Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`M. Elizabeth Day (SBN 177125)
`eday@feinday.com
`Marc Belloli (SBN 244290)
`mbelloli@feinday.com
`FEINBERG DAY KRAMER ALBERTI
`LIM TONKOVICH & BELLOLI LLP
`577 Airport Blvd., Suite 250
`Burlingame, CA. 94010
`Tel: 650 825-4300/Fax 650 460-8443
`
`Brian N. Platt (Admitted pro hac vice)
`bplatt@wnlaw.com
`Brent P. Lorimer (Admitted pro hac vice)
`blorimer@wnlaw.com
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`60 East South Temple Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`Tel: 801-533-9800/Fax 801-328-1707
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Triller, Inc.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK INC., and
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No: 4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`DISMISSING SECOND, THIRD, AND
`FOURTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF IN
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`Date: June 18, 2021
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Courtroom: 5
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`i
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .........................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Law of Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................5
`
`It Is Permissible to Address 35 U.S.C. § 101 Eligibility on the Pleadings ..............7
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid on Their Face Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to Organizing Human Activity in
`a Computerized Social Network, Which Is An Ineligible Abstract
`Idea ...............................................................................................................7
`
`There Is Nothing in the Asserted Claims That Transforms Them Into
`Significantly More Than A Patent On An Abstract Idea ...........................10
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`ii
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................7
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................6, 11, 12
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC,
`792 Fed. Appx. 780 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................11
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC,
`915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................6
`
`Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................2
`
`Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................11
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................6, 9
`
`Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co.,
`896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .........................................................................................................7, 10, 13
`
`Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6043929 (D. Del. 2020) ...........................................................................................11
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC,
`838 Fed. Appx. 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................5, 8, 9
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`iii
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`Salwan v. Iancu,
`825 Fed. Appx. 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................5, 9
`
`In re Salwan,
`681 Fed. Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .........................................................................5, 9, 12, 13
`
`Search and Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`346 F.Supp.3d 626 (D. Del. 2018) .............................................................................................9
`
`Silver State Intellectual Technologies v. Facebook Inc.,
`314 F.Supp.3d 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (White, J.) .....................................................................7
`
`Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`252 F.Supp.3d 17 (D. Mass. 2017) ......................................................................................9, 10
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................5, 9
`
`Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................6
`
`Triller, Inc. v. Bytedance Ltd. et al.,
`No. 6:20-cv-693 (W.D. Tex.).....................................................................................................1
`
`TS Patents LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................12
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,
`887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................7
`
`ZKey Investments, LLC v. Facebook Inc.,
`225 F.Supp.3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2016) .....................................................................................10
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .........................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................7
`
`Rule 12(c).........................................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`iv
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`Defendant Triller, Inc. (“Triller”) hereby moves for judgment on the pleadings under
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) dismissing the Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for Relief set forth in the First
`
`Amended Complaint. This motion is noticed to be heard on June 18, 2021 at 9:00am in Courtroom
`
`5.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`Triller seeks judgment on the pleadings dismissing the Second, Third, and Fourth Claims
`
`for Relief because U.S. Patent Nos. 9,648,132 (“the ’132 patent”), 9,992,322 (“the ’322 patent”),
`
`and 9,294,430 (“the ’430 patent”) are invalid on their face for claiming subject matter that is not
`
`eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`12
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`On October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Bytedance Inc. (“BDI”) and TikTok Inc. (“TTI”) filed a
`
`Complaint in this action seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of Triller’s U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,691,429 (“the ’429 patent”). (ECF No. 1.) On November 11, 2020, BDI, TTI, and
`
`TikTok Pte. Ltd. (“TTPL”) filed a First Amended Complaint that restyled the declaratory judgment
`
`claim from its Complaint as a First Claim for Relief. (ECF No. 9, pp. 9-10.) Triller moved to
`
`dismiss this claim under the first-to-file rule on January 8, 2021. (ECF No. 33.) On March 30,
`
`2021, the Court declined to dismiss the First Claim for Relief but did stay it until resolution of the
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) transfer issues raised in Triller, Inc. v. Bytedance Ltd. et al., No. 6:20-cv-693
`
`(W.D. Tex.). (ECF No. 44.)
`
`The First Amended Complaint also added a Second Claim for Relief, a Third Claim for
`
`Relief, and a Fourth Claim for Relief by TTPL and TTI against Triller for infringement of the ’132
`
`patent, the ’322 patent, and the ’430 patent, all allegedly owned by TTPL and exclusively licensed
`
`to TTI. (ECF No. 9, pp. 11-16.) Triller now moves for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss these
`
`three claims. These three patents are invalid on their face because they are directed to subject
`
`matter that is not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`1
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The three patents are all related to one another. The ’322 patent indicates that it is a
`
`“continuation” of the ’132 patent, and the ’132 patent indicates that it is a “continuation” of the
`
`’430 patent. (ECF No. 9-4, pp. 2-3, 77; ECF No. 9-3, pp 2-3, 77.) All three patents have the same
`
`figures and the same written description. (Compare ECF No. 9-3 with ECF No. 9-4 and with ECF
`
`No. 9-5.) See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 792 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The
`
`four patents at issue . . . are continuations of one another and thus share substantially the same
`
`specification.”). The First Amended Complaint alleges that Triller infringes claim 31 of the ’132
`
`patent, claim 30 of the ’322 patent, and claim 28 of the ’430 patent. (ECF No. 9, pp. 11, 13, 14;
`
`ECF No. 9-6.) The First Amended Complaint does not specifically identify any other claims that
`
`10
`
`are alleged to be infringed. (Id.)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Claim 31 of the ’132 patent reads as follows:
`
`
`31. Software application embodied on a non transitory storage medium,
`wherein the software application is executable on a portable wireless computing
`device, wherein the software application enables an end-user to interact with other
`users and (a) in which the software application allows the end-user to, over a
`wireless connection, create on a remote server one or more user accounts with
`associated profiles for that end-user; and (b) the software application allows the
`end-user to, over the wireless connection, view profiles created by other users of a
`service; and (c) the software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`connection, interact with other users of the service; and (d) the software application
`allows the end-user to, over the wireless connection, send and receive messages to
`and from other users of the service; and (e) the software application allows the end-
`user to, over the wireless connection, link his or her user account on the remote
`server to user accounts on the remote server of other users of the same service or of
`other services.
`
`
`(ECF No. 9-3, p. 120.)
`
`The specification of the ’132 patent (and each of the patents) illustrates the functionality
`
`described in this claim. For example, Figure 135 shows the user interface for a software
`
`application running on a mobile telephone that allows an end-user to create a user account with an
`
`associated profile, as recited in claim 31:
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`2
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`(ECF No. 9-3, pp. 64, 114 (76:18-32).) In this example, the user is creating a user profile with the
`
`profile name “Billy Pepper.” Once a user has created his profile, the software allows a user to see
`
`his “profile” on a “My Profile” screen:
`
`(ECF No. 9-3, p. 64.) The profile includes the user’s member name (here, “Murdock”), an image
`
`unique to the user, a rating indicating how other users have rated the user (here, with five stars),
`
`the number of times other users have listened to one of the user’s shared music playlists (here, 0),
`
`the number of friends that the user has (here, 1), and a “catchphrase” (here, “I knew it, I knew
`
`it…you had a plan!”). (ECF No. 9-3, p. 114 (76:34-60).)
`
`The specification further illustrates how a user can view profiles created by other users, as
`
`recited in claim 31:
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`3
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(ECF No. 9-3, p. 66.) The specification explains that in the screens shown in Figure 141, a user
`
`can see a list of the users that the user has added as a friend, and in the screen shown in Figure
`
`142, the user can view the member profile of other users (here, another user named “DJ Coldplay”).
`
`(ECF No. 9-3, p. 115 (77:39-67).)
`
`
`
`The specification also illustrates how a user can link his or her user account to user accounts
`
`of other users (via friend requests), can interact with other users (by sharing recommendations
`
`about music), and can send and receive messages to and from other users, as recited in claim 31.
`
`This functionality is illustrated in the Figures 146 and 148:
`
`
`
`
`
`(ECF No. 9-3, pp. 68, 69.) In Figure 146, the user is sending a friend request to a user named
`
`“Matt,” and in Figure 148, the user is sending a recommendation about a music track to another
`
`user. (ECF No. 9-3, p. 92 (32:26-33), p. 115 (78:12-20, 78:31-43, 78:62-67).) In both figures, the
`
`user is also sending messages to other users. In Figure 146, the user is sending the message “Billy
`
`is ready to rock!” and in Figure 148, the user is sending the message “U know I’m a bit…” A
`
`friend request or a recommendation causes a message to arrive in the other user’s “inbox.” (ECF
`
`No. 9-3, p. 115 (78:18-20, 78:66-67), p. 116 (79:1-80:14), pp. 70-71 (Figs. 149-154).)
`
`Claim 30 of the ’322 patent is substantially identical to claim 31 of the ’132 patent except
`
`that (1) it requires “a smartphone device” instead of “a portable wireless computing device” and
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`4
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`(2) states that the profiles associated with the end-user must be “editable.” (ECF No. 9-4, p. 121;
`
`see ECF No. 9-4, p. 115 (77:36-44), p. 65 (Fig. 137) (describing editing of profile).) Claim 28 of
`
`the ’430 patent is also substantially identical to claim 31 of the ’132 patent except that it requires
`
`“a wireless HTTP connection” rather than “a wireless connection” and further requires that “the
`
`software application is a music application” that “uses track meta-data that is formed as a separate
`
`meta-data layer and defines attributes of tracks, the meta-data being external to a music track to
`
`make sharing and browsing of track information possible without needing to distribute the related
`
`music track files.” (ECF No. 9-5, p. 120.)
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Law of Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`The type of subject matter eligible for patenting is limited to “any new and useful process,
`
`12
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”
`
`13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has taught that there are also three important judicially-
`
`14
`
`created limits that preclude additional areas of subject matter from being eligible for patenting:
`
`15
`
`“laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303,
`
`16
`
`309 (1980). This case involves the law that precludes the patenting of “abstract ideas.”
`
`17
`
`Abstract ideas include “method[s] of organizing human activity.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS
`
`18
`
`Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 220 (2014); In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d
`
`19
`
`607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have applied the ‘abstract idea’ exception to encompass
`
`20
`
`inventions pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.”); NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group,
`
`21
`
`LLC, 838 Fed. Appx. 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he claimed invention . . . is an abstract idea
`
`22
`
`‘pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.’”); In re Salwan, 681 Fed. Appx. 938, 941
`
`23
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding that the claims “describe[] little more than the automation of a
`
`24
`
`‘method of organizing human activity’ with respect to medical information.”); Salwan v. Iancu,
`
`25
`
`825 Fed. Appx. 862, 865 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (same).
`
`26
`
`In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Supreme Court established
`
`27
`
`a two-step framework to determine whether claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`5
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`effectively claiming an abstract idea. First, a court must determine whether the claims at issue are
`
`“directed to” an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. This determination inquires as to the type
`
`of problem the alleged invention purports to solve and/or the type of field in which the alleged
`
`invention purports to provide an improvement, i.e., whether the alleged invention purports to solve
`
`a problem / provide an improvement in a technical field (such as computer functionality) or
`
`whether it purports to solve a problem / provide an improvement in a non-technical field (such as
`
`human activity). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e
`
`find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality
`
`versus being directed to an abstract idea . . . at the first step of the Alice analysis.”); Trading
`
`10
`
`Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (assessing whether the
`
`11
`
`claims “improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve
`
`12
`
`any technological problem”); Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, 915
`
`13
`
`F.3d 743, 750 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“To determine whether a claim is directed to an ineligible concept,
`
`14
`
`we have frequently considered whether the claimed advance improves upon a technological
`
`15
`
`process or merely an ineligible concept . . . .”); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`
`16
`
`838 F.3d 1253, 1257, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us
`
`17
`
`to look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.”) (“[T]he patent in this case is not
`
`18
`
`directed to the solution of a ‘technological problem.’”); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225, 223
`
`19
`
`(observing that the claims at issue did not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer
`
`20
`
`itself” or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field” but that claims in
`
`21
`
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) “were patent eligible because they improved [a]
`
`22
`
`technological process”).
`
`23
`
`Under the second step in the two-step Alice framework, if the claims are directed to an
`
`24
`
`abstract idea, then a court must “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an
`
`25
`
`ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the
`
`26
`
`claim’ into a patent-eligible application,” i.e., whether the additional elements are “‘sufficient to
`
`27
`
`ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`6
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
`
`Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)). If they are not, the claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101. Alice, 573 U.S. at 227. Significantly, “[s]tating an abstract idea while adding the words
`
`‘apply it with a computer’” is insufficient. Id. at 223. “Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
`
`amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition
`
`cannot impart patent eligibility.” Id.; accord id. at 225-26.
`
`B.
`
`It Is Permissible to Address 35 U.S.C. § 101 Eligibility on the Pleadings
`
`A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) challenges the legal sufficiency
`
`of the claims asserted in the complaint and is functionally identical to a motion to dismiss under
`
`10
`
`Rule 12(b)(6). Silver State Intellectual Technologies v. Facebook Inc., 314 F.Supp.3d 1041, 1044
`
`11
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2018) (White, J.). In general, “[j]udgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving
`
`12
`
`party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be
`
`13
`
`resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Hal Roach Studios,
`
`14
`
`Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990)). Thus, patent eligibility can
`
`15
`
`be determined on the pleadings “‘when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent
`
`16
`
`resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.’” Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. &
`
`17
`
`Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green
`
`18
`
`Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); accord Silver State, 314 F. Supp.
`
`19
`
`3d at 1044, 1048-49 (granting motion for judgment of invalidity on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C.
`
`20
`
`§ 101) (White, J.).
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid on Their Face Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`1.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to Organizing Human Activity in a
`
`Computerized Social Network, Which Is An Ineligible Abstract Idea
`
`Here, under step one of the two-step Alice framework, it is apparent that the asserted claims
`
`25
`
`are directed to an abstract idea. A simple reading of the claims shows that they are directed to a
`
`26
`
`computerized social network for interacting and sharing information and therefore purport to solve
`
`27
`
`a problem and/or to provide an improvement in organizing human activity, which the courts have
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`7
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`recognized is an abstract idea. They do not solve a problem in a technical field or provide an
`
`improvement in a technical field. Claim 31, for example, describes a software application that
`
`allows an end-user to “create . . . user accounts with associated profiles,” to “view profiles created
`
`by other users,” to “interact with other users,” “to send and receive messages to and from other
`
`users,” and to “link his or her user account . . . to . . . other users,” all wirelessly over a computer
`
`network. (ECF No. 9-3, p. 120.) This is simply a description of human interaction over a computer
`
`network, i.e., a computerized social network.
`
`The other asserted claims are also directed to a computerized social network. Claim 30 of
`
`the ’322 patent is substantially identical to claim 31 of the ’132 patent except that (1) it requires
`
`10
`
`“a smartphone device” instead of “a portable wireless computing device” and (2) states that the
`
`11
`
`profiles associated with the end-user must be “editable.” (ECF No. 9-4, p. 121.) Claim 28 of the
`
`12
`
`’430 patent merely adds the ability for users of the social network to browse information about
`
`13
`
`various music tracks. (ECF No. 9-5, p. 120.) In both cases, these differences do not change the
`
`14
`
`fact that the claims are directed to a computerized social network.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Several cases have dealt with claims analogous to those in this case, and the decisions in
`
`16
`
`those cases show that these claims are invalid on their face under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example,
`
`17
`
`in NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC, 838 Fed. Appx. 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit
`
`18
`
`addressed “[a] method for establishing a social network . . . implemented on a network computer
`
`19
`
`system.” Id. at 547. The method required “maintaining a list comprising a plurality of
`
`20
`
`participants,” “presenting a user with an interface from which the user makes a selection of a
`
`21
`
`category,” displaying “based . . . on a rating” “some of the information associated with each of
`
`22
`
`multiple participants . . . while shielding contact information,” “enabling the user to send an
`
`23
`
`inquiry message to one or more of the multiple participants,” “tracking a response time,” and
`
`24
`
`“updating the rating . . . based at least in part on the tracked response time.” Id. at 547-48. The
`
`25
`
`Federal Circuit concluded that the claim was “directed to the abstract idea of automating the
`
`26
`
`conventional establishment of social networks to allow humans to exchange information and form
`
`27
`
`relationships.” Id. at 548. It then explained that “the claimed invention of establishing a social
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`8
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`network is an abstract idea ‘pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.’” Id. (quoting In
`
`re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As such, the
`
`invention was not an improvement in a technical field such as computer functionality but rather an
`
`improvement in the field of organizing human activity “‘for which computers are invoked merely
`
`as a tool.’” Id. (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). The same is true in this case. The claims use
`
`computers as a tool to create a social network.
`
`
`
`In In re Salwan, 681 Fed. Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Salwan v. Iancu, 825 Fed. Appx.
`
`862 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit addressed a method and a system for “transferring” or
`
`“exchanging” “patient health information among healthcare user groups . . . over a network.” 681
`
`10
`
`Fed. Appx. at 939; 825 Fed. Appx. at 864. The claims required storing, communicating,
`
`11
`
`transferring, and/or reporting patient health information in a network. In re Salwan at 939-40,
`
`12
`
`941; Salwan v. Iancu at 864, 866. The Federal Circuit concluded that both sets of claims were
`
`13
`
`directed to “a method of organizing human activity with respect to medical information.” 681 Fed.
`
`14
`
`Appx. at 941; 825 Fed. Appx. at 866. As such, both sets of claims were directed to an abstract
`
`15
`
`idea. Id. The same is true in this case. The claims are directed to a network in which users are
`
`16
`
`able to “create . . . user accounts with associated profiles,” to “view profiles created by other users,”
`
`17
`
`to “interact with other users,” “to send and receive messages to and from other users,” and to “link
`
`18
`
`his or her user account . . . to . . . other users,” all wirelessly over a computer network. (ECF No.
`
`19
`
`9-3, p. 120.) As such, they are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`20
`
`
`
`In addition to the Federal Circuit, the district courts have also addressed claims like these
`
`21
`
`and have concluded that they are directed to abstract ideas. In Search and Social Media Partners,
`
`22
`
`LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 346 F.Supp.3d 626 (D. Del. 2018), for example, the claims at issue recited
`
`23
`
`a “system for use in a social network environment.” Id. at 633. The court concluded that the
`
`24
`
`claims were directed to “providing news items to a subscriber who is part of a group” and therefore
`
`25
`
`were directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 634-36. In Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 252
`
`26
`
`F.Supp.3d 17 (D. Mass. 2017), the claims at issue recited “[a] method for providing a personal
`
`27
`
`page on a computer system accessible to a plurality of remote users through a computer network.”
`
`28
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`9
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 46 Filed 04/15/21 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Id. at 20. The court concluded that the claims were directed to “the abstract idea of collecting,
`
`storing, and selectively sharing personal information.” Id. at 23, 25. In ZKey Investments, LLC v.
`
`Facebook Inc., 225 F.Supp.3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2016), the claims at issue recited “[i]n a network
`
`including a plurality of network devices operated by a plurality of users, a real-time information
`
`exchange system for sharing user profile information between respective users.” Id. at 1150. The
`
`court concluded that the claims were directed to “the abstract idea of collecting, storing, and
`
`sharing information of registered users with other registered and non-registered users.” Id. at 1155.
`
`The common threads in all of these cases are that (1) the concept of sharing information with and
`
`interacting with other users is an abstract idea because its purpose is to organize human activity
`
`10
`
`and (2) implementing such a social network on a computer platform does not change that purpose.
`
`11
`
`The same is true in this case. The claims are directed to a network in which users are able
`
`12
`
`to “create . . . user accounts with associated profiles,” to “view profiles created by other users,” to
`
`13
`
`“interact with other users,” “to send and receive messages to and from other users,” and to “link
`
`14
`
`his or her user account . . . to . . . other users,” all wirelessly over a computer network. (ECF No.
`
`15
`
`9-3, p. 120.) As such, they are directed to a method of organizing human activity and are ineligible
`
`16
`
`for patenting.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2.
`
`There Is Nothing in the Asserted Claims That Transforms Them Into
`
`Significantly More Than A