WILLIAM C ROOKLIDGE, SBN 134483
` wrooklidge@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612−4412
`Telephone: 949.451.4009
`Facsimile: 949.475.4752
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:745
`
`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.
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
` MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT INFOR, INC.’S
`RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Hearing
`November 2, 2020
`Time:
`8:30 AM
` Courtroom 9D
`Judge:
`Hon. David O. Carter
`
`v.
`INFOR, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 32 Page ID #:746
`
`
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Page
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`Background ........................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Parties .................................................................................................. 3
`B.
`Uniloc’s Prior Lawsuits Against Infor ....................................................... 3
`C.
`The Patents In Suit ..................................................................................... 4
`1.
`The 578 Patent ................................................................................. 4
`2.
`The 293 Patent ................................................................................. 6
`D. Uniloc’s Original Complaint in This Action ............................................. 8
`E.
`Infor’s First Motion to Dismiss .................................................................. 9
`F.
`Uniloc’s First Amended Complaint ......................................................... 10
`1.
`The 578 Patent ............................................................................... 11
`2.
`The 293 Patent ............................................................................... 13
`III. Legal Standards .................................................................................................. 14
`A. Dismissal is Warranted When a Pleading Demonstrates Non-
`Infringement ............................................................................................. 15
`Dismissal is Warranted When a Pleading Omits Elements of the
`Claims ....................................................................................................... 16
`Dismissal is Warranted for Failure to Plead Compliance with
`§ 287(a) .................................................................................................... 17
`IV. Argument ............................................................................................................ 19
`A. Uniloc Cannot Plead a Claim for Relief for the 578 Patent ..................... 19
`1.
`Uniloc Cannot Plead Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) .......... 19
`2.
`Uniloc Cannot Plead a Plausible Claim of Infringement .............. 22
`Uniloc Cannot Plead a Claim of Infringement of the 293 Patent ............ 24
`B.
`Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 25
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 32 Page ID #:747
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`Am. Axle & Mfg. Co. v. Neapco Holdings,
`967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 23
`Amsted Indus. Inc., v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 18, 20
`Anderson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.,
`570 F. App’x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 14, 15
`Apollo Fin., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`190 F. Supp. 3d 939 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ................................................................ 17, 24
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 17, 18
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................... 14, 19, 22
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp.,
`189 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ........................................................................ 16
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................... 14, 19, 22
`In re Bill of Lading Trans. & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 15, 23, 25
`Coca-Cola Co. v. Pepsico, Inc.,
`No. CIVA 102-CV-2887, 2004 WL 4910334 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 29,
`2004) ......................................................................................................................... 21
`e-Watch Inc. v. Avigilon Corp,
`No. CA H-13-0347, 2013 WL 5231521 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2013) .................. 18, 19
`e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-05790, 2016 WL 4427209 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) ........................ 16
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Liquid Web, LLC,
`No. 1:18-cv-01177, 2019 WL 1596999 (D. Del. Apr. 15, 2019). ............................ 19
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS ii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 32 Page ID #:748
`
`
`Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Electronics Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 20, 21
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp.,
`No. 8:12-cv-00511, 2012 WL 12905300 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2012) ........................ 16
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.,
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 20
`Horowitz v. Yishun Chen,
`No. 8:17-cv-00432, 2018 WL 6219928 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2018) ............. 16, 23, 25
`Int’l Techs. & Sys. Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd,
`No. 8-17-cv-01748, 2018 WL 4963129 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2018) ....... 16, 23, 24, 25
`K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp.,
`696 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 21
`Lans v. Digital Equip. Corp.,
`252 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 18, 20
`Metricolor LLC v. L’Oreal S.A.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00364, 2018 WL 5099496 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2018) ....... 15, 16, 17, 25
`N. Star Innovations Inc. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-01833, 2018 WL 3155258 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2018) ........................ 17, 25
`Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler,
`884 F.3d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 16
`Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 8:11-cv-01681, 2012 WL 1835680 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) ......................... 15
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.,
`376 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ...................................................................... 20
`Starr v. Baca,
`652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................... 17, 24, 25
`Swartz v. KPMG LLP,
`476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 16
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`990 F. Supp. 2d 882 (W.D. Wis. 2013) .................................................................... 20
`
`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 RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS iii
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 32 Page ID #:749
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Tex. 2017).................................................................. 3, 15
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................... 3, 5, 6, 8, 15
`Weisbuch v. Cnty. of L.A.,
`119 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 15
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) ..................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) .................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`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 RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS iv
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:750
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`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
`
`Abbreviation
`Infor
`
`Uniloc
`
`Original Complaint
`
`Amended Complaint
`
`578 Patent
`
`293 Patent
`
`Infor Memo
`
`Uniloc App. Br.
`
`Uniloc Reply App. Br.
`
`1st Torchia Decl.
`
`2nd Torchia Decl.
`
`3rd Torchia Decl.1
`
`Reference
`Defendant Infor, Inc.
`
`Plaintiff Uniloc 2017, LLC
`
`Uniloc’s original complaint filed before this Court
`(D.I. 1)
`Uniloc’s amended complaint filed before this Court
`(D.I. 30)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293
`
`Infor’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
`Support of its Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 26-1)
`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 Infor’s
`Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 26-2)
`Declaration of Paul E. Torchia in Support of Infor’s
`First Renewed Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Stay
`(D.I. 35-3)
`Declaration of Paul E. Torchia in Support of this
`Renewed Motion to Dismiss
`
`
`
`1 Citations in the form “Document (Ex. _)” are citations to documents attached to the
`third declaration of Paul E. Torchia in support of this motion.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS v
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:751
`
`
`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.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uniloc, in its Original Complaint, filed a baseless action for patent infringement
`that it is now clear should never have been brought. Indeed, Infor wrote Uniloc and
`explained why its own allegations showed that the sole product accused in the Original
`Complaint, Infor Workforce Management, could not infringe. Infor asked Uniloc to
`either explain how it could cure these serious deficiencies by amendment, or otherwise
`dismiss the case. Uniloc did neither. Accordingly, Infor filed its motion to dismiss,
`and methodically showed that Uniloc could not allege that Workforce Management
`contained core requirements of the claims, including requirements that Uniloc had
`emphasized to the Federal Circuit in order to save the patents from being invalidated.
`On the last day permitted under the Federal Rules, Uniloc amended its Original
`Complaint, not to cure the deficiencies that Infor identified with respect to Infor
`Workforce Management, but to abandon all of Uniloc’s allegations against that
`product. Uniloc instead for the very first time accused a different product, Infor CRM
`Cloud, of infringement. These two products have nothing to do with each other. The
`former is a human resources tool that companies use to manage their workforces,
`whereas the latter is a platform for salespeople to track relationships with their
`customers. Infor acquired these products from entirely different companies, nearly a
`decade apart. The only thing they have in common is that neither has any resemblance
`to the Uniloc patents at issue, which are directed to systems for centralized distribution
`of applications over a managed network and say nothing about either human resources
`or customer relationship software. At bottom, in a transparent effort to frustrate Infor’s
`ability to obtain early relief on the pleadings, Uniloc merely pivoted from one
`meritless case to another one.
`That maneuver, however, had fatal consequences. Specifically, when Uniloc
`abandoned its allegations against Infor Workforce Management in favor of a product
`that Uniloc had never before accused, Uniloc surrendered its sole basis for asserting
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 1
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:752
`
`that Infor had pre-suit notice of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), and thus
`eliminated any ability to seek damages before the date of the Amended Complaint.
`Under settled law, the result for the 578 Patent is that there is no longer any available
`relief, because that patent is long expired. Accordingly, the 578 Patent count should be
`dismissed regardless of how this Court rules on the defects of Uniloc’s pleading of
`infringement. To the extent the Court reaches those issues, Uniloc’s infringement
`pleading remains as implausible as before, because Uniloc is still unable to allege that
`Infor uses the technologies that Uniloc told the Federal Circuit were required in order
`to save the patent from being held ineligible.
`Uniloc’s amendment similarly left it with no plausible claim to relief for the 293
`Patent. For that patent, Infor previously showed that Uniloc could not and did not
`allege that any specific technologies in Infor Workforce Management practiced a
`number of elements of the claims that Uniloc emphasized to the Federal Circuit.
`Uniloc had instead made unexplained allegations of fact about Workforce
`Management that Uniloc did not attempt to connect to any of the requirements of the
`claims, in clear contravention of the precedent of this Court. In its amendment, Uniloc
`did even less than it had done before, deleting all factual allegations of any specificity
`and replacing them with nothing. Uniloc no longer has even an argument that there is
`a plausible allegation of infringement of the 293 Patent.
`This is a case that cries to be dismissed on the pleadings. Uniloc forced Infor to
`file a needless motion to dismiss a baseless infringement allegation that Uniloc later
`dropped. Uniloc’s new allegations are even worse. Moreover, this is the fourth
`complaint that Uniloc has filed against Infor on these patents, after numerous
`opportunities to amend. Accordingly, Infor respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
`this case with prejudice.
`
`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 RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 2
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 9 of 32 Page ID #:753
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`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. 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.
`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 450 lawsuits in the past six years alone.
`B. Uniloc’s Prior Lawsuits Against Infor
`In 2017, Uniloc sued Infor in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that a
`product known as Infor Workforce Management infringed four patents that Uniloc
`acquired from IBM in 2016. (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, in parallel litigations that Uniloc filed
`against a different group of defendants, Judge Schroeder of the Eastern District of
`Texas determined that all four of these patents were ineligible because they were
`directed to abstract concepts. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 279 F. Supp. 3d 736
`(E.D. Tex. 2017). Uniloc appealed, and dismissed its Northern District of Texas action
`against Infor while that appeal was pending. 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, Inc. v. ADP,
`LLC, 772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`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 RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 3
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 10 of 32 Page ID
`#:754
`
`C. The Patents In Suit
`The 578 Patent
`1.
`The 578 Patent is directed to systems and methods for managing and installing
`customized, configurable applications on client devices over a network. The 578
`Patent 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 program”
`to client 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 program 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 program 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 program. 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 program. 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 program obtains
`from the server. Some of these are user-configurable preferences, and others are
`administrator-configurable preferences. Id. at 5:11–23.
`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;
`
`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 RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 4
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 11 of 32 Page ID
`#:755
`
`
`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
`
`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).
`On appeal of Judge Schroeder’s decision holding the 578 Patent ineligible as
`abstract, Uniloc urged the Federal Circuit to hold that there were certain requirements
`of the 578 Patent claims that render them sufficiently concrete to claim eligible
`invention.2 For example, Uniloc argued that the invention was directed at the on-
`demand installation of customized applications based on the claimed preferences. In
`its opening appeal brief, Uniloc wrote that the claimed architecture “allows a mix of
`user- and system-administrator-defined configurable preferences to be associated with
`specific application programs.” Uniloc App. Br. (Ex. 1) at 48. In its reply brief, Uniloc
`confirmed the invention was directed to “two tiered customization” based on these
`preferences, allowing for “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. 2) at 23–24.
`The Federal Circuit accepted these arguments and held that the invention
`“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 stated that the claims were thus
`“directed to a particular way of using a conventional application server to nevertheless
`
`
`2 The Federal Circuit treated claim 1 of the patent as “representative” of the other
`claims. Uniloc v. ADP, 772 F. App’x at 898 n.4.
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 5
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 12 of 32 Page ID
`#:756
`
`allow on-demand installation of an application incorporating preferences from two
`different sources by adding the application manager and configuration manager as
`additions to each application.” Id. The Court concluded 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.
`
`The 293 Patent
`2.
`The 293 Patent relates generally to centrally managing and delivering
`applications to client devices over a network. The 293 Patent specification specifically
`teaches a software distribution system divided between a centralized “network
`management server,” one or more “on-demand” servers, and clients. 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 and register the program for use locally.” Id.
`at 4:23–25. Users at client 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
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 6
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 13 of 32 Page ID
`#:757
`
`
`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;
`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).
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 7
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 14 of 32 Page ID
`#:758
`
`
`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
`
`Again, on appeal of Judge Schroeder’s decision holding the 293 Patent ineligible
`as abstract, Uniloc emphasized certain requirements of the claims that Uniloc
`contended made the invention eligible. Uniloc argued that the claims were directed to
`improvements in the distribution of software “by allowing applications to be installed
`on client computers from a single point for an entire managed network environment,”
`and that the claims “particularl[y] achieve[d] this advance by ‘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.’” Uniloc USA, 772 F. App’x at 896–97.
`The Federal Circuit accepted these arguments. Id.
`D. Uniloc’s Original Complaint in This Action
`In its Original Complaint, Uniloc accused Infor Workforce Management of
`infringing the 578 and 293 Patents. Original Compl. ¶¶ 7–15, 25–26. Infor 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. ¶ 7. Managers can use the program to, for example, edit time sheets and approve
`employee time-off requests. Id. Infor obtained Infor Workforce Management through
`the acquisition of a company known as Workbrain in 2007. See Workbrain
`Acquisition Announcement (Ex. 3).
`With respect to the 578 Patent, Uniloc alleged that an employee’s ability to set
`preferred time shifts, preferred days, and preferred types of work constitute the
`claimed “user preferences.” Id. ¶ 10. Uniloc further alleged that a manager’s
`decisions to approve or deny these requests, or to set rules, constitute “administrator
`preferences.” Id. ¶¶ 7, 11. But Uniloc did not allege that Workforce Management
`enabled on-demand installation of any application based on these (or any) purported
`preferences, let alone a “two-tier customized” application. Indeed, the only client
`application that Uniloc identified in its Original Complaint was an app called Infor
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`Crutcher LLP
`
`
`MEMO. ISO INFOR’S RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 8
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 15 of 32 Page ID
`#:759
`
`Workforce Mobility. Id. ¶ 7 (referring to a “mobility app for employees” and
`“mobility app for managers”). Uniloc did not, because it could not, allege that copies
`of this app are customized to particular users, or that the alleged “preferences” have
`any role in the app’s installation. Uniloc also failed to identify any “application
`launcher program” in the accused product.
`With respect to the 293 Patent, Uniloc alleged that Infor uses Apache servers for
`storing and distributing software products to users (Original Compl. ¶ 23), that Infor
`“uses data centers for storing and processing customer data” (Id. ¶ 24), and that users
`can install Workforce Management on their devices (Id. ¶ 25). Uniloc also included
`several unexplained pictures from unstated and unknown sources in support of these
`allegations. Id. ¶¶ 23, 25. Those statements represented the entirety of the factual
`allegations relating to the alleged infringement of the 293 Patent. Nowhere did Uniloc
`attempt to connect its few statements about Workforce Management, or the images it
`pasted into the complaint, to any of the elements of the claims.
`Finally, Uniloc relied on its 2017 Eastern District of Texas complaint as its basis
`for pleading pre-suit notice of the patents. Original Compl. ¶ 18. Uniloc did not
`provide any other allegation regarding pre-suit notice.
`On September 5, 2019, Infor wrote to Uniloc, and explained that because Uniloc
`could not allege that Infor practiced core requirements of the claims, including the very
`requirements that Uniloc had emphasized to the Federal Circuit in order to overcome
`Judge Schroeder’s ineligibility ruling, Uniloc should either dismiss the case, or explain
`how these deficiencies could possibly be cured by amendment. 1st Torchia Decl. ¶ 2.
`Uniloc did neither, and instead stated that it would stand by its allegations against
`Workforce Management, forcing Infor to file its first motion to dismiss. Id. ¶ 3.
`Infor’s First Motion to Dismiss
`E.
`Infor filed its first motion to dismiss on September 19, 2019. D.I. 26. Infor’s
`memorandum closely tracked its September 5, 2019, letter to Uniloc. See 1st Torchia
`Decl., Ex. 2; Infor Memo. With respect to the 578 Patent, Infor showed that Uniloc
`
`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 RENEWED MOT. TO DISMISS 9
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 56-1 Filed 10/05/20 Page 16 of 32