Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 195
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-116 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
`LACK OF PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Heidi Keefe
`Sarah Whitney
`Elizabeth Stameshkin
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`(650) 843-5000
`
`
`April 29, 2016
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 196
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... ii 
`I. 
`Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 
`II. 
`Nature and Stage of the Proceedings ...............................................................................2 
`III. 
`Summary of Argument ...................................................................................................2 
`IV. 
`The ’593 Patent ..............................................................................................................3 
`V. 
`Legal Principles ..............................................................................................................5 
`A. 
`Section 101 and the Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test ...........................................5 
`B. 
`The Supreme Court Has Made Clear That Abstract Ideas Merely
`Implemented on a Computer are Not Patentable ..................................................7 
`Determination of Subject Matter Eligibility is Appropriate at the Pleading
`Stage ...................................................................................................................8 
`The ’593 Patent Lacks Patentable Subject Matter............................................................8 
`The PTAB Affirmed Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of Claims Not
`A. 
`Patentably Distinct From the Claims of the ’593 Patent .......................................8 
`Alice Step One – The ’593 Patent Claims the Unpatentable Abstract Idea
`of Managing Information .................................................................................. 11 
`Alice Step Two – The Asserted Claims Add Nothing of Patentable
`Significance ...................................................................................................... 15 
`VII.  Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 20 
`
`C. 
`
`VI. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 197
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., v. CLS Bank Int’l.,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`AstraZeneca Pharma. LP v. Apotex Corp.,
`669 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .......................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.,
`No. 92CV-7394, 1994 WL 483463 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 1994) .................................................. 2
`
`Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P.,
`55 F. Supp. 3d 544, 548 (D. Del. 2014) ........................................................................... 6, 14
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 3, 8
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 1, 12
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 19
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings,
`No. 12-cv-1736-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 4379587 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014)................................... 8
`
`Godlewski v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc.,
`210 F.R.D. 571 (E.D. Va. 2002) ............................................................................................ 2
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 198
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................................................... 7, 12
`
`I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc.,
`576 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, C., concurring) ................................................... 8
`
`Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc.,
`434 F. Supp. 2d 598 (N.D. Iowa 2006) .................................................................................. 2
`
`In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.,
`114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh),
`750 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 7, 13, 14, 19
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................................... 6, 16
`
`Messaging Gateway Sols., LLC v. Amdocs, Inc.,
`No. 14-732-RGA, 2015 WL 1744343 (D. Del. Apr. 15, 2015) ............................................. 14
`
`Morsa v. Facebook, Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 915 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Novo Transforma Techs., LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`No. 14-612-RGA, 2015 WL 5156526 (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2015) .............................................. 14
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 886, 893 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ........................................................................................................ 7, 12
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 13-1608-RGA, 2015 WL 4730906 (D. Del. Aug. 10,
`2015) ............................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecomms. Labs., Inc.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 192 (D. Del. 2015) ..................................................................................... 14
`
`Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc.,
`83 F. Supp. 3d 577 (D. Del. 2015) ....................................................................................... 14
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 199
`
`SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA,
`555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................... 17
`
`Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 13-1771-RGA, 2014 WL 4382446 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014) .................................. 7, 14, 15
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................... passim
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ..................................................................................................... 2, 9, 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 200
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,095,593 (the “’593 patent”) are generally
`
`directed to the abstract idea of managing information and preferences among members of a
`
`community. Though such claims in the past had been allowed to issue by the Patent Office, the
`
`Supreme Court’s landmark Alice decision—and the resulting Federal Circuit and district court
`
`decisions—have made clear that these types of claims are not valid. Implementing a known
`
`process on a computer does not transform abstract ideas into patent-eligible claims. In fact, in a
`
`related patent application reciting claims materially identical to the ones at issue here, the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirmed a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Here, the alleged invention of the ’593 patent relates to a “method for managing
`
`electronic information” in the context of delivering information based on user preferences. (’593
`
`patent (Ex.1) at Title, Abstract, 1:6-7, claim 1.) The abstract concept described in the ’593 patent
`
`has long been practiced by families and friend groups making a simple decision about where to
`
`have dinner. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea
`
`and is not patent-eligible under § 101.”). The asserted claims, though lengthy, add nothing of
`
`patentable significance; they merely describe the abstract idea with the instruction to “apply it”
`
`using generic computer components. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct.
`
`2347, 2358 (2014) (“[M]ere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible
`
`abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
`
`Because the asserted claims of the ’593 patent are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`managing information and preferences among members of a community without providing an
`
`inventive concept, the asserted claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 201
`
`invalid as a matter of law.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`On February 29, 2015, Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed its
`
`Complaint for patent infringement accusing Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) of
`
`infringing seven different patents, including the ’593 patent.1 (D.I. 1.) On March 11, 2016 the
`
`Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the time for Facebook to respond to the
`
`Complaint to April 29, 2016. (D.I. 6.)
`
`Facebook has filed its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss the ’593 patent for lack of
`
`patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This is Facebook’s Opening Brief in support of
`
`its Motion.2
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`The ’593 patent is directed to the abstract idea of managing information and
`
`preferences among members of a community. This abstract idea embodied by the claims can be,
`
`and has been, performed by humans without the aid of technology for decades.
`
`2.
`
`The ’593 patent lacks any additional inventive concept sufficient to confer subject
`
`
`1
`Although Facebook moves to dismiss only the ’593 patent at this juncture under § 101,
`Facebook believes that the remaining six patents also fail to claim eligible subject matter.
`Facebook will address the numerous validity issues—including any issues arising under §§ 101,
`102, 103, and 112—of the remaining patents at the appropriate stage.
`2
`A motion to dismiss that only addresses part of a complaint suspends the time for
`Facebook to answer or otherwise respond to the remaining allegations in the Complaint. See,
`e.g., Ideal Instruments, Inc. v. Rivard Instruments, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 2d 598, 639 (N.D. Iowa
`2006) (“[A] motion pursuant to Rule 12(b), even one that challenges less than all of the claims
`asserted in the complaint or other pleading, extends the time to answer as to all claims in the
`pleading.”); Godlewski v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc., 210 F.R.D. 571, 572 (E.D. Va. 2002)
`(“A majority of courts . . . hold that the filing of a motion that only addresses part of a complaint
`suspends the time to respond to the entire complaint, not just to the claims that are the subject of
`the motion.”); Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., No. 92CV-7394, 1994 WL
`483463, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 1994) (“[A] partial 12(b) motion enlarges the time to file an
`answer.”).
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 202
`
`matter eligibility under Alice. The asserted claims recite only generic computer components, are
`
`not tied to a particular machine, and do not offer any meaningful limitation beyond generally
`
`linking the abstract idea to implementation on a computer.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’593 PATENT
`
`Plaintiff asserts claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 14, and 15 against Facebook. (D.I. 1, ¶ 107.)3 These
`
`asserted claims cover managing information and preferences among various members of a
`
`network, i.e., users, information sources, and a community interest manager.4 Figure 1, which
`
`“represents a communications network wherein the present invention is implemented” clearly
`
`shows the simplicity of the concepts underlying the ’593 patent:
`
`
`
`(’593 patent at FIG. 1.)
`
`3
`Claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent claims. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, claim 13
`depends on claim 9, and claim 15 depends on claim 14.
`4
`“Sound View’s Complaint states that “at least” the identified claims of the ‘593 patent are
`allegedly infringed, leaving open the possibility that it might assert other claims against
`Facebook. Courts routinely analyze subject matter eligibility based on representative claims as
`sanctioned by the Federal Circuit. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, it is appropriate to decide subject matter
`eligibility at the pleadings stage because all of the remaining claims are substantially similar to
`the claims identified by Sound View in the complaint and linked to the same abstract idea,
`including for example, identifying the percentage of community members with a particular
`preference
`(claims 4 and 12) and exchanging
`information about preferences with
`community members (claims 2, 3 and 11). Id. (affirming district court’s evaluation of a Section
`101 challenge based on representative claims where “the claims of the asserted patents are
`substantially similar in that they recite little more than the same abstract idea.”)
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 203
`
`Claim 1, which broadly describes the “method for managing electronic information”
`
`within the network, reads:
`
`A method for managing electronic information, said electronic information being forwarded
`from at least one electronic information source (IS) of a plurality of electronic information
`sources (IS . . . ISx) towards a terminal of a corresponding first user of a plurality of
`terminals of corresponding users (U1 . . . Ux) through a communications network, (CN) said
`method comprising the steps of:
`a. at least on electronic information source of said plurality of electronic information
`sources (IS . . . ISx) sending said electronic information towards said terminal of said
`first user;
`b. the terminal of said first user (UI) and terminals of users related to said first user (U2,
`Ux) sending electronic information preferences towards a community interest
`management module (CIMM), said users being related to said first user based on pre-
`defined relationships; and
`c. said community interest management module (CIMM) determining community
`information preferences for said first user based on said information preferences of
`said first user and information preferences of said users related to said first user, sent
`towards said community interest management module (CIMM) and based on at least
`one decision rule determining whether or not to apply said information preferences in
`said community information preferences of said first user.
`
`(’593 patent at 6:45-7:2.)
`
`Claim 9, which focuses on the community interest manager, reads:
`
`A Community interest management module (CIMM), for use in a communications network
`(CN) said communications network (CN) comprising a plurality of electronic information
`sources (IS . . . ISx) and a plurality of terminals of users (U1 . . . Ux), at least one electronic
`information source of said plurality of electronic information sources (IS . . . ISx) being
`adapted to forward electronic information towards a terminal of a first user (U1), said
`Community interest management module (CIMM) comprising::
`a. an information preferences reception part (IPRP), adapted to receive information
`preferences from said terminal of said first user and information preferences of users
`related to said first user (U2, UX), said users being related to said first user based on
`pre-defined relationships;
`to
`b. community
`information preferences determination part (CIPDP), adapted
`determine community information preferences based on information preferences of
`said first user and information preferences of said users related to said first user (U1);
`and
`c. a rules managing part (RMP) adapted to keep at least one decision rule for each user
`of said plurality of users, wherein that said community information determination part
`(CIPDP) is further adapted to determine said community information preferences
`additionally based on said at least one decision rule for each user of said plurality of
`users.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 204
`
`(’593 patent at 8:12-40.)
`
`Claim 14 describes the information sources and reads as follows:
`
`An Electronic information source (IS . . . ISx), for use in a communications network (CN),
`said communications network comprising a plurality of said electronic information sources
`(IS . . . ISx) and a plurality of terminals of users (U1 . . . Ux), said Electronic information
`source (IS) comprising:
`a. an electronic information sending part (ISP), adapted to send electronic information
`towards a terminal of a first user (at least one terminal of said plurality of terminals);
`and
`b. a preferences exchanging part (PEP), adapted to exchange community information
`preferences for said first user with a Community interest management module
`(CIMM); and in that said electronic information sending part (ISP) is further adapted
`to send said electronic information towards said first user based on said community
`information preferences for said user;
`wherein the CIMM determines community information preferences for said first user
`based at least in part on information preferences of said users related to said first user;
`and
`wherein users are determined to be related to said first user based on pre-defined
`relationships.
`
`(’593 patent at 8:62-10:6.)
`
`Dependent claims 5, 13, and 15 merely add the limitation of “wherein the pre-defined
`
`relationships are set by said first user.” (’593 patent at 7:40-41; 8:59-61; 10:7-8.)
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A.
`
`Section 101 and the Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test
`
`Patentable subject matter is defined by Section 101, which provides that “[w]hoever
`
`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. The Supreme Court has “long held
`
`that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena,
`
`and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Assoc. for Molecular
`
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). These limitations on
`
`patentability exist to prevent “monopolization” of “the basic tools of scientific and technological
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 205
`
`work” that “might tend to impede innovation . . . thereby thwarting the primary object of the
`
`patent laws.” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court reiterated that a two-step test determines the patentability of
`
`claims covering an “abstract idea.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. First, the court determines whether
`
`the claims “are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an abstract idea. Id. The
`
`“question for the court at this juncture . . . [is] to determine whether and what is ‘the abstract idea
`
`at the heart’ of the claim.” Comcast IP Holdings I, LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P., 55 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 544, 548 (D. Del. 2014) (quoting Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
`
`Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
`
`If the court finds the heart of the claims to be abstract, it then proceeds to the second step
`
`and “must look to ‘the elements of the claim both individually and as an “ordered combination”’
`
`to see if 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, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., --- F.
`
`Supp. 3d ---, No. 13-1608-RGA, 2015 WL 4730906, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2015) (quoting
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). At this second step, a patentable claim must include “additional
`
`features” to ensure that the claims do not cover the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
`
`These “additional features” must be “more than simply stating the abstract idea while adding the
`
`words ‘apply it.’” Id. (quotations, citation and brackets omitted). For example, a claim that adds
`
`“well-understood, routine, conventional activity” or technology does not constitute an “inventive
`
`concept.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012).
`
`Moreover, “the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by
`
`attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 206
`
`insignificant postsolution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (internal
`
`quotations and citation omitted).
`
`B.
`
`The Supreme Court Has Made Clear That Abstract Ideas Merely
`Implemented on a Computer are Not Patentable
`
`The Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the scope of patentable subject matter for
`
`computer-related inventions in cases such as Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), Parker v.
`
`Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), Bilski, and, most recently, Alice. Critically, the Alice Court made
`
`clear that “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
`
`idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The Court further explained that
`
`“if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract
`
`idea on a computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Id. at 2358 (internal
`
`quotations, citation, ellipses and brackets omitted).
`
`Where, as here, patent claims are directed to implementing abstract ideas on a computer,
`
`the Supreme Court’s mandate is clear: the claims are not patentable. See Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at
`
`71-72 (conversion of binary-coded numerals); Parker, 437 U.S. at 594-96 (sounding an alarm
`
`when limits established by mathematical formula were exceeded); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 (basic
`
`economic concept of risk hedging); Alice, 134 S. Ct.. at 2355-58 (intermediated settlement); see
`
`also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (advertisement as
`
`currency); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) 792 F.3d 1363, 1369-71 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015) (presenting content based on information known about a user); Personalized Media,
`
`2015 WL 4730906, at *3 (using personal information to create a customized presentation); Tuxis
`
`Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 13-1771-RGA, 2014 WL 4382446, at *3 (D. Del. Sept. 3,
`
`2014) (basic marketing strategy of upselling).
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 207
`
`C.
`
`Determination of Subject Matter Eligibility is Appropriate at the Pleading
`Stage
`
`The validity of asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a “threshold” issue for the Court
`
`to decide as a matter of law. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 602; see also, e.g., In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh),
`
`750 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`
`758 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that
`
`resolution of this threshold issue on a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage is proper. See
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission, 776 F.3d at 1349; Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 717.
`
`In fact, early resolution of such claims can “spare both litigants and courts years of
`
`needless litigation.” I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F. App’x 982, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(Mayer, C., concurring) (noting the “clear advantages to addressing section 101’s requirements
`
`at the outset of litigation” including obviating the need for “lengthy claim construction”); see
`
`also Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 718-19 (Mayer, C., concurring); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Lab. Corp.
`
`of Am. Holdings, No. 12-cv-1736-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 4379587, at *6 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014)
`
`(quoting I/P Engine and recommending dismissal).
`
`VI.
`
`THE ’593 PATENT LACKS PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
`
`The asserted claims of the ’593 patent fail under both prongs of the Alice test for subject
`
`matter eligibility because they are directed to an abstract idea and recite no inventive concept.
`
`Before reaching the Alice test, though, it is worth noting that the PTAB has affirmed a 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101 rejection in a related patent application reciting substantial identical claims.
`
`A.
`
`The PTAB Affirmed Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of Claims Not
`Patentably Distinct From the Claims of the ’593 Patent
`
`The named inventors filed multiple patent applications claiming various methods of
`
`managing information and preferences among members of a community, including the asserted
`
`‘593 Patent and U.S. Patent Application No. 11/619,239 (the “’239 Application”). During
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 208
`
`prosecution of the ’593 patent, the Patent Office provisionally rejected what would become
`
`asserted claim 9 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 5 and 6 of the then co-pending “’239 Application”. (See ’593 file
`
`history, Final Rejection, Oct. 7, 2010 (Ex. 2).)5 The following chart demonstrates just how
`
`similar the two sets of claims are (identical language in emphasis):
`
`’593 Patent Claim 9
`
`’239 Application Claims 5, 66
`
`9. A Community interest management module
`(CIMM), for use
`in a communications
`network (CN) said communications network
`(CN) comprising a plurality of electronic
`information sources (IS . . . ISx) and a
`plurality of terminals of users (U1 . . . Ux), at
`least one electronic information source of said
`plurality of electronic information sources (IS .
`. . ISx) being adapted to forward electronic
`information towards a terminal of a first user
`(U1), said Community interest management
`module (CIMM) comprising:
`
`5. A community interest management module
`(CIMM), for use in a communication network
`(CN) comprising a plurality of electronic
`messaging sources (ADS . . . ADSx) and a
`plurality of said terminals of users (U1. . .Ux),
`said at least one electronic messaging source
`being adapted to forward electronic messages
`towards a terminal of a first user, said
`Community
`interest management module
`(CIMM) comprising:
`
`a. an information preferences reception part
`(IPRP), adapted to receive information
`preferences from said terminal of said
`first user and information preferences of
`users related to said first user (U2, UX),
`said users being related to said first user
`based on pre-defined relationships;
`
`a. an electronic message block preferences
`reception part (APRP), adapted to receive
`said electronic message block preferences
`from said terminal of said first user and
`electronic message block preferences from
`terminals of users related to said first user;
`and,
`
`b. a community message block determination
`part
`(CBPDP), adapted
`to determine
`community message block preferences
`based on electronic messages block
`
`b. a community
`information preferences
`determination part (CIPDP), adapted to
`determine
`community
`information
`preferences
`based
`on
`information
`
`5
`Consideration of relevant prosecution history is appropriate on a rule 12(b)(6) motion
`because the file history is “integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.” In re
`Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and
`citation omitted); see also AstraZeneca Pharma. LP v. Apotex Corp., 669 F.3d 1370, 1378 n.5
`(Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming motion to dismiss where “district court held that it could consider
`certain documents beyond the pleadings”).
`6
`Ex. 3, ’239 file history, Claims, Jan. 28, 2010.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 11 Filed 04/29/16 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 209
`
`’593 Patent Claim 9
`preferences of
`said
`first user and
`information preferences of said users
`related to said first user (U1); and
`
`’239 Application Claims 5, 66
`preferences of said first user and on
`electronic message block preferences of
`said users related to said first user.
`
` 
`
`c. a rules managing part (RMP) adapted to
`keep at least one decision rule for each
`user of said plurality of users, wherein
`that
`said
`community
`information
`determination part (CIPDP) is further
`adapted to determine said community
`information preferences additionally based
`on said at least one decision rule for each
`user of said plurality of users.
`
`interest management
`6.  The community
`module (CIMM) according to claim 5, wherein
`said Community interest management module
`(CIMM) further comprises 
`
`a rules managing part (RMP), adapted to
`keep at least one decision rule for each user
`of said plurality of users and in that said
`community message block determination part
`(CBPDP) further is adapted to determine said
`community message
`preferences
`block
`additionally on said at least one decision rule
`related to said first user.
`
`As shown by these inconsequential differences, the examiner for the ’593 patent properly noted
`
`that “[a]lthough the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
`
`each other.” (Id.)
`
`The Patent Office issued a Final Rejection of claims 5 and 6 of the ’239 Application on
`
`October 12, 2010. (’239 file history, Final Rejection (Ex. 4).) As grounds for rejection under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101, the examiner stated:
`
`Claims 5-7 and 8 rec