Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 64 Filed 02/02/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SLING TV L.L.C.,
`SLING MEDIA INC.,
`SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., AND
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC’S NOTICE OF
`SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
`DISMISS (D.I. 47) / MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (D.I. 48)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 64 Filed 02/02/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5
`
`Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime”) respectfully submits this Notice
`
`of Supplemental Authority to bring to the Court’s attention two recent, precedential Federal Circuit
`
`opinions: Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2016-2684 (Fed. Cir. Jan.
`
`25, 2018) (Ex. A); and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 2016-2520 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2018)
`
`(Ex. B). These opinions further compel a denial of Defendants’ motions (D.I. 47 and D.I. 48).
`
`The Finjan court held eligible a patent for identifying suspicious computer virus. Finjan at
`
`5. Finjan’s claim recited only three steps: (a) “receiving … a Downloadable” computer program;
`
`(2) “generating … security profile that identifies suspicious code;” and (3) “linking” the security
`
`profile to the computer program. Id. The claim did not specify how to “identif[y] suspicious code.”
`
`Id. While acknowledging that prior Federal Circuit precedent has held that “virus screening,” by
`
`itself, is an abstract idea, the court nevertheless held that Finjan’s patent claim was not abstract
`
`because it was not directed to just any “virus screening,” but instead limited to a particular type of
`
`virus screening, which constituted improvement in computer functionality. In so holding, the court
`
`rejected the same argument advanced by Defendants here, namely, that the claims “do not
`
`sufficiently describe how to implement” any idea. Id. at 8-9. On this point, the court held that the
`
`three recited claimed steps were all that was needed to render the claim patent-eligible. Id. at 9.
`
`The Realtime claims here present an even clearer case for patent-eligibility than those at
`
`issue in Finjan. In contrast to the patent in Finjan, which was in the field of “virus screening” that
`
`previously was held to be abstract, Realtime’s claims are directed to particularized digital data
`
`compression methods and systems, which plainly is not abstract. See DDR, 733 F.3d at 1259. And
`
`the asserted claims are not just directed to digital data compression in general, but a particularized
`
`subset of novel digital data compression, which is directed to improving the capacity of a computer
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 64 Filed 02/02/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5
`
`system to store more data or to transfer data more efficiently across computer systems. Moreover,
`
`the asserted claims require even more specific steps and components than those held eligible in
`
`Finjan. These include: (i) the use of “a plurality of compression” algorithms or techniques; (ii)
`
`determining “parameter or attribute” of a digital data block; (iii) “selecting” specific techniques
`
`based upon that determination “and a throughput of a communication channel,” or a digital data
`
`“access profile,” (iv) requiring the selected techniques “being asymmetric,” and other novel
`
`elements. E.g., ‘610 patent claim 1; see also, e.g., ‘535 patent claims 1 & 15; D.I. 55 at 2-10.
`
` The Core Wireless court affirmed eligibility of a patent in the field of summarizing and
`
`presenting information in electronic devices. Core Wireless at 9. In so doing, the court rejected
`
`defendants’ failure to acknowledge key claim elements and cautioned that courts “must be mindful
`
`that all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Id. at 7. After applying the court’s precedent, it held that the patent
`
`claimed “an improvement in the functioning of computers” (id. at 7-10) because it was limited “to
`
`a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.” As in Core
`
`Wireless, the patents at issue here claim specific and particular manners of selecting and
`
`compressing digital data to improve the capacity of a computer system to store more data or to
`
`transfer data more efficiently across computer systems. As the Federal Circuit did in Core
`
`Wireless, the Court should reject Defendants’ attempt to ignore key claim elements, which
`
`Defendants do to construct their flawed argument that the claims can be practiced in the “human
`
`mind.” D.I. 47 at 9-11. Like in Core Wireless, the claims here are patent-eligible.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 64 Filed 02/02/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5
`
`Dated: February 2, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ C. Jay Chung
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
`C. Jay Chung (CA SBN 252794)
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`pwang@raklaw.com
`
`Eric B. Fenster (CO Atty Reg # 33264)
`ERIC B. FENSTER, LLC
`1522 Blake Street, Suite 200
`Denver, CO 80202
`(303) 921-3530
`Eric@fensterlaw.net
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 64 Filed 02/02/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record via
`
`electronic service on February 2, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ C. Jay Chung
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`