Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 3427
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
`INC.,
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1596-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1599-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`f/k/a MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 3428
`
`C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA)
`INC., f/k/a SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY CORPORATION and
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC. AND OATH INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 3429
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`The Court Can and Should Address Section 101 Invalidity Under Rule
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Claims Are Not Directed to Concrete Technological
`
`The Asserted Patents Are Similar to Information Collection and
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`NATURE AND STATE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................... 1
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 2
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 3
`12(c) ....................................................................................................................... 3
`Patent Eligibility is Determined Using the Alice Two-Step Test .......................... 3
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to Abstract Ideas .................. 4
`The ’843 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea .................................... 5
`The ’854 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea .................................... 6
`The ’356 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea .................................... 7
`The ’993 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea .................................... 9
`Improvements .......................................................................................... 11
`Recognition Patents That Have Been Found Ineligible ........................... 13
`Concept ................................................................................................................ 14
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 16
`
`D.
`
`Alice Step Two – The Asserted Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 3430
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV,
`LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................4, 17
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................3, 18
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................15, 18
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................3
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................13, 14
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................4, 5, 14, 15
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Hyper Search, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`Case No. 1:17-cv- 01387-CFC-SRF, D.I. 21 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2018) ......................................7
`
`I.V. I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................16, 17, 18
`
`I.V. I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................5, 13, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`- -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 3431
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`I.V. I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1343-45 ........................................................................................13
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ...............................................................................................................4
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................16
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`161 F. Supp. 3d 325 (D. Del. 2015) ...........................................................................................4
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15
`
`Rosenau v. Unifund Corp.,
`539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008).......................................................................................................3
`
`SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................3
`
`In re TLI,
`823 F.3d at 613 ............................................................................................................13, 15, 16
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 773 (E.D. Va. 2015), aff’d 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................7
`
`Turbe v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands,
`938 F.2d 427 (3d Cir. 1991).......................................................................................................3
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Comm’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................13, 17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 3432
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`12(b) ...........................................................................................................................................3
`12(b)(6) ......................................................................................................................................3
`12(c) ...........................................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 3433
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`All of the asserted claims of the Arendi asserted patents are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`identifying information in a document, searching for related information in a separate source, and
`
`using the found information in some way.1 Claims directed to such abstract information
`
`identification and searching functionality cannot survive Alice’s two-step test for patent eligibility.
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“Alice”).
`
`None of the asserted patents disclose an improvement to the computer itself. The
`
`specifications acknowledge that the claimed inventions utilize only “conventional” computer
`
`hardware and basic programming using “existing programming languages” and off-the-shelf “word
`
`processors.” Neither the asserted claims nor the specifications teach any unconventional approach or
`
`specialized computer programming to accomplish the claimed functionality. The asserted claims
`
`therefore fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter, just like similar claims held invalid by the
`
`Federal Circuit. The asserted claims are unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STATE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants infringe claims 1, 8, 23 and 30 of the ’843 Patent2 and
`
`claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 24 of the ’993 Patent.3 Plaintiff further alleges that Google
`
`infringes claims 13, 15, 31, 50, 53, 56, 79, 93, 98 and 101 of the ’854 Patent4 and claims 2, 11 and
`
`19 of the ’356 Patent. On February 27, 2014, the Court stayed the cases pending resolution of
`
`various IPRs. After the IPRs concluded, the Court entered an amended scheduling order. The parties
`
`
`1 Plaintiff have asserted claims from U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,917,843 (“’843”), 8,306,993 (“’993”),
`7,496,854 (“’854”), and 7,921,356 (“’356”). The ’843, ’854 and ’356 Patents share a common
`specification and claim a filing date of November 10, 1998. The ’993 Patent shares most of that
`same specification, but claims priority to an application filed on September 3, 1999.
`2 Plaintiff additionally asserts claims 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the ’843 Patent against Google alone.
`3 Plaintiff additionally asserts claim 2 of the ’993 Patent against Google alone.
`4 Plaintiff additionally asserts claims 31 and 79 of the ’854 Patent against Oath.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 3434
`
`
`exchanged proposed claim constructions, filed a Joint Claim Construction Chart,5 and filed Opening
`
`Claim Construction Briefs.6 A Claim Construction hearing is set for July 26, 2019.
`
`When these cases were filed, the Supreme Court’s Alice decision had not issued. Now that
`
`this case is no longer stayed and has reached claim construction, it is an ideal time for the Court to
`
`address the patent eligibility of the claims in view of Alice and its progeny.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`1.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’843, ’993, ’854 and ’356 Patents are directed to trivial
`
`variations on one unpatentable, abstract idea: identifying information in a document (like a letter),
`
`searching for related information in a separate source (such as an address book), and using the
`
`related information found in some way (to address an envelope). In fact, the patents admit that this
`
`basic idea predates its invention, and simply proposes taking what was done manually, and instead
`
`automating it on a computer. (e.g., ’843, 1:28-42.) Taking what was done before and doing it on a
`
`computer is the quintessential unpatentable idea under Alice. Indeed, people practiced this exact idea
`
`in everyday life, using pens, or typewriters, and paper, for decades before Arendi filed its patent
`
`applications. For example, a person writes a letter to a client, and includes the client’s name while
`
`temporarily leaving blank a space for the address. The author uses the client’s name to look up her
`
`address in an address book and then writes that address into the letter. The alleged problem is not
`
`unique to computers or electronic documents, and does not require specialized computer hardware to
`
`solve. Moreover, neither the claims nor the specification explain how to do anything, only to “do it
`
`on a computer.” In fact, the specifications of the Asserted Patents explicitly state that the claimed
`
`inventions can be, and are, implemented using only generic and “conventional” computer hardware
`
`
`5 See D.I. 107 in Case No. 12-1595, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al.
`6 See D.I. 111, 112 in Case No. 12-1595, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al.; D.I. 117, 119
`in Case No. 13-919, Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 3435
`
`
`in connection with “most modern word processors,” and “can be programmed and created in most
`
`existing programming languages.” (e.g., ’843, 9:1-60).
`
`2.
`
`The asserted claims have no inventive concept. They require no more than generic
`
`computers, word processors and database programs to implement the abstract idea and do not
`
`describe how to program a conventional computer system (Fig. 16) implements the abstract idea.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`The Court Can and Should Address Section 101 Invalidity Under Rule 12(c)
`
`“After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for
`
`judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). For a Rule 12(c) motion, as with a motion under
`
`Rule 12(b), the Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and view them in the
`
`light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d
`
`Cir. 2008); Turbe v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991).
`
`Invalidity under Section 101 “may be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`or (c) motion.” SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
`
`F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming use of motions to dismiss).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Eligibility is Determined Using the Alice Two-Step Test
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court established the two-step test for determining eligibility under
`
`Section 101. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In Step One, the court determines whether the claims “are
`
`directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Id. This considers the claims’
`
`overall “focus” and “character as a whole.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
`
`1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`If the claims, as here, are directed to an abstract idea, then the court advances to Step Two,
`
`where it “must look to the elements of the claim both individually and as an ordered combination” to
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 3436
`
`
`determine whether there is an “‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that
`
`is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon
`
`the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Personalized Media Commc’ns v. Amazon.com, Inc., 161 F. Supp.
`
`3d 325, 329 (D. Del. 2015) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355) (internal quotation marks omitted). To
`
`survive this second step, a claim must include “additional features” such that the claim does “more
`
`than simply stat[e] the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357
`
`(quotations and citation omitted). A claim adding only “well-understood, routine, conventional
`
`activity” does not constitute an “inventive concept.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`
`Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012).
`
`C.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to Abstract Ideas
`
`At Step One, courts determine whether the claims focus on a “specific means or method that
`
`improves the relevant technology,” which may pass muster under §101, or on a “result or effect that
`
`itself is the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and machinery,” which may not.
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted.)
`
`Simply taking an old practice and performing it on a computer is not patent-eligible. FairWarning
`
`IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`“Stripped of excess verbiage,” the claimed concepts here are straightforward. Affinity Labs of
`
`Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1256-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); I.V. I LLC v. Capital One
`
`Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Capital One Fin.”). Each asserted claim is
`
`directed to the concept of identifying information in a document, searching for related information in
`
`a separate source, and using the found information. Indeed, each of the patents admits that the
`
`alleged invention is directed simply to automating the “typical” existing process of “retriev[ing] by
`
`the user from an information management source external to the word processor . . . [information]
`
`for insertion into the document.” (’843, 1:27-37, 2:14-34, 3:35-4:18; ’854, 1:34-38, 2:14-34, 3:35-
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 3437
`
`
`4:18; ’356, 1:36-40, 2:17-37, 3:38-4:21; ’993, 1:40-44, 2:32-50, 3:59-4:48). While each patent
`
`claims minor variations on this common idea, no asserted claim adds anything patentable. See, e.g.,
`
`Elec Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54.
`
`1.
`
`The ’843 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`The asserted claims of the ’843 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of reviewing a
`
`document for one type of information (like a name) and using that information to search for a second
`
`type of related information (like an address) and then using the found information. Stripped of its
`
`technical-sounding verbiage, the claim does nothing more than direct the use of generic computer
`
`elements (such as a “first” and “second” computer program) to perform the abstract process of
`
`receiving a draft document, such as a letter, that is missing address information, looking up the
`
`address information in an address book and using it to address the letter.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’843 Patent
`1. A computer-implemented method for finding data related to
`the contents of a document using a first computer program
`running on a computer, the method comprising:
`
`displaying the document electronically using the first computer
`program;
`while the document is being displayed, analyzing, in a
`computer process, first information from the document to
`determine if the first information is at least one of a plurality of
`types of information that can be searched for in order to find
`second information related to the first information;
`retrieving the first information;
`
`providing an input device, configured by the first computer
`program, that allows a user to enter a user command to initiate
`an operation, the operation comprising (i) performing a search
`using at least part of the first information as a search term in
`order to find the second information, of a specific type or
`types, associated with the search term in an information source
`external to the document, wherein the specific type or types of
`second information is dependent at least in part on the type or
`types of the first information, and (ii) performing an action
`
`Example of Abstract Idea
`Jane Jones gives her assistant, Sam
`Smith, a letter to send to Paul
`Patterson. Sam takes his address
`book from his desk drawer in order
`to find Paul Patterson’s address.
`Sam looks at the letter written
`(displayed) by Jane.
`Sam reads the first line of the letter
`to see if it contains a name.
`
`Sam mentally notes that the letter is
`addressed to “Mr. Paul Patterson.”
`Sam has an address book used to
`record the addresses of Jane’s
`clients, like Paul. Sam uses the
`name “Paul Patterson” to search the
`address book to find Paul’s address.
`
`If Sam finds an address for “Paul
`Patterson,” he can insert the address
`into the letter.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 3438
`
`
`using at least part of the second information;
`in consequence of receipt by the first computer program of the
`user command from the input device, causing a search for the
`search term in the information source, using a second computer
`program, in order to find second information related to the
`search term; and
`if searching finds any second information related to the search
`term, performing the action using at least part of the second
`information, wherein the action is of a type depending at least
`in part on the type or types of the first information.
`
`After receiving the letter from his
`boss, Sam searches for Paul’s
`address in the address book.
`
`If Sam finds Paul’s address, Sam
`types that address into blank space
`in the letter.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’843 Patent is representative. Claim 23 is a mirror claim to a “computer
`
`readable medium,” rather than a “computer-implemented method.” See Content Extraction &
`
`Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (invalidating claims
`
`that were “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea”) (citation omitted). Asserted
`
`claims 8 and 30 add nothing of patentable significance, as they merely recite providing a generic
`
`“prompt” to update the “information source.” None of the additional claimed features, individually
`
`or collectively, changes the claims’ overall “focus” on the abstract idea.
`
`2.
`
`The ’854 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`The asserted claims of the ’854 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of entering
`
`information (such as a name or address) into a document, using that name to find related information
`
`(like an address) in another source (like an address book), and then inserting the found information
`
`into the document. Again, a letter written by Jane Jones is instructive:
`
`Claim 13 of the ’854 Patent
`13. A computer system related to information handling
`within a document created using a first application
`program, comprising:
`means for entering a first information in the first
`application program;
`means for marking without user intervention the first
`information to alert the user that the first information
`can be utilized in a second application program; and
`means for responding to a user selection by inserting a
`second information into the document, the second
`
`Example of Abstract Idea
`Jane Jones begins to write a letter to her
`friend Wanda Williams.
`
`Jane uses a pen to write “Ms. Wanda
`Williams” at the top of her sheet of paper.
`Jane does not recall Wanda’s address, but
`knows that she can use Wanda’s name to
`find Wanda’s entry in Jane’s address book.
`Jane finds Wanda’s entry in the address
`book, locates Wanda’s address in that entry,
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 3439
`
`
`information associated with the first information from a
`second application program.
`
`
`and then uses her pen to write the address
`shown in the entry in the letter.
`
`The fact that the claim elements are written in means-plus-function format does not save
`
`them. Indeed, numerous courts have declared patent claims including means-plus-function elements
`
`invalid under Section 101 (including at the pleading stage). See, e.g., In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
`
`Patent Litig., 87 F. Supp. 3d 773, 804-05 (E.D. Va. 2015), aff’d 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
`
`Hyper Search, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01387-CFC-SRF, D.I. 21 (D. Del. Dec. 17,
`
`2018) (R. & R. by Mag. Judge Fallon). Even applying Arendi’s own proposed constructions, the
`
`’854 Patent claims are directed only to the basic idea of using generic and conventional computer
`
`elements, rather than a human armed with paper, pen and an address book, to identify information
`
`(like a name) written into a document to find related information (like an address) in a separate
`
`source that can then be inserted into the document.
`
`Claim 13 of the ’854 Patent is representative. See Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348. Claim 13 just
`
`allows the found, related information (like an address) to be used for any purpose, not just insertion
`
`into the document; while Claims 50, 79, 93 and 98 merely eliminate the requirement of entering the
`
`information into the document, and require only identifying information that can be used for another
`
`purpose and then using that information for another purpose. The dependent claims add only trivial
`
`limitations such as requiring a search using a “second application program” and then “retrieving”
`
`that information (Claim 15), inserting the found information into a document with the first
`
`information (Claim 53), and specifying the first information to be a name (Claim 56). None of the
`
`additional features changes the claims’ overall “focus” on the abstract idea.
`
`3.
`
`The ’356 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`The asserted claims of the ’356 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of entering contact
`
`information (such as a name) into a document, searching an information source (such as an address
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 3440
`
`
`book) for related contact information, and then performing an action (addressing the document)
`
`using the found information. Just like the ’843 claims, stripped of its technical-sounding verbiage,
`
`the ’356 claims rely on generic computer elements (such as “a document editing program” and “an
`
`information management program”) to perform the abstract process, e.g., of Jane Jones writing a
`
`letter to Paul Patterson and attempting to look up Paul’s address while writing the letter.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’356 Patent [depends from Claim 1]
` At least one non-transitory computer readable medium according to
`claim 1, [Claim 1: At least one non-transitory computer readable
`medium encoded with instructions which, when loaded on a
`computer, establish processes for contact information handling,
`implemented by a document editing program running in the
`computer, the processes comprising:
`allowing a user to enter textual information into a document using
`the document editing program;
`displaying the textual information in the document electronically
`using the document editing program;
`allowing, in the document editing program, the user to select in the
`document at least a portion of the textual information while the
`textual information is displayed;
`
`following user selection of textual information in the document,
`analyzing, by the document editing program, the selected textual
`information to determine if the selected textual information is
`regarded by the document editing program as contact information
`and what type or types of contact information the selected textual
`information is;
`providing an input device configured by the document editing
`program to allow the user to initiate an operation, such operation
`being of a type depending at least in part on the type or types of
`contact information of the selected textual information, the operation
`comprising identifying at least part of the selected textual
`information to use as a search term in order to find second
`information, of a specific type or types, associated with the search
`term in an information source external to the document;
`after identifying at least part of the selected information to use as a
`search term, and in consequence of receipt by the document editing
`program of an execute command from the input device, performing
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Example of Abstract Idea
`Jane Jones writes a letter to Paul
`Patterson but needs to look up
`his address in order to add it into
`the letter.
`
`Jane Jones writes the letter on a
`piece of paper using a pen.
`Jane sees the text of her letter as
`she writes it.
`After Jane writes the name “Paul
`Patterson” in her letter, she
`realizes she needs to find Paul’s
`mailing address, so she mentally
`selects “Paul Patterson” from the
`text of her letter in order to
`search for Paul’s address in her
`address book.
`When mentally selecting “Paul
`Patterson” from the text of the
`letter, Jane is aware that “Paul
`Patterson” is a name and is part
`of the “contact information” for
`Paul.
`Because she knows Paul’s name
`but does not know Paul’s
`address, Jane mentally decides to
`use the name “Paul Patterson” as
`the search term to search for his
`street address in her address
`book.
`
`Jane begins to search her address
`book for Paul’s address using the
`name “Paul Patterson” as her
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 123 Filed 07/02/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 3441
`
`
`the operation, wherein the operation further comprises:
`causing an electronic search in the information source, by an
`information management program external to the document editing
`program, for the search term in order to find whether the search term
`is included in the information source; and performing an action
`having a type,
`wherein the type of action depends at least in part on whether the
`search term is included in the information source, and if the search
`term is so included, and if the information source includes the second
`information, the action comprises causing insertion of at least part of
`the second information into the document]
`
`search term.
`Jane searches her address book
`for “Paul Patterson.” When Jane
`finds Paul’s entry in her address
`book, she writes his address in
`her letter.
`When Jane finds Paul’s address
`in her address book, she writes
`that address in her letter.
`
`Dependent claims 11 and 19 add nothing significant; they simply specify that the document
`
`can be updated with information from the information source. Overall, these claims continue to
`
`“focus” on the same abstract idea, not a concrete and unconventional approach to implementing that
`
`idea. See Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348.
`
`4.
`
`The ’993 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`The asserted claims of the ’993 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of reviewing a
`
`document for one type of information (like a name) and using that information to (1) search for a
`
`second type of information (like an address or phone number), (2) initiate a communication (such as
`
`by sending a letter or placing a phone call), or (3) update a contact database (such as by adding a
`
`new email address or phone number). Stripped of its complex-sounding verbiage, the claim does
`
`nothing more than direct the use of a “computer-implemented method” and a generic “computer
`
`process” to perform the abstract process of Paul Patterson receiving Jane Jones’ letter, identifying
`
`that it may have new contact information and using that new contact information:
`
`Claim 1 of ’993 Patent
`1. A computer implemented method for information handling,
`the method comprising:
`providing access to a contact database that can also be separately
`accessed and edited by a user and wherein the contact database
`includes at least three fields for storing contact information
`associated with each of one or more contacts, each of the at least
`three fields within the contact database being specific to a
`particular type of contact information selected from the group
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`Example of Abstrac