Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`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 REPLY IN FURTHER
`SUPPORT OF 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 REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`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 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The First Step of the Alice Analysis Requires Viewing the Asserted Claims
`as a Whole, Not Individual Limitations of the Asserted Claims .............................1
`
`Individual
`Plaintiffs’ Step-One Analysis Erroneously Focuses on
`Limitations of the Asserted Claims Rather Than the Claims as a Whole ................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims With Meta-Data Limitation .............................................................2
`
`Claims With Multitasking and Multithreading Limitations.........................4
`
`Claims With HTTP-Connection Limitation.................................................5
`
`Claims Allowing End Users To “Link” Accounts (All Claims) ..................5
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement of the Problem Solved by the Asserted Claims
`Is Contradicted by the Claims ......................................................................6
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Distinguish Triller’s Cases Fail ...............................8
`
`Plaintiffs’ Step-Two Analysis Does Not Identify Anything That Ensures
`That the Asserted Claims Amount to “Significantly More” Than Claims on
`Organizing Human Activity .....................................................................................9
`
`No Factual Allegations or Claim Construction Issues Preclude Judgment on
`the Pleadings ..........................................................................................................13
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`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 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC,
`915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................9, 12
`
`BSG Technologies LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................15
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................1
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC,
`838 Fed. Appx. 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................8
`
`Salwan v. Iancu,
`825 Fed. Appx. 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................8, 9
`
`In re Salwan,
`681 Fed. Appx. 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................8, 9
`
`Search & Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`346 F.Supp.3d 626 (D. Del. 2018) .............................................................................................9
`
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)......................................................................................9, 12, 15
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`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 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`TS Patents LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`279 F.Supp.3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................11, 12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..........................................................................................................................1, 15
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`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 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs argue that Triller’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied on
`
`grounds that (1) there are factual disputes that prevent resolution of the § 101 issue at this stage of
`
`the case, (2) there are unresolved claim interpretation issues that prevent resolution of the § 101
`
`issue at this stage of the case, (3) the asserted claims are not “directed to” organizing human
`
`activity on a computerized network, and (4) the asserted claims require “significantly more” than
`
`organizing human activity on a computerized network. All of those arguments fail.
`
`Plaintiffs’ first and most glaring error is their failure to view the asserted claims “as a
`
`whole” in analyzing what those claims are “directed to” for purposes of the first step of the Alice
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`analysis. Instead of analyzing the claims “as a whole,” Plaintiffs attempt to establish what an
`
`11
`
`asserted claim is “directed to” by pointing to individual limitations of the claims. That analysis is
`
`12
`
`incorrect. Another glaring error is Plaintiffs’ assertion that the asserted claims solve a technical
`
`13
`
`problem that is untethered to—and even contradicted by—the language of the claims, when what
`
`14
`
`matters is the problem solved by the claimed invention. When the proper analysis is used, it is
`
`15
`
`apparent that these claims are “directed to” the abstract idea of a social network implemented on
`
`16
`
`a computerized network, that none of them contain anything sufficient to ensure that the patent
`
`17
`
`amounts to “significantly more” than a patent on the abstract idea itself, and that any genuine
`
`18
`
`factual disputes or claim interpretation issues make no difference to the outcome of the § 101 issue.
`
`19
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`A.
`
`The First Step of the Alice Analysis Requires Viewing the Asserted
`
`Claims as a Whole, Not Individual Limitations of the Asserted Claims
`
`The first step of the Alice analysis requires viewing the asserted claims “as a whole.”
`
`23
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Under step
`
`24
`
`one of Mayo/Alice, the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character
`
`25
`
`as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
`
`26
`
`1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,
`
`27
`
`considered in light of the specification, based on whether their character as a whole is directed to
`
`28
`
`excluded subject matter.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`1
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Collaborative Services, LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 750 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The step one ‘directed to’
`
`inquiry focuses on the claim as a whole.”)
`
`The step-one determination inquires as to the type of problem the subject matter of the
`
`claim as a whole purports to solve and/or the type of field in which the subject matter of the claim
`
`as a whole purports to provide an improvement, i.e., whether the subject matter of the claim as a
`
`whole 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, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; Athena, 915 F.3d at 750;
`
`see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 225, 223 (observing that the claims at issue did not “purport to improve
`
`10
`
`the functioning of the computer itself” or “effect an improvement in any other technology or
`
`11
`
`technical field” but that claims in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) “were patent eligible
`
`12
`
`because they improved [a] technological process”). A claim merely using a computer “as a tool”
`
`13
`
`to provide an improvement in a non-technical field is “directed to” an abstract idea. Enfish, 822
`
`14
`
`F.3d at 1336.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Step-One Analysis Erroneously Focuses on Individual
`
`Limitations of the Asserted Claims Rather Than the Claims as a Whole
`
`Plaintiffs’ opposition brief pays lip service to the “as a whole” requirement (Opp. at 10,
`
`18
`
`12), but then erroneously focuses on individual limitations of the asserted claims rather than the
`
`19
`
`claims as a whole.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`1.
`
`Claims With Meta-Data Limitation
`
`Plaintiffs’ opposition brief first addresses the seven claims1 that recite the use of “track
`
`22
`
`meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer and defines attributes of tracks, the meta-
`
`23
`
`data being external to a music track to make sharing and browsing of track information possible
`
`24
`
`without needing to distribute the related music track files.” (Opp. at 11.) But every one of those
`
`25
`
`claims first requires a “software application” (or a “portable wireless computing device” with a
`
`26
`
`processor programmed with a “software application”) that allows users to “create...user accounts
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1 The Group Three Claims (claim 35 of the ’322 patent and claim 6 of the ’132 patent) as
`well as claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 of the ’430 patent.
`2
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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. The social networking functionality specified in those
`
`other limitations is the backbone of the claims and cannot be ignored.
`
`Therefore, the question for purposes of the Alice step-one analysis is not what type of
`
`problem the meta-data limitation purports to solve and/or the type of field in which the meta-data
`
`limitation purports to provide an improvement, but rather what type of problem the subject matter
`
`of these claims as a whole purports to solve and/or the type of field in which the subject matter of
`
`these claims as a whole provides an improvement.
`
`10
`
`Clearly, the benefit/utility of a “software application” (or a “portable wireless computing
`
`11
`
`device” with a processor programmed with a “software application”) that allows users to
`
`12
`
`“create...user accounts with associated profiles,” “view profiles created by other users,” “interact
`
`13
`
`with other users,” “send and receive messages to and from other users,” and “link his or her user
`
`14
`
`account...to...other users,” all wirelessly over a computer network, is to allow the user of the
`
`15
`
`claimed application/device to participate in a social network (a computerized social network). The
`
`16
`
`additional fact that the software application uses track meta-data “to make sharing and browsing
`
`17
`
`of track information possible without needing to distribute the related music track files” does not
`
`18
`
`change that overall benefit/utility. Rather, like a generic computer, it is used as a tool to implement
`
`19
`
`the social network on a computerized network, and it merely makes an additional type of
`
`20
`
`information available to the social network. Because the benefit/utility of the software application
`
`21
`
`/ portable wireless computing device “as a whole” is to allow its user to participate in a social
`
`22
`
`network (a computerized social network), the claim as a whole solves a problem / provides an
`
`23
`
`improvement in the field of organizing human activity, not in a technical field.
`
`24
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the meta-data limitation “improves data searching efficiency and
`
`25
`
`reduces latency” (Opp. at 11) and “combat[s] digital piracy” (Opp. at 12), which they allege
`
`26
`
`qualifies as a technical solution to technical problems, i.e., improvements in technical fields. But
`
`27
`
`even if that is the benefit/utility of the metadata limitation, that is not the benefit/utility of the
`
`28
`
`claims as a whole. Using a generic computer also “improves data searching efficiency,” but Alice
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`3
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`made clear that the use of a generic computer did not change the character of the claims as a whole
`
`in that case. In Alice, the benefit/utility of the claimed invention as a whole was achievement of an
`
`intermediated settlement (using a computer as a tool to achieve it). 573 U.S. at 218-21. Similarly,
`
`here, the benefit/utility of the claimed invention as a whole is participation in a social network
`
`(using a computer network as a tool to achieve it).
`
`Plaintiffs accuse Triller of “resort[ing] to extreme overgeneralization,” simplifying the
`
`claims “into [their] ‘gist’ or core principles,” “re-writ[ing] the claim[s],” and “ignor[ing] all of the
`
`recited technical features of the dependent claims.” (Opp. at 13.) But Triller is not doing any such
`
`thing. Triller is not overgeneralizing the claims or ignoring any of the features of the claims, just
`
`10
`
`as the Supreme Court did not ignore the claims’ requirements in Alice for generic computer
`
`11
`
`components or overgeneralize those claims. Rather, just as the Supreme Court did in Alice, Triller
`
`12
`
`is assessing whether the claims as a whole are “directed to” an improvement in a technical field
`
`13
`
`or, instead, whether they are “directed to” an improvement in an abstract field such as organizing
`
`14
`
`human activity. That analysis involves determining what benefit/utility the claims as a whole
`
`15
`
`provide to a user, i.e., in what field the claims as a whole provide an improvement, and that analysis
`
`16
`
`shows that the claim features to which Plaintiffs point do not affect that determination when
`
`17
`
`considered in combination with all of the features of the claims.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`2.
`
`Claims With Multitasking and Multithreading Limitations
`
`Plaintiffs make the same mistake with respect to the seven “multitasking” and
`
`“multithreading” claims.2 Plaintiffs argue that the multitasking and multi-threading limitations
`
`21
`
`“‘balance the computational demands’ of particular software functions” (Opp. at 11) and “combat
`
`22
`
`digital piracy,” which they allege qualify as technical solutions to technical problems. But even if
`
`23
`
`that is the benefit/utility of these limitations, that is not the benefit/utility of the claims as a whole.
`
`24
`
`As with the meta-data claims, every one of these claims also requires a “software application” /
`
`25
`
`“portable wireless computing device” that allows users to “create...user accounts with associated
`
`26
`
`profiles,” “view profiles created by other users,” “interact with other users,” “send and receive
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`2 Claims 31, 32, and 56 of the ’322 patent, claims 2, 3, and 27 of the ’132 patent, and claim
`24 of the ’430 patent (the Group Five Claims).
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`4
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`messages to and from other users,” and “link his or her user account...to...other users.” As
`
`explained above, the benefit/utility of such an application/device is to allow its user to participate
`
`in a social network. The additional fact that the software application uses a “multitasking” or
`
`“multithreaded” architecture to “balance the computational demands” of various computer
`
`functions does not change that overall benefit/utility. Rather, just as the computer in Alice was
`
`used as a tool to implement intermediate settlement on a computer, a multitasking or multithreaded
`
`architecture is used as a tool here to implement the social network on a computerized network.
`
`3.
`
`Claims With HTTP-Connection Limitation
`
`Plaintiffs make the same mistake with respect to the five “wireless HTTP connection”
`
`10
`
`claims.3 Plaintiffs argue that the HTTP-connection limitation “allow[s] for improved cross-device
`
`11
`
`compatibility” (Opp. at 12), but that is not the benefit/utility of the claim as a whole. As with all
`
`12
`
`of the claims, every one of these claims also requires a “software application” / “portable wireless
`
`13
`
`computing device” with the social networking functionality already discussed, and the
`
`14
`
`benefit/utility of that functionality is to allow its user to participate in a social network. The
`
`15
`
`additional fact that this functionality takes place using a “wireless HTTP connection” does not
`
`16
`
`change that overall benefit/utility. Rather, just as the generic computer in Alice was used as a tool
`
`17
`
`to implement intermediate settlement on a computer, an HTTP connection is used as a tool here to
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`implement the social network on a computerized network.4
`
`4.
`
`Claims Allowing End Users To “Link” Accounts (All Claims)
`
`Plaintiffs also argue that the limitation in all twenty asserted claims requiring that the
`
`21
`
`software application “allows the end-user to…link his or her user account on the remote server to
`
`22
`
`user accounts…of other users” somehow transforms the subject matter of those claims into an
`
`23
`
`improvement in a technical field rather than an improvement in the field of organizing human
`
`24
`
`activity. Plaintiffs argue that this is because the “linking” limitation “requires updating specific,
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`3 The Group Four claims, as well as all other claims of the ’430 patent (claims 1, 19, 23,
`24, and 28 of the ’430 patent).
`4 To the extent Plaintiffs rely on “the unique HTTP implementation” described in the
`specification as the “MusicStation protocol” (see Opp. at 12), that implementation is not recited in
`(or required by) the claims.
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`5
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`defined data structures that are stored in a remote server” and therefore “improves the efficiency
`
`of complex software running on mobile devices communicating over slow networks.” (Opp. at
`
`12.) This argument fails for the same reasons as Plaintiffs’ other arguments, and for other reasons
`
`as well.
`
`First, Plaintiffs ignore the portion of this limitation specifying that it is the “end-user” that
`
`the software application “allows” to do the “linking.” It is not a “linking” that is done without
`
`human input. The fact the “software application” of the claims allows the end-user to perform or
`
`at least initiate this function shows that it is a social networking function like the others in the
`
`claim. Second, as with the other limitations already discussed above, it does not matter that a
`
`10
`
`computer (or “a remote server”) is used to perform the “linking” function or that “specific, defined
`
`11
`
`data structures” are updated on the “remote server” in order to perform the “linking” function that
`
`12
`
`leads to organizing human activity in a social network. Likewise, it does not matter that updating
`
`13
`
`data structures on a server in order to perform the “linking” function might “improve the
`
`14
`
`efficiency” of the software. In Alice, it did not matter that a computer was used to perform the
`
`15
`
`intermediate functions that led to an intermediated settlement. That computer would have had to
`
`16
`
`update data structures in order to perform the intermediated settlement functions, and the computer
`
`17
`
`obviously improved the efficiency of the software that carried out intermediated settlement. And
`
`18
`
`yet the Supreme Court in Alice concluded that the claim was “directed to” the abstract idea of
`
`19
`
`intermediated settlement. That is because the benefit/utility of the claim as a whole was not
`
`20
`
`improved software efficiency but was the ability to carry out an intermediated settlement. Here,
`
`21
`
`the benefit/utility of the claims as a whole is not to improve software efficiency but to organize
`
`22
`
`human activity. Thus, the claims are “directed to” an improvement in the field of human activity,
`
`23
`
`not in a technical field.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement of the Problem Solved by the Asserted Claims Is
`
`Contradicted by the Claims
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the asserted claims “recite specific solutions to the technical problems
`
`27
`
`of the time regarding how to access and transfer electronic data, including music track and social
`
`28
`
`network data, using low-performance mobile devices with low-bandwidth networks” and are
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`6
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“directed to a specific improved system for efficiently accessing and transferring electronic data,
`
`including music track and social network data, using the limited hardware of mobile devices
`
`transmitting data over low-bandwidth wireless networks.” (Opp. at 10, 2.) Those assertions are
`
`easily debunked: None of the asserted claims requires accessing or transferring “music
`
`track…data,” and none of the asserted claims require a “low-performance” mobile device or a
`
`“low-bandwidth” network. First, the only claims that even mention music are the seven claims5
`
`that require the “software application” to be “a music application,” but those claims “use[] track
`
`meta-data…to make sharing and browsing of track information possible without needing to
`
`distribute the related music track files.” Second, the claims do not require a “low-bandwidth”
`
`10
`
`network or “low-performance” mobile devices. Rather, the claims merely require operation “over
`
`11
`
`a wireless connection” or “over a wireless HTTP connection.” The specification and dependent
`
`12
`
`claims make clear that this includes wireless communications via “3G,” “Wi-Fi,” or via any other
`
`13
`
`wireless communications technology.” (’132 patent, claim 26; ’430 patent, claim 23; ’322 patent,
`
`14
`
`claim 55, 8:25-27, 6:8-10.) Moreover, most of the claims recite “a portable wireless computing
`
`15
`
`device,” which the specification expressly defines, stating that the term “should be expansively
`
`16
`
`construed to cover any kind of portable device with two way wireless communication capabilities
`
`17
`
`and
`
`includes without
`
`limitation radio
`
`telephones, mobile
`
`telephones, smart phones,
`
`18
`
`communicators, personal computers, computers and application specific devices. It includes
`
`19
`
`devices able to communicate in any manner over any kind of network, such as GSM or UMTS,
`
`20
`
`CDMA and WCDMA mobile radio, Bluetooth, IrDA etc.” (’322 patent, 1:28-37.) Thus, the claims
`
`21
`
`require a “software application” running on any kind of portable device that allows users to
`
`22
`
`“create...user accounts with associated profiles,” “view profiles created by other users,” “interact
`
`23
`
`with other users,” “send and receive messages to and from other users,” and “link his or her user
`
`24
`
`account...to...other users,” all wirelessly over any-bandwidth network and “without needing to
`
`25
`
`distribute…music track files.” The benefit/utility of such an application/device is to allow its end-
`
`26
`
`user to participate in a social network. Plaintiffs’ alternative statement of the claims’ benefit/utility
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`5 The Group Three Claims (claim 35 of the ’322 patent and claim 6 of the ’132 patent) as
`well as claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 of the ’430 patent.
`7
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`(allowing “access and transfer [of] electronic data, including music track and social network data,
`
`using low-performance mobile devices with low-bandwidth networks”) is contradicted by the
`
`claims themselves.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Distinguish Triller’s Cases Fail
`
`Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Triller’s cases showing that claims directed to social
`
`networking are not eligible for patenting on grounds that those claims did not recite “technical
`
`features that provide technical benefits.” (Opp. at 14.) That is incorrect; the claims in those cases
`
`did recite “technical features that provide technical benefits.” The Supreme Court’s decision in
`
`Alice involved method claims that required a computer and system claims that required a “data
`
`10
`
`processing system,” a “communications controller,” and a “data storage unit.” 573 U.S. at 222-25;
`
`11
`
`accord 717 F.3d at 1285, 1289. All of these devices were “technical features that provide technical
`
`12
`
`benefits.” But the question in Alice was not whether the claim had individual elements that
`
`13
`
`constituted technical features but whether the claim as a whole was “directed to” an improvement
`
`14
`
`in a technical field or a non-technical field, i.e., whether the benefit/utility of the claim as a whole
`
`15
`
`was in a technical field or a non-technical field. In Alice, it was apparent that the benefit/utility of
`
`16
`
`the claim as a whole was to provide an intermediated settlement, despite the presence in the claims
`
`17
`
`of “technical features that provide technical benefits.” Here, it is apparent that the benefit/utility
`
`18
`
`of the claimed “software application” / “portable wireless computing device” to its user is to allow
`
`19
`
`that user to participate in a social network, also despite the presence of “technical features that
`
`20
`
`provide technical benefits.” Therefore, the claims are directed to non-eligible subject matter. The
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`same observation that can be made about Alice also applies to the other cases cited by Triller.6
`
`
`6 E.g., NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC, 838 Fed. Appx. 544, 548 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`(concluding that claims were directed to ineligible subject matter even though they required a
`“network computer system” and even though that system “more efficiently organize[d]” the
`activities required by the claims); In re Salwan, 681 Fed. Appx. 938, 939-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(concluding that claims were directed to ineligible subject matter even though they required a
`“central data storage,” “private data storages,” a “central computer program embodied in at least
`one computer readable medium or embodied in at least one central server,” and “video
`conferencing”); Salwan v. Iancu, 825 Fed. Appx. 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (concluding that claims
`were directed to ineligible subject matter even though they required a “a central computer program
`embodied in a computer readable medium or embodied in a central server,” a “central database,”
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`8
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 64 Filed 10/06/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish the Salwan cases cited by Triller on grounds that the
`
`Federal Circuit characterized the claims in those cases as being directed to “economic and business
`
`practices.” (Opp. at 14.) But the Federal Circuit also concluded that those claims were directed to
`
`“a method of organizing human activity with respect to medical information.” 681 Fed. Appx. at
`
`941; 825 Fed. Appx. at 866. The claims here are directed to organizing human activity with respect
`
`to other types of information (about other users and music) and thus also fail the Alice analysis.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Step-Two Analysis Does Not Identify Anything That Ensures
`
`That the Asserted Claims Amount to “Significantly More” Than
`
`Claims on Organizing Human Activity
`
`10
`
`Under the second step in the Alice framework, if the claims are directed to an abstract idea,
`
`11
`
`then a court must “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered
`
`12
`
`combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into
`
`13
`
`a patent-eligible application,” i.e., whether the additional elements are “‘sufficient to ensure that
`
`14
`
`the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
`
`15
`
`itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
`
`16
`
`Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)) (emphasis added). If they are not, the claim is
`
`17
`
`invalid. Alice, 573 U.S. at 227.
`
`18
`
`One way of showing that additional elements are not “significantly more” is to show that
`
`19
`
`they are “well-understood,” “routine,” or “conventional.” Id. at 225; BSG Technologies LLC v.
`
`20
`
`Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Whether something is well-understood,
`
`21
`
`routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.”
`
`22
`
`Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). But even if additional elements are
`
`23
`
`novel, those elements do not necessarily transform a claim to “significantly more” than a claim to
`
`24
`
`an abstract idea. Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, In