Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 19
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ
`
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SLING TV L.L.C., SLING MEDIA INC.,
`AND SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., AND ARRIS
`GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (D.I. 47) / MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS (D.I. 48)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Page(s)
`DEFENDANTS FAIL TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE SIXTY CLAIMS OF THE TWO
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT ARE INVALID UNDER §101. ........................................................... 1
`A. Defendants Cannot Establish That The Patent Claims Are Directed To An Abstract
`Idea Under Alice Step 1. ............................................................................................... 2
`Examining the patents confirms that they claim technological solutions to
`1.
`technological problems, not abstract subject matter. .......................................... 2
`2. Another district court has repeatedly held that the subject matter of the asserted
`patents is patent-eligible despite several prior challenges. ................................. 4
`3. Defendants’ flawed arguments mischaracterize the law and claims. ................. 5
`a. The claimed invention is not “merely a mental process that can be
`executed in the human brain or on paper.” ................................................. 5
`b. Defendants rely on inapplicable cases involving patent claims that are not
`limited to computer-specific solutions to computer-specific problems ...... 7
`c. The claims are not “directed to a result or effect,” but rather to specific
`computer solutions that improve computer functions. ................................ 8
`d. Defendants’ argument that the claims are abstract even if the claims
`“require digital data” misapplies both law and fact. ................................... 9
`B. Defendants Also Cannot Establish That the Claims Are Patent Ineligible Under Alice
`Step 2. ......................................................................................................................... 10
`1. Under any reasonable characterization, the patented claims include additional
`limitations that are unconventional. .................................................................. 11
`2. Defendants’ arguments under step 2 are based on attorney arguments that not
`only rely on a misapplication of controlling law, but are also contradicted by
`the patents themselves. ..................................................................................... 12
`C. Defendants Fail To Analyze Every Single Claim Separately. .................................... 14
`II. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 19
`
`Under Alice step 1, the claims at issue here are not abstract, but rather are limited to a
`
`particularized subset of the non-abstract realm of digital-data compression. Defendants’
`
`arguments rely on gross mischaracterization of the patents. Under any reasonable construction,
`
`the claims cannot be performed with “pen and paper,” but rather recite specific digital computer
`
`systems and components. Indeed, the claims provide technological solutions that improve
`
`computer capabilities, e.g., compression. They describe specific ways (e.g., using asymmetric
`
`compressors, determining parameter of data block and throughput of a communication channel)
`
`to improve the effectiveness of reducing the amount of digital data to be stored or transmitted.
`
`The claims are also patent-eligible under Alice step 2. The claim elements require much
`
`more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities for solving the then-existing
`
`problems in the field of digital-data compression. Defendants’ contrary arguments, focusing
`
`merely on individual elements separately, are factually and legally incorrect.
`I.
`DEFENDANTS FAIL TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE SIXTY CLAIMS OF THE
`TWO PATENTS-IN-SUIT ARE INVALID UNDER §101.
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101, patent eligibility is to be construed broadly, and the exceptions
`
`are narrow. One exception is the “abstract idea” exception. The Supreme Court has warned
`
`against interpreting the exception too broadly, as that could could “swallow all of patent law”
`
`because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
`
`2354 (2014). Alice’s two-step analysis is detailed below.
`
`“[T]his court heeds the Federal Circuit’s caution that dismissal for lack of patentable
`
`subject matter at the pleading stage should be ‘the exception, not the rule.’” Brain Synergy
`
`Institute, LLC v. Ultrathera Tech. Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01471-CMA-NYW, D.I. 93 (D. Colo.
`
`Jan. 28, 2016) (“it may be inappropriate to rule on patent-eligibility on a motion to dismiss …
`
`because of unresolved factual issues.”; Defendants have the “burden to establish ineligibility …
`by clear and convincing1 evidence”);2 JSDQ Mesh Techs. LLC v. Fluidmesh Networks, LLC,
`
`
`1 All emphasis added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 19
`
`2016 WL 4639140, *1 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016) (“At the motion to dismiss stage, a patent claim
`can be found directed towards patent-ineligible subject matter if the only plausible reading of
`the patent must be that there is clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility.”).3
`A.
`Defendants Cannot Establish That The Patent Claims Are Directed To An
`Abstract Idea Under Alice Step 1.
`The threshold inquiry of the §101 analysis requires Defendants to demonstrate that the
`
`patent claims are directed to an “abstract idea,” i.e., an “idea of itself” or “fundamental truths or
`
`fundamental principles the patenting of which would pre-empt the use of basic tools of
`
`scientific and technological work.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Defendants fail to do so here.
`
`Instead, Defendants apply a sweeping, incorrect reading of the §101 caselaw to an oversimplified
`
`mischaracterization of the patented inventions. Under any fair characterization, the claims here
`
`are patent-eligible under controlling law because they provide particular, technical solutions to
`
`technical problems specific to compression of digital computer data.
`1.
`Examining the patents confirms that they claim technological
`solutions to technological problems, not abstract subject matter.
`Under the Supreme Court’s Alice framework, claims that “improve[] an existing
`
`technological process” or “solve a technological problem in ‘conventional industry practice’” are
`
`patent eligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The Federal Circuit has applied these standards in
`
`several controlling cases to uphold the patentability of claims challenged as abstract.
`
`In Enfish, the Federal Circuit reversed a patent-ineligibility ruling on a database patent,
`
`which the district court described as being directed to the abstract idea of “storing, organizing,
`
`and retrieving memory in a logical table.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1337
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). The court held that “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction
`
`and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to §101
`
`2 In a Rule 12 motion, facts and inferences are drawn in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
`Dias v. City & County of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2009).
`3 Defendants’ assertions that “evidentiary standard of proof does not apply” and that “the
`presumption of validity … is inapplicable” (Mot. at 5, fn.2) are wrong. 35 U.S.C. §282 (“A
`patent shall be presumed valid.”); Brain Synergy, Case No. 13-cv-01471, D.I. 93 (“a challenge to
`the eligibility of the subject matter must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 19
`
`swallow the rule.” Id. The Federal Circuit further criticized the district court’s analysis because it
`
`“downplayed the invention’s benefits” disclosed in the specification. Id. at 1337–38. Because the
`
`claims were “designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in
`
`memory,” they were “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
`software arts” and, thus, “not directed to an abstract idea.” Id. at 1339.4
`In Visual Memory, the claims recited a system with “operational characteristics” which
`
`“determines a type of data.” Visual Memory LLC v. NVidia, 867 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). Here, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the claims “are directed to no more
`
`than a desired result” or that the patent claim “nothing more than a black box.” Id. at 1260-61.
`
`The court cautioned against over-simplifying the claims, and held that they were directed to
`
`“improvements to computer functionality” as opposed to “economic or other tasks for which a
`
`computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1258-1261.
`
`As in Enfish, DDR, and Visual Memory, the claimed inventions here provide particular
`
`technological solutions to overcome technological problems specific to the field of digital-data
`
`compression. The patents themselves state they are directed to problems unique to the realm of
`
`digital data, a form of computer data “not easily recognizable to humans in native form.” E.g.,
`
`‘535 patent at 2:28-30. In this realm, the patents describe using a combination of particular steps
`
`or structural computer components to help improve detection and exploitation of redundancies,
`
`for example, in the incoming strings of computer “1s” and “0s.”
`
`Like the inventions in DDR, Enfish and Visual Memory, the patents teach specific
`
`improvements to the function of the computer parts themselves, such as computer memory and
`
`
`4 Similarly, in DDR, the claims addressed “the problem of retaining website visitors.” DDR v.
`Hotels.com LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Despite being directed to e-commerce, the
`court held that these claims “stand apart” from abstract claims “because they do not merely recite
`the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the
`requirement to perform it on the Internet.” Id. Instead, “the claims recite[d] an invention that is
`not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.” Id. at 1259. Thus, they were eligible
`because the patented claims were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
`overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 19
`
`computer-data storage and retrieval mechanisms. For example, the patents describe various
`
`problems in the conventional arts, including “limitations in the size of the data required to both
`
`represent and process an individual data block address, along with the size of individual data
`
`blocks” and issues relating to “a compromise between efficient data storage, access speed, and
`
`addressable data space.” ‘535 patent at 6:31-53. The ‘535 and ‘610 patents solved the problems
`
`in the conventional digital data compression arts by providing digital systems utilizing two or
`more compressors, with at least one compressor being an “asymmetric” compressor,5 and the
`systems configured to select a compressor based on a parameter of a data block. See, e.g., id. at
`
`7:51-8:54. These claimed solutions are not abstract. They are necessarily rooted in computer
`technology and aimed at solving limitations in then-existing digital-data compression systems.6
`Realtime’s claims present a clearer case of subject-matter eligibility than those already
`
`held eligible in Federal Circuit cases, like DDR. In that case, after analyzing the claimed
`
`inventions, which were directed to the “look and feel” of websites, the court held that, although
`“the [asserted] claims do not recite an invention as technologically complex as an improved,
`particularized method of ‘digital-data compression,’” they were nonetheless patent eligible.
`
`DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259. The claims here thus present precisely the type of invention the Federal
`
`Circuit recognized as unquestionably patent eligible—particularized systems and methods of
`
`digital-data compression. Indeed, the claimed inventions in this case are not just merely directed
`
`to digital-data compression, but a very narrow species of digital-data compression.
`2.
`Another district court has repeatedly held that the subject matter of
`the asserted patents is patent-eligible despite several prior challenges.
`The asserted ‘535 and ‘610 patents incorporate other patents of related Realtime entity,
`
`all invented by the same inventor (James Fallon) and covering the same field (compression),
`
`5 “In “[a]n asymmetrical data compression algorithm[,] … the execution time for the
`compression and decompression routines differ significantly.” ‘535 patent at 9:63-66.
`6 The patents, properly interpreted, are limited to compression of digital data. For example, the
`defendants in Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp. et al.—including EchoStar Corp., a company
`related at the time of claim construction to some of the defendants in this case—agreed that
`“compress” means “represent data with fewer bits,” indicating operation on digital data (a “bit”
`is a unit of digital data). 2016 WL 4054914, at *18 (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2016).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 19
`
`including U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,195,024 and 6,309,424 (see ‘535 patent at 5:33-38); and 6,601,104
`
`(id. at 9:19-28). These Realtime patents incorporated by reference in the asserted patents are in
`
`the same patent family as other Realtime patents that a district court has repeatedly held to be
`
`patent eligible. For example, in Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., a Texas court found U.S.
`Pat. Nos. 7,378,992; 8,643,513; 6,597,812; 7,415,530; and 9,116,908 to be patent eligible.7 2016
`WL 259581 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2016) (Ex. A). And, in Realtime Data LLC v. Carbonite Inc., the
`
`Texas court found U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,054,728 and 8,717,204, as well as the ‘530 and ‘908 patents
`to be patent eligible.8 2017 WL 4693969 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2017) (Ex. B).
`In so holding, the Realtime court rejected some of the same arguments advanced by
`
`Defendants here. For instance, the ‘728 patent related to “analyz[ing] data … to identify one or
`
`more parameters or attributes” in performing compression, among other things. Id. at *1. The
`
`court held that the patents are “directed to non-abstract improvements to computerized data
`
`compression techniques” and “is a solution to a computing problem.” Id. at *5 (“Although words
`
`within a claim may disclose generic, conventional computing elements, a claimed system as a
`
`whole may present a non-abstract idea.”).
`3.
`Defendants’ flawed arguments mischaracterize the law and claims.
`a.
`The claimed invention is not “merely a mental process that can
`be executed in the human brain or on paper.”
`In their zeal to characterize the patents as “abstract,” Defendants provide a forced
`
`illustration involving a person (“science editor”) who replaces certain words with shorter words
`
`or acronyms, to assert that the patent claims can be done in “the human brain or on paper.” See
`
`Mot. at 9-10. Respectfully, this argument does not pass the straight-face test. In making this
`
`argument, Defendants assert that a length of a “textbook” meets the “throughput of a
`
`communication channel” claim limitation (Mot. at 10, fn.4), that “removing particular [paper]
`
`7 The ‘513 and ‘992 patents are related to the ‘024 and ‘424 patents incorporated by reference in
`the asserted ‘535 and ‘610 patents; and the ‘530 and ‘908 patents are related to the ‘104 patent
`incorporated by reference in the asserted patents.
`8 The ‘728 patent is related to the ‘024 and ‘424 patents incorporated by reference in the asserted
`‘535 and ‘610 patents.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 19
`
`sheets from [a cartoon] flipbook” is video compression (Mot. at 12, fn.6), and that “scientific
`
`notation” meets the “asymmetric compression” claim limitation (Mot. at 14, fn.7). Defendants’
`
`assertions notwithstanding, no lawyer calls the Bluebook a book of compression. See Mot. at 1.
`
`“[U]sing abbreviations and single words” (Mot. at 1) is not the same as “compression,” much
`
`less the same as the particularized digital data compression taught in the asserted patents.
`
`Defendants’ far-fetched arguments should be rejected.
`
`In making their “human brain or on paper” argument, Defendants also ignore other key
`
`aspects of the claims, including, e.g., (1) “utilization of one or more central processing units
`
`(CPU),” (2) “memory device,” (3) “controller,” (4) “one or more compressors,” (5) “descriptor
`
`of the at least the portion of the data block,” (6) “access profile,” (7) “slow compress encoder,”
`
`(8) “fast decompress decoder,” or (9) “common host system,” among others. E.g., ‘535 patent at
`
`20:29-23:30; ‘610 patent at 20:2-22:54. Defendants have not shown—and cannot show—that a
`human “editor” with pencil and paper can perform the claimed inventions.9
`Moreover, courts have held Defendants’ “human mind” arguments inapplicable and
`
`unhelpful. For example, the Federal Circuit Judge Bryson, sitting by designation, held patent
`
`claim to be eligible where the claims “involve[d] a several-step manipulation of data that, except
`
`perhaps in its most simplistic form, could not conceivably be performed in the human mind or
`
`with pencil and paper.” TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc., 2014 WL 651935, *4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19,
`
`2014). Similarly, the claimed digital data compression techniques “could not conceivably be
`
`performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper.” Id. An ordinary system or method of
`
`digital data compression, let alone the particular patented inventions here, would be impossible
`
`to perform in the human mind or by pencil and paper. This is why other courts have held that this
`
`analysis is “unhelpful for computer inventions” and “mislead[s] courts into ignoring a key fact:
`
`although a computer performs the same math as a human, a human cannot always achieve the
`
`9 Defendants’ argument that the claims “begs the question as to what specific device the Asserted
`Patents would purport to improve” (Mot. at 9) ignores large swaths of the specifications and
`claims. Both make clear that the patents are about particularized digital-data compression
`systems involving computer systems. See, e.g., supra; see also, e.g., ‘535 patent Figs. 1 & 3.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 19
`
`same results as a computer.” Cal. Institute of Tech. v. Hughes Commcn’s Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d
`
`974, 994-995 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3 2014). In short, Defendants’ analogies are misplaced. Indeed, the
`
`patents themselves refute Defendants’ flawed analogies: “digital data is … not easily
`
`recognizable to humans in its native form.” ‘535 patent at 2:28-30.
`b.
`Defendants rely on inapplicable cases involving patent claims
`that are not limited to computer-specific solutions to computer-
`specific problems
`Defendants rely on a variety of inapplicable cases involving patents that are not about
`
`digital-data compression at all, much less the narrow subset of digital-data compression systems
`
`and methods claimed here. A close analysis of these cases reveals that they provide no support
`
`for Defendants. For example, Defendants rely on RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855
`
`F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) to argue that the inventions claimed here are abstract, purportedly
`
`because standard encoding or decoding is directed to an abstract idea. Mot. at 7-8. But the
`
`RecogniCorp patent, which was not about digital-data compression, stands in stark contrast with
`
`patented inventions here. Unlike the digital-data compression claims here, the Federal Circuit
`
`expressly held that the RecogniCorp claim “does not even require a computer” because “the
`
`invention can be practiced verbally.” 855 F.3d at 1328. In contrast, the claims here require a
`
`computer and cannot be “practiced verbally”; instead, they are directed to improvements in
`
`digital-data compression.
`
`Other cases relied by Defendants are likewise inapplicable. For instance, Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) cited by
`
`Defendants involved a case where computer was used merely as a tool, i.e. to “restrict the
`
`invention’s field of use.” 850 F.3d at 1340. Moreover, Intellectual Ventures involved organizing
`data that was “human- and machine-readable.” Id. at 1338. In contrast, data at issue in the
`asserted patents are digital data—i.e., data that is “not easily recognizable to humans.” ‘535
`
`patent at 2:28-30. Moreover, Digitech Image Tech. LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758
`
`F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) involved a patent that claimed “signals” that were transitory,
`“ethereal,” and “non-physical” (id. at 1349-50) or a mathematical formula. In contrast, the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 19
`
`patents here do not claim any “signal,” nor do they claim mathematical formulas.10
`c.
`The claims are not “directed to a result or effect,” but rather to
`specific computer solutions that improve computer functions.
`Defendants are also wrong that the claims are “directed to a result or effect” “rather than
`
`focus[ing] on a specific means or method” (Mot. at 11). This argument improperly ignores the
`
`actual character of the claims. The claims recite specific processes, systems, and methods to
`
`improve computer capability (e.g., compression). For example, the claims recite selecting
`
`“asymmetric” compression, from among a plurality of digital compressors, based on parameter
`
`of a digital data block. See, e.g., ‘610 patent claim 1; ‘535 patent claim 15. The inventions
`
`overcame limitations and issues relating to “a compromise between efficient data storage, access
`
`speed, and addressable data space.” ‘535 patent at 6:31-53. The patents describe that “the overall
`
`throughput (bandwidth) … is one factor considered by the controller 11 in deciding whether to
`
`use an asymmetrical or symmetrical compression” (id. At 11:25-29), and recognized that
`
`“utiliz[ing] an asymmetrical algorithm … [may] provide an increase in the overall system
`
`performance as compared the performance that would be obtained using a symmetrical
`
`algorithm” (id. at 12:14-20). The specification and the claims provide specific technological
`
`ways to improve computer functionalities (e.g., digital compression).
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ “result or effect” argument is legally flawed and has already been
`
`rejected by the Federal Circuit. In Amdocs, the district court held that patent claims reciting
`
`various functions such as “collecting,” “storing,” and “outputting” data were ineligible under
`
`§101. Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. 841 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Applying Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Circuit reversed. After analyzing the patent
`
`10 Defendants’ reliance on other cases, involving entirely different subject matter, is similarly
`misplaced. For example, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) involved collecting and displaying electric power grid information, which was a “mental
`process.” 830 F.3d at 1354; see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (claim directed to verifying a credit card transaction that “can be performed in
`the human mind”); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
`1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to “sending,” “directing,” and “monitoring” information);
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) (claims directed to mathematical formula).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 19
`
`specification, it held that the claims were patent-eligible because they provided a technological
`
`solution to a technological problem, namely, “massive record flows.” Id. In so doing, the court
`
`rejected the argument Defendants now make:
`“[T]he dissent offers a different paradigm for identifying an abstract idea … that a
`desired goal (i.e. result or effect), absent structural or procedural means for achieving that
`goal, is an abstract idea... We commend the dissent for seeking a creative way of
`incorporating aspects of well-known doctrine [in other areas of patent law] in the search
`for what is an ‘abstract idea,’ but that it not now the law, either in statute or court
`decision.” Id.
`The “result” / “effect” argument was similarly rejected in Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1260-61.
`
`Defendants’ argument relies on the same flawed paradigm and should be rejected.
`
`Furthermore, Defendants also purport to impose a “new compression algorithm”
`
`requirement for patent eligibility. See Mot. at 1-2. Defendants are legally and factual incorrect.
`
`The Federal Circuit in McRO rejected such an argument. In McRO, the patent at issue related to
`
`“automating part of a preexisting 3–D animation method,” and one limitation there claimed
`
`method required “obtaining a first set of rules that define output morph weight set stream as a
`
`function of phoneme sequence and time of said phoneme sequence.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1307–
`
`08. The district court held the claims were unpatentable “because the claims were not limited to
`
`specific rules, but rather ‘purport to cover all such rules.’” Id. at 1309. The defendants echoed the
`
`same analysis on appeal and argued that the claims were “abstract because they do not claim
`
`specific rules” and “improperly purported to cover all rules.” Id. at 1313. The Federal Circuit
`
`rejected these arguments and reversed. In so doing, it held the claim was sufficiently limited and
`
`that, when properly considered as a whole, it is “directed to a patentable, technological
`
`improvement over the existing, manual 3–D animation techniques.” Id. at 1316. Likewise, the
`
`claims here are directed to technological improvements over the existing digital data
`
`compression techniques. And in any event, the asserted patents do teach new compression
`
`algorithms, e.g., ones that select asymmetric compressors from among plurality of compressors
`
`based upon a determined parameter of a data block.
`d.
`Defendants’ argument that the claims are abstract even if the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 19
`
`claims “require digital data” misapplies both law and fact.
`Defendants’ argument regarding “digital data” (Mot. at 12) misapplies the law and
`
`distorts a clear legal distinction concerning the eligibility of computer-related claims. Citing
`
`Supreme Court law, the Federal Circuit in Enfish reiterated and described this salient distinction.
`
`There, the court explained that the law draws a clear line between patent claims in which
`
`“computers are invoked merely as a tool” for executing an abstract idea—which may be patent
`
`ineligible—are different from claims that provides technological solutions to technological
`
`problems (e.g., “improvement in computer capabilities”)—which are patent eligible. Enfish, 822
`F.3d at 1335-36. Other cases have explained this salient distinction in the same manner.11
`Applying that law here requires rejection of Defendants’ argument. Although Defendants
`
`seek to blur and dramatically expand the boundaries of what is an “abstract” idea, here, it is not
`
`the mere fact that the asserted patents are in the digital domain that is relevant; rather, it is the
`
`fact that the problems that gave rise to Realtime’s inventions are rooted in digital computer
`
`technologies, and also the fact that the solutions provided in Realtime’s patented inventions are
`
`improvements on the computer capabilities. See supra. Defendants’ argument that the “claims
`
`use compression in the most conventional manner” (Mot. at 12) is false and entirely unsupported.
`
`In sum, the asserted claims can only be read as providing technological improvements
`
`and solutions specific to digital data compression and are not abstract. At the very least, this
`
`Court must accept all the allegations of the complaint and descriptions from the intrinsic record
`
`as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Realtime, deny Defendants’ motion.
`B.
`Defendants Also Cannot Establish That the Claims Are Patent Ineligible
`Under Alice Step 2.
`Because Defendants cannot meet their burden under step 1 of the Alice framework, the
`
`inquiry ends there and step 2 need not be addressed. But even if the Court were to somehow find
`
`
`11 E.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 (rejecting argument that invention “simply use[d] a computer as
`a tool” and holding the patents are eligible because the claims “focused on a specific asserted
`improvement in computer animation…”); DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257 (holding patent eligible
`because it “is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
`specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.”); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (patent
`eligible where it “improved an existing technological process”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 55 Filed 12/27/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 19
`
`that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, Defendants’ motion still fails because it also
`
`cannot meet its burden under Alice step 2.
`1.
`Under any reasonable characterization, the patented claims include
`additional limitations that are unconventional.
`Alice step 2 requires examination of the claim elements “both individually and ‘as an
`
`ordered combination.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Defendants cannot prevail on this step simply
`
`by showing that individual claim elements are “known in the art” or conventional. Bascom, 827
`
`F.3d at 1349–50. Indeed, “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-
`generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Id. at 1350.12
`For example, Bascom involved a patent for “filtering Internet content.” The district court,
`
`in concluding that the claims lacked inventive concept, “looked at each limitation individually,”
`
`found that that the limitations “local client computer,” “remote ISP server,” “Internet computer
`
`network,” and “controlled access network accounts” were described as “well-known generic
`
`computer components.” 827 F.3d at 1349. The Federal Circuit, however, rejected this analysis
`
`and reversed the district court. Although the individual limitations recited “generic computer,
`
`network and Internet components,” the court held that the claims nonetheless reflected an
`
`inventive concept because they “recite[d] a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea
`
`of filtering content.” Id. at 1350. Indeed, the court further held that while “[f]iltering content on
`
`the Internet was already a known concept, [] the patent describes how its particular arrangement
`of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id.13
`As in Bascom and Amdocs, the elements of the claims here, when properly examined as
`
`an ordered combination, recite more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities. The
`
`
`12 McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The genius of
`invention is often a c