Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 65 PageID #: 4855
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`YODLEE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 14-1445-LPS
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`Presently pending before the Court is a "Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim"
`
`under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Motion"), filed by Defendant
`
`Plaid Technologies Inc. ("Defendant" or "Plaid"). (D.I. 11) Defendant argues that Plaintiff
`
`Yodlee, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff' or "Yodlee") asserted patents are directed to non-patent-eligible
`
`subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101("Section101"). For the reasons that follow, the
`
`Court recommends that Defendant's Motion be GRANTED-IN-PART, in the manner further
`
`described below.
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`Yodlee commenced this patent infringement action on December 1, 2014. (D.I. 1) Chief
`
`Judge Leonard P. Stark thereafter referred the case to the Court to resolve any and all matters
`
`with regard to scheduling, as well as any motions to dismiss, stay and/or transfer venue. (D.I. 7)
`
`Plaid filed the instant Motion in lieu of answering on January 23, 2015, and briefing was
`
`completed on March 6, 2015. (D.I. 20) The Court held oral argument on the Motion on May 4,
`
`2015. (D.I. 61 (hereinafter, "Tr.")) The next day, the Court ordered that Plaid submit a letter
`
`responding to new cases cited by Y odlee during oral argument; Plaid submitted that letter on
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 2 of 65 PageID #: 4856
`
`May 6, 2015. (D.I. 24)
`
`Plaid moved to stay the case pending resolution of the instant Motion, (D.I. 30), a request
`
`the Court denied on July 20, 2015, (D.I. 51). Thereafter, Chief Judge Stark held a Markman
`
`hearing on November 17, 2015, and issued a Memorandum Opinion on claim construction on
`
`January 15, 2016. (D.I. 96) Trial is scheduled for March 2017. (D.I. 26)
`
`II.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A.
`
`Standard of Review Regarding a Rule 12 Motion that Challenges Patent
`Eligibility Pursuant to Section 101
`
`Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint based on
`
`the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The
`
`sufficiency of pleadings for non-fraud cases is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
`
`which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
`
`reliefl.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In order to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
`
`12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
`
`relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal
`
`quotation marks and citation omitted). In assessing the plausibility of a claim, the court must
`
`"construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under
`
`any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Fowler v. UPMC
`
`Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`Here though, this Motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is used to assert an affirmative
`
`defense-that the patents are subject matter ineligible under Section 101. In that scenario,
`
`dismissal is permitted only if the well-pleaded factual allegations in the Complaint, construed in
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 3 of 65 PageID #: 4857
`
`the light most favorable to the plaintiff, suffice to establish the defense. See Jones v. Bock, 549
`
`U.S. 199, 215 (2007); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 15-560-
`
`GMS, 2016 WL 1072841, at *1 n.1 (D. Del. Mar. 17, 2016); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Agilent
`
`Techs., Inc., 24 F. Supp. 3d 922, 927 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
`
`Patentability under Section 101 is a "threshold inquiry" and a question of law. In re
`
`Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff'd, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Yet
`
`this question of law is also one that "may be informed by subsidiary factual issues." CyberFone
`
`Sys., LLC v. Cellco P'ship, 885 F. Supp. 2d 710, 715 (D. Del. 2012) (citing In re Comiskey, 554
`
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Some members of the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit have suggested that "any attack on an issued patent based on a challenge to the
`
`eligibility of the subject matter must be proven by clear and convincing evidence[,]" CLS Bank
`
`lnt'l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Rader, J., concurring-in(cid:173)
`
`part and dissenting-in-part), but at least one other member of that Court has come to the opposite
`
`conclusion, see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 720-21 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer,
`
`J., concurring), all of which has led to some uncertainty regarding the appropriate standard of
`
`proof in Section 101 cases, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 100 F. Supp. 3d
`
`371, 379-80 (D. Del. 2015) (citing cases). However, even to the extent that the "clear and
`
`convincing" standard of proof is applicable to Section 101 challenges, it would apply only to the
`
`resolution of factual disputes, and not to resolution of pure issues of law. See TriPlay, Inc. v.
`
`WhatsApp Inc., Civil Action No. 13-1703-LPS, 2015 WL 1927696, at *5 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2015)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 4 of 65 PageID #: 4858
`
`(citing cases), adopted in all substantive respects, 2015 WL 4730907 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2015). 1
`
`And as to the instant Motion, which was filed at the pleading stage (a stage at which any facts
`
`that are clearly in dispute are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff), the
`
`"clear and convincing" standard of proof should not come into play at all.2
`
`B.
`
`Need for Claim Construction
`
`Although there is no hard-and-fast rule that a court must construe terms in the claims at
`
`issue before it performs a Section 101 analysis, it will ordinarily be desirable (and often
`
`necessary) to do so. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (US.), 687 F.3d
`
`1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012). When a Rule 12 motion is filed on Section 101 grounds, one
`
`possible path for a court is to wait to resolve the motion until after claim construction has been
`
`decided. See, e.g., Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 3d 829, 835
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2014) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation) (noting that "the Court has waited until after
`
`the claim construction hearing in this case to rule on the present motion in order to ensure that
`
`there are no issues of claim construction that would affect the Court's legal analysis of the
`
`patentability issue"); cf CertusView Techs., LLC v. S & N Locating Servs., LLC, 111 F. Supp. 3d
`
`See also OJ Communique Lab., Inc. v. Citrix Sys., Inc., -F. Supp. 3d-, 2015
`WL 9268913, at *6 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2015); Listingbook, LLCv. Mkt. Leader, Inc., -F.
`Supp. 3d-, 2015 WL 7176455, at *5-6 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2015); Affinity Labs ofTex., LLC v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-0029-WSS-JCM, 2015 WL 3757497, at *5 (W.D. Tex. June 12,
`2015).
`
`2
`
`See Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01650-YGR, 2015 WL
`5260506, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015); Shortridge v. Found. Constr. Payroll Serv., LLC, Case
`No. 14-cv-04850-JCS, 2015 WL 1739256, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2015); Modern Telecom Sys.
`LLC v. Earth/ink, Inc., No. SA CV 14-0347-DOC, 2015 WL 1239992, at *7-8 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
`17, 2015); cf Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Case No.: SA CV 14-
`1266-DOC (JEMx), 2015 WL 7776873, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015).
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 5 of 65 PageID #: 4859
`
`688, 704-05 (E.D. Va. 2015).
`
`The Court chose this path here. That decision was prompted in part by a desire to have as
`
`full an understanding as possible of the meaning of key claim terms before resolving the Motion.
`
`But it was also driven by the notable breadth of Plaid's Motion. At the time that the Motion was
`
`filed, Plaid was seeking the dismissal of all 162 claims of all seven patents-in-suit. That kind of
`
`a request, in a case with this many patents and claims at issue, sought a huge early investment of
`
`judicial resources-resources that might need to be re-invested at the summary judgment stage
`
`(if, for example, the Rule 12 Motion was not well taken as to some or all patents-in-suit). In the
`
`Court's view, under the weight of that request, the best practicable path was to first obtain the
`
`District Court's decision on claim construction before rendering a decision on the instant
`
`Motion-thus narrowing the scope of possible outstanding legal issues that might be relevant to
`
`Plaid's Section 101 affirmative defenses.
`
`Although this approach had its costs (including that it delayed resolution of the Motion
`
`until a much later stage of the case), it also had its positive aspects. As will be further discussed
`
`below, Chief Judge Stark's Markman opinion did guide the Court's analysis as to a number of
`
`the representative claims discussed herein. And, as will also be seen below, delaying resolution
`
`of the Motion dramatically cut down on the need for the Court to assess the eligibility of large
`
`swaths of dependent claims that ended up not being asserted in the litigation.
`
`C.
`
`Considerations Relevant to Deciding a Rule 12 Motion that Challenges the
`Eligibility of Multiple Patent Claims, Based on the Analysis of a Single
`Representative Claim
`
`In Cronos Techs., LLC v. Expedia, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1538-LPS, 2015 WL 5234040 (D.
`
`Del. Sept. 8, 2015), Chief Judge Stark noted "several considerations relevant to deciding a Rule
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 6 of 65 PageID #: 4860
`
`12 motion that challenges the patent eligibility of multiple patent claims based on analysis of a
`
`single representative claim." 2015 WL 5234040, at *2. The District Court set out these
`
`considerations as follows:
`
`First, are all non-representative claims adequately represented by
`the representative claim (i.e., do all of the challenged claims relate
`to the same abstract idea and do any of the non-representative
`claims add one or more inventive concepts that would result in
`patent eligibility)? Second, are there issues of claim construction
`that must be decided before resolving the motion? Finally, is there
`any set of facts that could be proven relating to preemption,
`questions of patentability, or whether the claims "solve a
`technological problem," that would result in a determination that
`one [] or more of the claims are patent-eligible?
`
`Id. (citations and footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Execware LLC v. BJ's
`
`Wholesale Club, Inc., C.A. No. 14-233-LPS, 2015 WL 5734434, at *2 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015) ..
`
`D.
`
`Assessing Patentable Subject Matter
`
`Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in Section 101 of the Patent Act:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
`manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. In choosing such expansive terms "modified by the comprehensive 'any,'
`
`Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope." Diamond v.
`
`Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980).
`
`Yet while the scope of Section 101 is broad, there is an "important implicit exception [to
`
`it]: [l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
`
`Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
`
`omitted); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 7 of 65 PageID #: 4861
`
`(2012). "Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract
`
`intellectual concepts are not patentable, [because] they are the basic tools of scientific and
`
`technological work." Prometheus, 132 S. Ct. at 1293 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
`
`63, 67 (1972)).
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has also recognized, however, that "too broad an
`
`interpretation of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law." Id; see also Alice, 134
`
`S. Ct. at 2354. This is because "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
`
`apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Prometheus, 132 S. Ct. at 1293; see
`
`also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. To that end, it has explained that "an application of a law of
`
`nature, [natural phenomena or abstract idea] to a known structure or process may well be
`
`deserving of patent protection." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981) (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`In terms of the process used to analyze patent eligibility under Section 101, the Federal
`
`Circuit has explained that a court should first identify whether the claimed invention fits within
`
`one of the four statutory classes set out in the statute: processes, machines, manufactures, and
`
`compositions of matter. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 713-14. The court must then assess whether
`
`any of the judicially recognizable exceptions to subject matter eligibility apply, including
`
`whether the claims are to patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Id at 714. 3
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court confirmed the framework to be used in order to distinguish
`
`patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
`
`3
`
`There is no dispute in this action that the claims at issue fall into one of the
`applicable statutory classes. The dispute here is about whether the claims are drawn to patent(cid:173)
`ineligible abstract ideas, and so the Court will focus its analysis on that issue.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 8 of 65 PageID #: 4862
`
`patent-eligible applications of those concepts:
`
`First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
`of those patent-ineligible concepts.... If so, we then ask, "[w]hat
`else is there in the claims before us?" ... To answer that question,
`we consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an
`ordered combination" to determine whether the additional elements
`"transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible
`application. . . . We have described step two of this analysis as a
`search for 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."
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Prometheus, 132 S. Ct. at 1294-98) (citations omitted;
`
`alterations in original); see also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978). Since Alice, the
`
`Federal Circuit has recognized that"[ d]istinguishing between claims that recite a patent-eligible
`
`invention and claims that add too little to a patent-ineligible abstract concept can be difficult, as
`
`the line separating the two is not always clear." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP., 773
`
`F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`As noted above, Y odlee alleges infringement of a total of seven patents, all of which are
`
`put at issue by the Motion: United States Patent Nos. 6,199,077 (the "'077 patent"), 6,317,783
`
`(the '"783 patent"), 6,510,451 (the "'451 patent"), 7,263,548 (the '"548 patent"), 7,424,520 (the
`
`'"520 patent"), 7,752,535 (the "'535 patent"), and 8,266,515 (the '"515 patent") (collectively, the
`
`"asserted patents" or the "patents-in-suit"). (D.1. 1 at~ 1) In their briefing, the parties address
`
`three of the patents individually, with the remaining patents grouped into two groups of two. The
`
`Court will follow that same convention below in resolving the Motion.
`
`At the time of the Motion's filing, Y odlee had not identified the specific claims that it
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 9 of 65 PageID #: 4863
`
`would be asserting in this action. (Id. at~~ 36, 44, 52, 60, 68, 76 & 84) In both its briefing and
`
`during oral argument, Plaid largely focused on one assertedly representative claim per patent for
`
`purposes of its Section 101 analysis. 4 The Court will focus on those claims first, before
`
`addressing how to assess the remaining asserted claims in each patent.
`
`A.
`
`Issues of Fact or Claim Scope Asserted to Preclude a Grant of the Motion
`
`In its briefing and at oral argument, Y odlee asserted that fact and claim construction
`
`issues precluded dismissal by way of a Rule 12 motion. (D .I. 15 at 6-7; Tr. at 51) When the
`
`Court below addresses each patent-in-suit, it will take into account any materials it can properly
`
`consider, and assess whether asserted factual disputes affect its ability to render a final decision
`
`on eligibility under Section 101.5 With regard to issues of claim scope, the District Court's
`
`4
`
`Subsequently, Yodlee narrowed the asserted claims to 21 claims across the
`patents-in-suit, (see D.l. 48, D.I. 131; D.I. 152 at 1), though the Court has not been provided with
`a list of the claims that are currently asserted.
`
`5
`
`In explaining why there are material factual disputes between the parties as to
`issues relevant to a Section 101 determination, Y odlee relies at times on the declaration of Dr.
`Sigurd Melda!, which Yodlee submitted along with its answering brief. (D.I. 17) Dr. Meldal's
`declaration is no doubt the most prominent example, but both parties frequently cite to
`documents or data sources that are neither referenced in, attached to, nor integral to the
`Complaint. (See, e.g., D.I. 12 at 9; D.I. 15 at 11) The Court cannot see how, in the context of
`reviewing and resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is permitted to take into account the content
`of these sources (absent the Motion being converted into a motion for summary judgment). See,
`e.g., Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.
`1993) (noting that courts faced with a motion to dismiss must generally limit their consideration
`solely to "the allegations contained in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint and
`matters of public record"). And so, in the absence of a better argument as to how it can do so,
`(Tr. at 53-54), the Court will not rely on such materials below. It will instead rely primarily on
`the content of the patents-in-suit, which can be properly considered, since they were both
`attached as exhibits to the Complaint and are documents integral to the Complaint. (D.I. 1 &
`exs. A-G) Having said this, the Court certainly understands why, for example, Y odlee offered
`Dr. Meldal's declaration-it was attempting to do all that it could do to explain to the Court why
`disputed issues of fact exist as to the Motion. The Court also notes its view that, even were it to
`have relied upon the content of that declaration, the ultimate outcome of its eligibility decisions
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 10 of 65 PageID #: 4864
`
`Markman decision has provided a significant amount of additional guidance as to the issues
`
`raised by the parties.
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`1.
`
`'077 Patent
`
`a.
`
`The Invention
`
`The '077 patent is entitled "Server-Wide Web Summary Generation and Presentation"; it
`
`was issued on March 6, 2001. The technology at issue relates to the field of Internet navigation,
`
`and more specifically, to methods and apparatus for "gathering summary information from users
`
`or enterprise-selected WEB sites and presenting the information as HTML [Hyper Text Markup
`
`Language] to the user using either a push or pull technology." ('077 patent, col. 1: 16-22)
`
`At the time of the invention, companies offered subscription services accessible through
`
`the Internet. (Id., col. 1 :36-37) The availability of these subscription services created problems
`
`for users, such as where: (1) a user had too many different passwords and/or login codes
`
`associated with the various subscriptions; and (2) a user had to bookmark too many different web
`
`pages in order to find and access various services quickly. (Id., col. 1 :46-2:6)
`
`The specification describes a known service that allowed users to store password(cid:173)
`
`protected pages in one location in order to simplify browsing and gathering information. (Id.,
`
`col. 2:11-16) A feature of this service was that a software agent could execute tasks based on
`
`user instruction. (Id., col. 2:16-19) The service stored user password and login information and
`
`used that information to log in to the user's sites; users could navigate the listed sites by clicking
`
`on hyperlinks provided in an interactive homepage, without having to manually input the login
`
`as to any of the asserted patents would not have been different.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 11 of 65 PageID #: 4865
`
`information in order to gain access to those sites. (Id., col. 2 :21-31) Also included in the service
`
`was a software agent capable of returning specific summaries and updates about user-account
`
`pages. (Id., col. 2:32-35) The software agent could search user-entered Uniform Resource
`
`Locators ("URLs") that were cached in presentable form (such as on the portal server or client's
`
`machine). (Id., col. 2:35-39)
`
`In addition to the features of this known service, the specification discusses the need for
`
`the software agent, in concert with the search function, to be able to navigate to any URL or
`
`group of URLs for the purpose of providing summary information on updated URL content to
`
`the user, in the form of an HTML information-page. (Id., col. 2:40-47) This need, according to
`
`the specification, necessitated a method and apparatus capable of navigating to user-supplied or
`
`known URLs independently, logging in with the appropriate password information at each URL,
`
`and returning a summary of the user-requested information in a human and machine-readable
`
`document. (Id., col. 2:48-53) The patent states that it claims such a method and apparatus. This
`
`resulting system would serve as an effective summarization service that could present important
`
`information without the user having to invoke hyperlinks from a personal portal home page. (Id.,
`
`col. 2:53-56) With this invention, the patent states that, for the first time, subscribers to such a
`
`service would be able to quickly access multiple web sites and download data summaries, all
`
`without performing lengthy login procedures. (Id., col. 3: 12-17)
`
`In the "Summary of the Invention" section of the patent, the specification describes an
`
`"Internet Portal" (the "Portal"), comprising an Internet-connected server and a portal software
`
`executing on the server, and which includes a summary software agent. (Id., col. 2:59-62) The
`
`Portal maintains a list oflnternet destinations specific to a user, and the software agent accesses
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 12 of 65 PageID #: 4866
`
`those destinations, retrieves information based on pre-programmed criteria, and summarizes that
`
`information for delivery to the user. (Id., col. 2:62-67)
`
`The patent contains two independent claims (claims 1 and 7). Plaid asserts that claim 7
`
`of the '077 patent is representative. (D.I. 12 at 8; Tr. at 18) Claim 7 recites:
`
`7. In an Internet Portal system, a method for gathering data
`specific to a person from a plurality of Internet sites storing data
`specific to that person, the method comprising the steps of:
`
`(a) initiating a gathering cycle accessing individual ones of
`the plurality of sites;
`
`(b) authenticating to the sites as the person; and
`
`( c) executing a software gathering agent at each site
`accessed to gather data from the site, the gathering agent
`dedicated to each site accessed.
`
`('077 patent, col. 18:31-40)
`
`b.
`
`Alice's step one
`
`Under step one of Alice, the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain not simply
`
`whether they involve a patent-ineligible concept, but whether '"their character as a whole is
`
`directed to excluded subject matter"' (here, an abstract idea). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., -
`
`F.3d-, 2016 WL 2756255, at *4 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2015) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v.
`
`Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). "The 'abstract ideas' category
`
`embodies 'the longstanding rule that [ a]n idea of itself is not patentable."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2355 (quoting Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 67) (certain quotation marks omitted). An abstract idea
`
`can be, but need not amount to, a "preexisting, fundamental truth" about the natural world "that
`
`has always existed," or a "method of organizing human activity" (such as a "longstanding
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 13 of 65 PageID #: 4867
`
`commercial practice"). Id. at 2356 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also
`
`DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256-57; cf CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1286 (explaining that a claim
`
`directed to an abstract idea is one directed to a "'disembodied concept' ... a basic building block
`
`of human ingenuity, untethered from any real-world application") (citation omitted). Beyond
`
`that, the concept of an "abstract idea" has not been crisply defined, see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357
`
`(declining to "labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category"), and the
`
`Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to
`
`those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases, see Enfish, 2016
`
`WL 2756255, at *4.
`
`Plaid argues that the claims of the '077 patent are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`"gathering data specific to a person from a plurality of Internet sites." (D.I. 12 at 8) Rephrased,
`
`the claim, according to Plaid, recites "logging into websites and gathering personal data from
`
`them." (Id. at 9) This concept of "[g]athering data from multiple sources[,]" Defendant asserts,
`
`is fundamental and has been practiced by both professionals and computers for years. (Id.; see
`
`also Tr. at 19)6
`
`The Court concludes (indeed, it is not really disputed here) that the concept of "gathering
`
`data specific to a person from a plurality of Internet sites," or of "logging into websites and
`
`6
`
`As can be seen after reading this paragraph, the way that Plaid formulated the
`abstract idea at issue shifted at times in its briefing (from "gathering data specific to a person
`from a plurality of Internet sites" and "logging into websites and gathering personal data from
`them" to the simplified and presumably more "longstanding" concept of "gathering data from
`multiple sources"). While the Court considers the first two articulations set out in this paragraph
`above to be more appropriate expressions of the abstract idea(s) potentially at issue here (as they
`better capture the context of claim 7), it notes that any of the articulations would amount to an
`"abstract idea"-a disembodied concept, or basic building block of human ingenuity, untethered
`from any real-world application. See CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1286.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 14 of 65 PageID #: 4868
`
`gathering personal data from them" constitute abstract ideas. These concepts are comparable
`
`with others that courts have found to amount to abstract ideas untethered from real-world
`
`application. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776
`
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (determining claims to be directed to an abstract idea when they
`
`were directed to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing
`
`that recognized data in a memory); Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
`
`13 72-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding abstract a claim that required "obtaining information about
`
`other transactions that have utilized an Internet address that is identified with the [] credit card
`
`transaction[,]" "construct[ing] a map of credit card numbers" and "utilizing the map of credit
`
`card numbers to determine if the credit card transaction is valid") (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted); Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 128 F. Supp. 3d 103, 112
`
`(D.D.C. 2015) ("This abstract concept of collecting, recognizing, and storing data is not
`
`patent-eligible.").
`
`The Court next assesses whether claim 7 is "directed to" these abstract ideas. As to how
`
`that inquiry should proceed, the Federal Circuit provided some guidance in Internet Patents
`
`Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There, in order to ascertain at step
`
`one whether the claims' "character as a whole" was directed to an abstract idea, the Internet
`
`Patents Court examined the specification of the patent at issue. In doing so, it cited to what the
`
`patentee had described in the specification as "the innovation over the prior art" and "the
`
`essential, 'most important aspect"' of the patent: the "end result" of maintaining the data state in
`
`the navigation of online forms. Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348. The Internet Patents Court
`
`ultimately found, however, that the "character of the claimed invention" in claim 1 of the
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 15 of 65 PageID #: 4869
`
`relevant patent was directed to an abstract idea-the "idea of retaining information in the
`
`navigation of online forms." Id. (emphasis added). It so concluded because the "mechanism for
`
`maintaining the state [was] not described" in the claim, "although this [was] stated to be the
`
`essential innovation." Id. As a result, the claim was "directed to the idea itself-the abstract
`
`idea of avoiding loss of data." Id.
`
`Recently, in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., -F.3d-, 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed. Cir.
`
`May 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit again addressed the Alice step one inquiry in the context of
`
`assessing software patents. 7 There, the plaintiff asserted two patents, both of which were
`
`directed to a "logical model for a computer database[,]"8 specifically, a "self-referential" model. 9
`
`7
`
`Enfish was issued long after oral argument on the Motion was held. The parties
`have thus not had the opportunity to brief how the case impacts resolution of the Motion, nor did
`they file any supplemental notice on the docket addressing the case. In light of the procedural
`posture of the Motion, the Court has simply considered relevant guidance from Enfish in
`resolving this Report and Recommendation, without calling for additional briefing. It does so
`with the knowledge that to the extent that there are objections to the Report and
`Recommendation, and that to the extent that those objections relate to the Court's treatment of
`Enfish, the parties can address Enfish in their briefing regarding the objections (and could seek
`permission to have additional pages of briefing in which to do so).
`
`A logical model is a "model of data for a computer database explaining how the
`various elements of information are related to one another." Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *1. It
`results in "the creation of a particular tables of data," but does not otherwise describe how the
`tables are arranged in physical memory devices. Id
`
`9
`
`The "self-referential" model recited in the two asserted patents differed from the
`traditional "relational" model. With the "relational model, each entity (i.e., each type of thing)
`that is modeled is provided in a separate table." Enfish, 2016 WL 2756255, at *I. The "self(cid:173)
`referential" model, in contrast, included all the data entities in a single table, with column
`definitions provided by rows in the same table. Id, at * 1-2. The patents taught that the two
`defining features of the "self-referential" model-that all relevant information is stored in a
`single table, and that columns are defined by rows in the same table-allowed for (as compared
`to other models) faster searching for data within the table, more effective storage of certain data
`and increased flexibility in configuring the database. Id. at *2.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 185 Filed 05/23/16 Page 16 of 65 PageID #: 4870
`
`Enfish, 2016 WL