the:
`: (petitioner) I (””11”“) E (respondent) : ($991109) 3 (nations) 5 (name of party)
`
`Appellants Uniloc USA. Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.
`certifies the following (use “None“ if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`1. M Name of Party
`
`2, Name of Real Patty in interest
`3. Parent corporations and
`(Please only include an real party
`publicly held companies
`in interest NUI' identifiedin
`that own. 10‘.- or more of
`Uniloc USA Inc — Unioc Comm pry Lid
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`CF Uniloc Holdings LLC
`
`
`
`4. The nnmesofnlllnwfinns nndthepnrtners «associates that nppennedforthe pmyorun'tcusnow
`represented by me in the trial coun or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not
`or will not enter an appearance In this case) are.
`Lawfirmapoeannoiiiniscouri: PrhceLobel‘l’yeLLP
`
`Aiiorneys appearing n ins case: Pail J. Hayes; James J. Foster; Aaron 8. Jacobs
`
`Law firms that mpeared: Prince Lonei Tye. LLP; Cesan aid McKenna LLP; Nelson Baumoarmer. Tadiocir Law Firm
`
`Adam attorneys who appeared Kem Gainon. Robert Gilman; Dean Bosiock; Michael Erooiii;
`Dmiei McGonaoie; Jason Wilarns; Edward R. Nelson. III; Anthony Veccnione; Craig Tadock; Keith Smley
`
`5. Thedtleandnnmberofnnycaeeknowntooounscltobependinginths«mocha-com«agency
`thatwilldinctlyafiectorbedirectb'afiectedbythiccoun‘cdecicioninthependincappeal. SeeI-‘ed. Cir
`R. 67. Max5)and 47.50:). (Thepaniec clumldattach continuation pagecac necessary).
`
`Uniloc USA. Inc. er al. v. Blackboard. Inc. No. i:i7-cw00753 (LY) (WD, Tex)
`Nuianix. Inc. v. Uniloc USA. Inc.. at al. No. 4:17-cv-0318i (JSW) (ND. Cal.)
`Petition ior iPR by Ubisofi. inc. and Square Enix iioidings Co. Ltd. No. 2017-1291
`Petition for PR by Biideiender. Inc., No. 2017-1315
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 7 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 8 of 73 Page ID #:402
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Statement of Related Cases ............................................................................. 1
`
`Jurisdiction ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Issues for Review ............................................................................................. 2
`
`IV. Statement of the Case ...................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Facts. ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`District court proceedings. .................................................................... 6
`
`Orders appealed. .................................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`Summary of the Argument .............................................................................. 8
`
`VI. Argument ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`Standard of review............................................................................... 10
`
`B. Motions to dismiss on the pleadings. .................................................. 10
`
`C.
`
`The Alice case. ..................................................................................... 11
`
`D. Application of the Alice standard. ....................................................... 13
`
`E.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’293 patent. ................................................................................... 16
`
`The invention of the ’293 patent. ........................................................16
`
`Alice step one: The claims of the ’293 patent are directed to
`patent-eligible concepts. ......................................................................18
`
`a.
`
`The district court erred in holding that the claims are
`directed to “centralized distribution of software.” ....................18
`
`3.
`
`Alice step two: The claims of the ’293 patent recite inventive
`concepts. ..............................................................................................23
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The relevant features of the claims were neither generic
`or conventional. .........................................................................23
`
`The ’293 patent claims a software invention, not
`hardware. ...................................................................................24
`
`c.
`
`The IBM software invention was not routine. ..........................27
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 8 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 9 of 73 Page ID #:403
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`G.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`H.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’466 patent. ................................................................................... 28
`
`The invention of the ’466 patent. ........................................................28
`
`Alice step one: The asserted claims of the ’466 patent are
`directed to patent-eligible concepts. ....................................................30
`
`Alice step two: The asserted claims of the ’466 patent recite
`inventive concepts. ..............................................................................34
`
`The ’766 patent. ................................................................................... 37
`
`The invention of the ‘766 patent. ........................................................37
`
`Alice step one: The asserted claims of the ’766 patent are
`directed to patent-eligible concepts. ....................................................41
`
`Alice step two: The asserted claims of the ’766 patent recite
`inventive concepts. ..............................................................................43
`
`The ‘578 patent. ................................................................................... 46
`
`The invention of the ’578 patent. ........................................................46
`
`Alice step one: The asserted claims of the ’578 patent are
`directed to patent-eligible concepts. ....................................................48
`
`Alice step two: The asserted claims of the ’578 patent recite
`inventive concepts. ..............................................................................52
`
`The ADP judgment should be vacated. ............................................... 57
`
`Uniloc did not voluntarily forfeit appellate review. ............................57
`
`The Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit would vacate the
`judgment. .............................................................................................57
`
`Federal Circuit precedent would bar reliance on the ADP
`judgment. .............................................................................................59
`
`VII. Conclusion and Relief Sought ....................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 9 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 10 of 73 Page ID
` #:404
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 16, 32, 37
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................13
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................. passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 26, 32
`
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 ......................................................................................................49
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................10
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... passim
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................10
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................... passim
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .............................................................................................12
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`No. 2017-1980, 2018 WL 3862646 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018) ...........................15
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................34
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................ 14, 20, 21, 26, 32, 45
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 13, 14, 51
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... passim
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 10 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 11 of 73 Page ID
` #:405
`
`Erickson v. Pardus,
`551 U.S. 89 (2007) ........................................................................................ 11, 28
`
`Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................14
`
`Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................ 14, 15, 20, 21
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.,
`112 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................16
`
`Goldin v. Bartholow,
`166 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................57
`
`Hall v. Louisiana,
`884 F.3d 546 (5th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 10, 58
`
`Hitt v. City of Pasadena,
`561 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1977) ...............................................................................11
`
`In re Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC,
`536 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................59
`
`Innovad Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`260 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................... 59, 60
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................10
`
`McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 26, 32, 49, 50
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`98 S. Ct. 2522 (1978) ...........................................................................................35
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................19
`
`Ratner v. Sioux Natural Gas Corp.,
`770 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1985) ...............................................................................59
`
`SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic LLC,
`No. 2017-2081, 2018 WL 3656048 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2018) ..................... passim
`
`Scanlan v. Texas A&M Univ.,
`343 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................10
`
`Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................20
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 11 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 12 of 73 Page ID
` #:406
`
`Staley v. Harris County, Tex.,
`485 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................ 10, 58
`
`Thales Visionex Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CGQ, Inc.,
`675 Fed. Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................51
`
`U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership,
`513 U.S. 18 (1994) ...............................................................................................58
`
`United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,
`340 U. S. 36 (1950) ..............................................................................................58
`
`Venture Indus. Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.,
`457 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................... 2
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 14, 21, 51
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) .................................................................................... 1, 2, 58
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) and 1400(b) ............................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Wright, Miller, & Cooper,
`Federal Practice & Procedure § 3533.10 (2008) ...............................................58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 12 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 13 of 73 Page ID
` #:407
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`No appeal in these actions was presently before this or any other appellate
`
`court, other than 2018-1224, which this Court dismissed August 2, 2018. Dkt. No.
`
`49.
`
`Cases pending in any other court or agency that will directly affect, or be
`
`directly affected by this court’s decision are:
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Blackboard, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00753 (LY) (W. D.
`Tex.);
`Nutanix, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al., No. 4:17-cv-3181-JSW (N. D.
`Calif.);
`Petition for IPR by Ubisoft, Inc. and Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd., No.
`2017-1291; and
`Petition for IPR by Bitdefender, Inc., No. 2017-1315.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`Plaintiffs, Appellants, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.1
`
`(collectively, “Uniloc”), appeal from final judgments of the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). As these
`
`cases arise under the United States patent laws, jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1338(a) and 1400(b).
`
`A final judgment was entered in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Big Fish Games, Inc.
`
`(“Big Fish”) on October 20, 2017, Appx1, with a notice of appeal filed October
`
`
`1 Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. assigned the patents in suit to Uniloc 2017 LLC in May
`2018.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 13 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 14 of 73 Page ID
` #:408
`
`27, 2017; and in Uniloc USA Inc. v. Bitdefender LLC (“Bitdefender”) and Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. v. Kaspersky Lab, Inc. (“Kaspersky”) on January 9, 2018, Appx2, with a
`
`notice of appeal filed January 17, 2018.
`
`Uniloc also appeals from a decision of November 20, 2017, Appx54-55,
`
`denying a motion jointly filed by Uniloc and ADP, LLC (“ADP”) to vacate the
`
`judgment entered in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC (“ADP”), with a notice of
`
`appeal filed December 20, 2017. Denial of such a motion is final and appealable
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Venture Indus. Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 457 F.3d 1322,
`
`1327 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`III.
`
`ISSUES FOR REVIEW
`
`1. Whether the district court erred in finding the asserted claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,069,293 (“the ’293 patent”), Appx114-136, ineligible for patenting
`
`under § 101.
`
`2. Whether the district court erred in finding the asserted claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,728,766 (“the ’766 patent”), Appx98-113, ineligible for patenting
`
`under § 101.
`
`3. Whether the district court erred in finding the asserted claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,510,466 (“the ’466 patent”), Appx74-97, ineligible for patenting
`
`under § 101.
`
`4. Whether the district court erred in finding the asserted claims of U.S.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 14 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 15 of 73 Page ID
` #:409
`
`Patent No. 6,324,578 (“the ’578 patent”), Appx56-73, ineligible for patenting
`
`under § 101.
`
`5. Whether the district court erred in denying the joint motion to vacate
`
`the ADP judgment.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`
`Facts.
`
`International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) filed two patent
`
`applications on December 14, 1998. One issued as the ’578 patent, with the ’766
`
`patent issuing as a divisional. The other issued as the ’466 patent, with the ’293
`
`patent issuing as a divisional.
`
`The patents addressed the situation in large organizations (such as IBM),
`
`circa 1998, where multiple users might log into any given computer within that
`
`organization, to access those users’ customized and licensed application programs
`
`(“applications”) on the given computer. Prior to the IBM inventions, those
`
`organizations had struggled with managing application deployment, particularly
`
`with large, distributed networks.
`
`The ’578 patent explains the challenges industry faced in 1998:
`
`In the modern distributed processing computer environment, control over
`software, such as application programs, is more difficult than where a
`mainframe operated by an administrator is used, particularly for large
`organizations with numerous client stations and servers distributed widely
`geographically and utilized by a large number of users. Furthermore,
`individual users may move from location to location and need to access the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 15 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 16 of 73 Page ID
` #:410
`
`network from different client stations at different times. The networked
`environment increases the challenges for a network administrator in
`maintaining proper licenses for existing software and deploying new or
`updated applications programs across the network.
`
`Appx63 at 1:45-57.2
`
`The ability to deploy an application from a central server to client
`
`workstations (“clients”) allowed individual users to travel anywhere within an
`
`organization that had such stations. But that ability also created problems,
`
`particularly for organizations with numerous clients, including configuring
`
`geographically diverse machines running different operating systems; installing
`
`new or updated software in a timely and efficient manner; monitoring software and
`
`data to ensure both were synchronized with administrative policy; automating the
`
`software life cycle from development through production; and maintaining proper
`
`licensing procedures for existing software installations. Id. at 2:11-3:37. IBM was
`
`at the forefront of the industry’s efforts to address these problems.
`
`A known approach to reducing software distribution problems was to use an
`
`application server to store and maintain applications that may then be transmitted
`
`over a network to clients using a software program. Id. at 1:57-67. However, this
`
`solution generally required a customized install for each different version of a
`
`
`2 The BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION portions of the four patents are
`nearly identical, with only minor differences in wording. For simplicity, this
`section of this Brief cites to column and line numbers from the ’578 patent.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 16 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 17 of 73 Page ID
` #:411
`
`given application. Id. at 1:67-2:2. Further, a given install was specific to a client
`
`station, rather than to a given user. Id. at 2:2-3. And applications could not be
`
`deleted or updated on the station. Id. at 2:3-6. In addition, combinations of network
`
`connections, differing hardware, native applications, and network applications
`
`made portability of preferences or operating environments difficult. Id. at 2:18-34.
`
`Attempted solutions in the art addressed mobility of users within a network,
`
`including preference mobility. Id. at 2:35-40. But these efforts typically required
`
`pre-installation of software at the station to support their services. Id. at 2:40-44.
`
`Some of these efforts were limited to a homogenous environment, where the
`
`station and server utilized the same operating system. Id. at 2:44-49. Traditional
`
`mainframe models for centralized management only allowed for execution of
`
`applications at the server rather than the client station. Id. at 2:50-58. The existing
`
`JAVA environment did not provide an integrated framework for presenting
`
`multiple independent applications to a user. Id. at 2:61-65. Capability that did
`
`allow personalizing of a specific application display by a user was not managed
`
`across applications, and typically associated personalized screen information with
`
`an Internet address, which was client-device rather than user associated, thereby
`
`limiting its ability to support roaming by users. Id. at 2:65-3:4. None of these
`
`attempted solutions presented application choices for a given user. Appx64 at 3:8-
`
`11. Instead, they presented information associated with a given client. Id. Also,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 17 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 18 of 73 Page ID
` #:412
`
`users had to either manually define their session characteristics at each different
`
`client station in the network, or maintain local characteristic definitions at each
`
`computer, which may have been inappropriate for particular executing
`
`applications. Id. at 3:11-17. And control over access to applications by users was
`
`difficult in a mobile environment. Id. at 3:21-23.
`
`The IBM inventions addressed these issues. IBM recognized its inventions
`
`would allow organizations to avoid having to install customized, special software
`
`on each client machine; reduce the cost of managing software, including the cost of
`
`distribution, installation, updating, and maintenance; simplify access for users;
`
`ease the management burden by delivering the software through the network;
`
`address the configuration requirements of users and administrators; address license
`
`management; and integrate all of this within the existing software distribution
`
`systems.
`
`In February 2016, IBM assigned the four patents in suit to Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg S.A., which then granted an exclusive license to Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`B. District court proceedings.
`
`Uniloc filed separate actions against: ADP and Kaspersky Lab, Inc.
`
`(“Kaspersky”), for infringement of all four IBM patents; Big Fish Games, Inc.
`
`(“Big Fish”), for infringement of all but the ‘766 patent; and Bitdefender, Inc.
`
`(“Bitdefender”), for infringement of the ‘466 and ‘766 patents.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 18 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 19 of 73 Page ID
` #:413
`
`In Bitdefender, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the district court found ineligible
`
`for patenting the asserted claims of the ‘466 and ‘766 patents, except means-plus-
`
`function claims, as to which it reserved decision (the “AVG Order”3). Appx28-47.
`
`As that order did not dispose of all claims, no final judgment was entered at that
`
`time.
`
`Then, in an order entered September 28, 2017, in the combined ADP and Big
`
`Fish actions, also on Rule 12(b)(6) motions, the district court found ineligible for
`
`patenting all other asserted claims from the four IBM patents (the “ADP Order”),
`
`Appx3-27, and on October 20, 2017, entered final judgment in those actions.
`
`The district court then dismissed the MPF claims in Bitdefender, basing its
`
`decision as to those claims on issue preclusion created by the ADP and Big Fish
`
`judgments, Appx48-51, and entered final judgment in Bitdefender.
`
`In Kaspersky, the parties agreed to entry of final judgment of invalidity,
`
`based on issue preclusion of the ADP and Big Fish judgments, allowing Kaspersky
`
`to participate in the current appeal. Appx52-53.
`
`While the motions to dismiss had been pending, IBM and Uniloc, on
`
`September 27, 2017, “agreed to amend their assignment agreement” to transfer
`
`back to IBM the right to license ADP, Dkt. 49 at 3, and Uniloc agreed to dismiss
`
`
`3 Bitdefender had been consolidated with an action against AVG Technologies
`USA, Inc., since settled.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1132 Document: 53 Page: 19 Filed: 08/22/2018
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-JLS-ADS Document 35-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 20 of 73 Page ID
` #:414
`
`ADP, with prejudice (the “September 27 Agreement”). Appx389-390. The district
`
`court, however, issued the ADP order the next day, September 28, dismissing that
`
`action on the merits, unaware of the September 27 Agreement. As their dispute had
`
`become moot, Uniloc and ADP jointly moved to vacate the ADP judgment, but the
`
`district court denied the motion. Appx54-55.
`
`C. Orders appealed.
`
`Uniloc appeals the judgments, based upon the rulings in the AVG Order and
`
`the ADP Order, that the asserted claims of the fou