Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK INC., and
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No: 4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`DISMISSING SECOND, THIRD, AND
`FOURTH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF IN
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`Date: November 5, 2021
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Courtroom: 5
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED 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 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .........................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................................................................1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Independent Claim 31 of the ’132 Patent ................................................................2
`
`Other Asserted Claims .............................................................................................3
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Law of Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................3
`
`It Is Permissible to Address 35 U.S.C. § 101 Eligibility on the Pleadings ..............5
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid on Their Face Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................5
`
`1.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to Organizing Human Activity in
`
`a Computerized Social Network, Which Is An Ineligible Abstract
`
`Idea ...............................................................................................................5
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Cases Involving Claims Directed to a Social Network ....................5
`
`Analysis of Claims in This Case ......................................................7
`
`2.
`
`There Is Nothing in the Asserted Claims That Transforms Them Into
`
`“Significantly More” Than a Patent on an Abstract Idea ..........................10
`
`IV.
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED 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 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`Accusystems, Inc. v. Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.,
`580 F.Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ...........................................................................................13
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................4, 10, 11
`
`Ahmed v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia,
`2008 WL 11319709 (N.D. Ga. 2008) ......................................................................................14
`
`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) .......................................................................................10
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC,
`915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................4
`
`Baeco Plastics, Inc. v. Inacomp Financial Services, Inc.,
`1993 WL 410066 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ...........................................................................................13
`
`Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................10
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................4, 6, 8, 12
`
`EpicRealm Licensing LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc.,
`2006 WL 3099603 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .......................................................................................14
`
`GolfSwitch, Inc. v. Incuborn Solutions, Inc.,
`2008 WL 3069005 (D. Ariz. 2008) ..........................................................................................14
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED 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 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Intermec Technologies Corp. v. Palm Inc.,
`738 F.Supp.2d 522 (D. Del. 2010) ...........................................................................................13
`
`Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star Int’l Co.,
`2016 WL 4205356 (C.D. Cal. 2016)........................................................................................13
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .........................................................................................................4, 10, 12
`
`Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6043929 (D. Del. 2020) ...........................................................................................10
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC,
`838 Fed. Appx. 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................5, 6
`
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,
`1998 WL 397915 (N.D. Cal. 1998) .........................................................................................13
`
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,
`214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................14
`
`In re Reiffin,
`199 Fed.Appx 965 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .........................................................................................14
`
`Salwan v. Iancu,
`825 Fed. Appx. 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................6
`
`In re Salwan,
`681 Fed. Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................6, 8, 12
`
`Search and Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`346 F.Supp.3d 626 (D. Del. 2018) .............................................................................................6
`
`Silver State Intellectual Techs. v. Facebook Inc.,
`314 F.Supp.3d 1041 (N.D. Cal. 2018) .......................................................................................5
`
`Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`252 F.Supp.3d 17 (D. Mass. 2017) ............................................................................................6
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................4, 6
`
`Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................4
`
`TS Patents LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`279 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2017), aff’d, 731 F. App’x 978 (Fed. Cir.
`2018) ..................................................................................................................................11, 13
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`iv
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`United States v. Brown,
`925 F.2d 1301 (10th Cir. 1991) ...............................................................................................13
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,
`887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`ZKey Investments, LLC v. Facebook Inc.,
`225 F.Supp.3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................6, 7
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`v
`
`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 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`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
`
`Second Amended Complaint. This motion is noticed for Nov. 5, 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 the asserted claims of 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
`
`11
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Triller previously moved for judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 46.) In response to the
`
`motion, Plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint; Triller stipulated to that request, and the Court
`
`granted it. (ECF No. 53.) On August 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint
`
`(“SAC”). (ECF No. 54.) The SAC adds additional factual allegations compared to Plaintiffs’ First
`
`Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) and asserts infringement of additional claims of the ’132, ’322,
`
`and ’430 patents. But nothing added to the SAC changes the conclusion that the patents are invalid
`
`on their face under 35 U.S.C. § 101—this is true of both the originally and newly asserted claims
`
`of those patents. Thus, Triller has filed this motion seeking judgment on the pleadings once again.
`
`20
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`
`21
`
`The three patents are all related to one another. The ’322 patent is a “continuation” of the
`
`22
`
`’132 patent, and the ’132 patent is a “continuation” of the ’430 patent. (ECF No. 54-4, pp. 2-3, 77;
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`ECF No. 54-3, pp 2-3, 77.) All three patents have the same figures and the same written
`
`description. (Compare ECF No. 54-3 with ECF No. 54-4 and with ECF No. 54-5.) The SAC alleges
`
`that Triller infringes the following twenty claims: independent claims 1 and 31 (and dependent
`
`claims 2, 3, 6, 22, 26, and 27) of the ’132 patent, independent claim 30 (and dependent claims 31,
`
`32, 35, 51, 55, and 56) of the ’322 patent, and independent claims 1 and 28 (and dependent claims
`
`19, 23, 24) of the ’430 patent. (ECF No. 54, pp. 21-25; ECF No. 54-6.)
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`1
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Independent Claim 31 of the ’132 Patent
`
`Claim 31 of the ’132 patent appears to be the broadest claim of the asserted claims. It
`
`describes a software application which allows users to “create...user accounts with associated
`
`profiles,” “view profiles created by other users,” “interact with other users,” “send and receive
`
`messages to and from other users,” and “link his or her user account...to...other users,” all
`
`wirelessly over a computer network. (ECF No. 54-3, p. 120.) The specification of the patents
`
`illustrates this functionality.
`
`For example, Figure 135 (below) 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. (ECF No. 54-3,
`
`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, as
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`seen in Fig. 136 (to the right). (ECF No. 54-3, p. 64.) The profile includes
`
`18
`
`the user’s member name (here, “Murdock”), an image unique to the user,
`
`19
`
`a rating indicating how other users have rated the user (here, with five
`
`20
`
`stars), the number of times other users have listened to one of the user’s
`
`21
`
`shared music playlists (here, 0), the number of friends the user has (here,
`
`22
`
`1), and a “catchphrase” (here, “I knew it, I knew it…you had a plan!”). (ECF No. 54-3, p. 114
`
`23
`
`(76:34-60).)
`
`24
`
`The
`
`specification
`
`further
`
`25
`
`illustrates how a user can view
`
`26
`
`profiles created by other users, as
`
`27
`
`recited in claim 31. (ECF No. 54-3,
`
`28
`
`p. 66.) The specification explains
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`2
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`that in the screens shown in Figure 141 (above), 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. 54-3, 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 Figures 146 and 148:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`(ECF No. 54-3, pp. 68, 69.) In Figure 146, the user is sending a friend request to a user named
`
`14
`
`“Matt,” and in Figure 148, the user is sending a recommendation about a music track to another
`
`15
`
`user. (ECF No. 54-3, p. 92 (32:26-33), p. 115 (78:12-20, 78:31-43, 78:62-67).) In both figures,
`
`16
`
`the user is also sending messages to other users. In Figure 146, the user is sending the message
`
`17
`
`“Billy is ready to rock!” and in Figure 148, the user is sending the message “U know I’m a bit…”
`
`18
`
`A friend request or a recommendation causes a message to arrive in the other user’s “inbox.” (ECF
`
`19
`
`No. 54-3, p. 115 (78:18-20, 78:66-67), p. 116 (79:1-80:14), pp. 70-71 (Figs. 149-154).)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`B.
`
`Other Asserted Claims
`
`The other 19 asserted claims all require the same base social networking functionality of
`
`22
`
`claim 31 with slight modifications or additions, as discussed below in sections III.C.1.b and III.C.2.
`
`23
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`The Law of Eligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`The Supreme Court has taught that there are judicially-created limits that preclude three
`
`26
`
`areas of subject matter from being eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101: “laws of nature,
`
`27
`
`physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980).
`
`28
`
`This case involves “abstract ideas.” Abstract ideas include “method[s] of organizing human
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`3
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`activity.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 220 (2014); accord In re TLI
`
`Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Supreme Court established
`
`a two-step framework to determine whether claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
`
`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
`
`10
`
`whether it purports to solve a problem / provide an improvement in a non-technical field (such as
`
`11
`
`human activity). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`
`12
`
`Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Athena
`
`13
`
`Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 750 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
`
`14
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see
`
`15
`
`also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225, 223 (observing that the claims at issue did not “purport to improve the
`
`16
`
`functioning of the computer itself” or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical
`
`17
`
`field” but that claims in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) “were patent eligible because they
`
`18
`
`improved [a] technological process”). A claim merely using a computer “as a tool” to provide an
`
`19
`
`improvement in a non-technical field is “directed to” an abstract idea. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336.
`
`20
`
`Under the second step in the Alice framework, if the claims are directed to an abstract idea,
`
`21
`
`then a court must “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered
`
`22
`
`combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into
`
`23
`
`a patent-eligible application,” i.e., whether the additional elements are “‘sufficient to ensure that
`
`24
`
`the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
`
`25
`
`itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
`
`26
`
`Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)) (emphasis added). If they are not, the claim is
`
`27
`
`invalid. Alice, 573 U.S. at 227. One way of showing that additional elements are not “significantly
`
`28
`
`more” is to show that they are “well-understood,” “routine,” or “conventional.” Id. at 225.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`4
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`B.
`
`It Is Permissible to Address 35 U.S.C. § 101 Eligibility on the Pleadings
`
`Patent eligibility can be determined on the pleadings “when there are no factual allegations
`
`that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.” Voter Verified,
`
`Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Aatrix
`
`Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); accord
`
`Silver State Intellectual Techs. v. Facebook Inc., 314 F.Supp.3d 1041, 1048-49 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
`
`(White, J.) (granting motion for judgment of invalidity on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101).
`
`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
`
`are directed to an abstract idea. A simple reading of the claims shows that they are directed to a
`
`computerized social network for interacting and sharing information among humans and therefore
`
`purport to solve a problem and/or to provide an improvement in organizing human activity, which
`
`the courts have recognized is an abstract idea. They do not solve a problem in a technical field or
`
`provide an improvement in a technical field. The technical features recited in the claims are merely
`
`invoked as tools for providing a computerized social network.
`
`a.
`
`Cases Involving Claims Directed to a Social Network
`
`Several cases have dealt with claims analogous to those in this case, and the decisions in
`
`those cases show that these claims are invalid on their face under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example,
`
`in NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC, 838 Fed. Appx. 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit
`
`addressed “[a] method for establishing a social network...implemented on a network computer
`
`system.” Id. at 547. The method required “maintaining a list comprising a plurality of participants,”
`
`“presenting a user with an interface from which the user makes a selection of a category,”
`
`displaying “based…on a rating” “some of the information associated with each of multiple
`
`participants...while shielding contact information,” “enabling the user to send an inquiry message
`
`to one or more of the multiple participants,” “tracking a response time,” and “updating the
`
`rating...based at least in part on the tracked response time.” Id. at 547-48. The Federal Circuit
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`5
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`concluded that the claim was “directed to the abstract idea of automating the conventional
`
`establishment of social networks to allow humans to exchange information and form
`
`relationships.” Id. at 548. It then explained that “the claimed invention of establishing a social
`
`network is an abstract idea ‘pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.’” Id. (quoting
`
`TLI Comms., 823 F.3d at 613). 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 and conventional computer functionality as
`
`tools to create and maintain a social network—a computerized social network.
`
`10
`
`
`
`In In re Salwan, 681 Fed. Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Salwan v. Iancu, 825 Fed. Appx.
`
`11
`
`862 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit addressed a method and a system for “transferring” or
`
`12
`
`“exchanging” “patient health information among healthcare user groups...over a network.” 681
`
`13
`
`Fed. Appx. at 939; 825 Fed. Appx. at 864. The claims required storing, communicating,
`
`14
`
`transferring, and/or reporting patient health information in a network. In re Salwan at 939-40, 941;
`
`15
`
`Salwan v. Iancu at 864, 866. The Federal Circuit concluded that both sets of claims were directed
`
`16
`
`to “a method of organizing human activity with respect to medical information.” 681 Fed. Appx.
`
`17
`
`at 941; 825 Fed. Appx. at 866. As such, both sets of claims were directed to an abstract idea. Id.
`
`18
`
`
`
`In addition to the Federal Circuit, the district courts have also addressed claims like these
`
`19
`
`and have concluded that they are directed to abstract ideas. In Search and Social Media Partners,
`
`20
`
`LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 346 F.Supp.3d 626 (D. Del. 2018), for example, the claims at issue recited
`
`21
`
`a “system for use in a social network environment.” Id. at 633. The court concluded that the claims
`
`22
`
`were directed to “providing news items to a subscriber who is part of a group” and therefore were
`
`23
`
`directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 634-36. In Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 252 F.Supp.3d
`
`24
`
`17 (D. Mass. 2017), the claims at issue recited “[a] method for providing a personal page on a
`
`25
`
`computer system accessible to a plurality of remote users through a computer network.” Id. at 20.
`
`26
`
`The court concluded that the claims were directed to “the abstract idea of collecting, storing, and
`
`27
`
`selectively sharing personal information.” Id. at 23, 25. In ZKey Investments, LLC v. Facebook
`
`28
`
`Inc., 225 F.Supp.3d 1147 (C.D. Cal. 2016), the claims at issue recited “[i]n a network including a
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`6
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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
`
`and (2) implementing such a social network on a computer platform does not change that purpose.
`
`b.
`
`Analysis of Claims in This Case
`
`Of the twenty asserted claims, there are five independent claims and fifteen dependent
`
`10
`
`claims. These claims can be divided into seven groups for discussion and analysis, as follows:
`
`11
`
`Group One Claims. First, independent claims 1 and 31 of the ’132 patent describe a
`
`12
`
`software application that allows an end-user to “create...user accounts with associated profiles,” to
`
`13
`
`“view profiles created by other users,” to “interact with other users,” “to send and receive messages
`
`14
`
`to and from other users,” and to “link his or her user account...to...other users,” all wirelessly over
`
`15
`
`a computer network, as detailed above. (ECF No. 54-3, pp. 119, 120.) These claims are simply
`
`16
`
`descriptions of human interaction over a computer network, i.e., using a computer network as a
`
`17
`
`tool for organizing human activity. Although the specification (and the SAC) tout a system that
`
`18
`
`“will enable users to easily acquire, listen to and manage music on portable wireless computing
`
`19
`
`devices” and that will be “transformative of the way people acquire and listen to digital music”
`
`20
`
`(ECF No. 54-3, 2:51-54, 3:6-8; ECF No. 54, ¶ 20), these claims do not even mention music.
`
`21
`
`Group Two Claims. Second, independent claim 30 of the ’322 patent is substantially
`
`22
`
`identical to independent claim 31 of the ’132 patent (requiring all of the same social network
`
`23
`
`functions) except that (1) it requires “a smartphone device” instead of “a portable wireless
`
`24
`
`computing device” and (2) states that the profiles associated with the end-user must be “editable.”
`
`25
`
`(ECF No. 54-4, p. 121.) But these two features do not change the focus of claim 30 compared to
`
`26
`
`claims 1 and 31 of the ’132 patent (Group One). It still is a description of human interaction over
`
`27
`
`a computer network. It is still using a computer network as a tool for organizing human activity,
`
`28
`
`and it still is a computerized social network.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`7
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Group Three Claims. Third, dependent claim 6 of the ’132 patent and claim 35 of the
`
`’322 patent require all of the same social network functions as the claims of Group One or Group
`
`Two and add the ability for users of the social network to browse information about various music
`
`tracks. (ECF No. 54-3, p. 120; ECF No. 54-4, p. 122.) And they facilitate this by requiring the use
`
`of “track meta-data...to make sharing and browsing of track information possible without needing
`
`to distribute the related music track files.” (Id.) Once again, these differences do not make a
`
`difference. The social networking functions predominate in these claims. Thus, the focus of these
`
`claims “as a whole” is clearly on a computerized social network that allows for interaction and for
`
`the sharing of information among humans. These claims merely specify a technical feature, namely
`
`10
`
`the use of meta-data, that facilitates the sharing of a particular type of information over that social
`
`11
`
`network, namely information about music. That feature does not transform the subject matter of
`
`12
`
`these claims “as a whole” into an invention that purports to solve a problem in a technical field or
`
`13
`
`that purports to provide an improvement in a technical field. Rather, the use of meta-data is
`
`14
`
`“invoked merely as a tool” for more effectively sharing information about music in the
`
`15
`
`computerized context. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. Just as claims directed to “a method of organizing
`
`16
`
`human activity with respect to medical information” were ineligible for patenting in the Federal
`
`17
`
`Circuit’s Salwan cases, Salwan, 681 Fed. Appx. at 941, so too is a claim directed to a method of
`
`18
`
`organizing human activity with respect to musical information in this case.
`
`19
`
`Group Four Claims. Fourth, independent claims 1 and 28 of the ’430 patent require all
`
`20
`
`of the same social network functions as the claims of Group One and the same music-information-
`
`21
`
`sharing function as the claims of Group Three but require “a wireless HTTP connection” rather
`
`22
`
`than “a wireless connection.” But this difference does not make a difference. The social
`
`23
`
`networking functions still predominate; these claims merely specify the use of a particular network
`
`24
`
`communications protocol as a tool for facilitating social networking over a computer network.
`
`25
`
`Group Five Claims. Fifth, claims 2, 3, and 27 of the ’132 patent, claims 31, 32, and 56 of
`
`26
`
`the ’322 patent, and claim 24 of the ’430 patent require all of the same social network functions as
`
`27
`
`the claims of a previous Group and add the requirement that the software application uses “a
`
`28
`
`multitasking architecture” or “a multithreaded architecture” to “balance the computational
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`8
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 58 Filed 09/15/21 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`demands” of various computer functions, including network access, user interface, digital rights
`
`management (DRM), and media operations. Once aga