Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 315 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 21920
`
`M O R R I S , N I C H O L S , A R S H T & T U N N E L L L L P
`1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
`P.O. BOX 1347
`WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
`
`(302) 658-9200
`(302) 658-3989 FAX
`
`November 10, 2017
`
`JACK B. BLUMENFELD
`(302) 351-9291
`(302) 425-3012 FAX
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`United States District Court
` for the District of Delaware
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC, C.A. Nos. 16-453 (RGA); 16-454 (RGA); and 16-455 (RGA)
`
`Dear Judge Andrews:
`
`The subsequent authority identified by Plaintiff in its November 8 letter (C.A. No. 16-
`453, D.I. 349) does not change anything. That case—MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft
`Corp., No. 2016-2465, 2017 WL 4872706 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2017)—merely applies a 12-year-
`old legal principle to a patent that bears no material similarity to the patents in this case.
`
`As Defendants argued during claim construction, Terms 38, 39 and 40 are sequential
`method steps that render the claims in which they appear indefinite under IPXL Holdings, LLC v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). (C.A. 16-453, D.I. 281) (C.A. 16-454, D.I.
`254) (C.A. 16-455, D.I. 250). IPXL Holdings held that a claim is indefinite if it “cover[s] both
`an apparatus and a method of use of that apparatus.” 430 F.3d at 1384. MasterMine reaffirms
`IPXL Holdings, while stating that “‘apparatus claims are not necessarily indefinite for using
`functional language.’” 2017 WL 4872706, at *5 (quoting Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v.
`Tex. Instruments Inc. (MEC), 520 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). This unremarkable
`proposition does not help Plaintiff, as the claims it asserts do not merely “us[e] functional
`language,” but also recite method steps. Id.
`
`Indeed, MasterMine confirms that the claims are indefinite. The Federal Circuit
`determined that the claims there “merely use[d] permissible functional language,” because the
`limitations “focus[ed] on the capabilities of the system” (as an apparatus claim would), not on
`“the specific actions performed by the user” (as a method claim would). Id. at *7. Unlike the
`claims in MasterMine, and like the claims held invalid in IPXL Holdings, Terms 38, 39, and 40
`do “focus on the specific actions performed by the user,” namely the sequential steps that (1) “an
`originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data through each of its
`connections to its neighbor participants” and (2) “each participant sends data that it receives from
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 315 Filed 11/10/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21921
`
`The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
`November 10, 2017
`Page 2
`
`a neighbor participant to its other neighbor participants.” ‘966 Patent, Claim 1. And indeed, the
`Plaintiff itself told the PTAB that the claims “require that the entire plurality of network
`participants, upon receiving data, must each send that data to all of their respective neighbor
`participants.” (C.A. 16-453, D.I. 281 at 68–70 (quoting D-1 at 43)) (emphasis added). That is
`not a capability of the system, but a required method step. The claims are thus indefinite.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`JBB:ncf
`
`cc:
`
`Clerk of Court (Via Hand Delivery)
`All Counsel of Record (Via Electronic Mail)
`
`