Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 698
`
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIGHTCOVE INC., and
`BRIGHTCOVE HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS BRIGHTCOVE INC.
`AND BRIGHTCOVE HOLDINGS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-1519 (VAC) (MPT)
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Sonali D. Maitra
`Timothy C. Saulsbury
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 362-6666
`
`January 26, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 699
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITITES ........................................................................................................ ii
`I. 
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................1 
`II. 
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................1 
`III. 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................2 
`A. 
`The Fallon Patents And Realtime’s Infringement Allegations ................................2 
`B. 
`The Non-Fallon Patents And Realtime’s Infringement Allegations ........................3 
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4 
`A. 
`Realtime’s Claims Fail Under Twombly And Iqbal .................................................4 
`1. 
`Realtime Fails To State A Claim For The Fallon Patents ............................5 
`2. 
`Realtime Fails To State A Claim For The Non-Fallon Patents ...................7 
`The Fallon Patents Are Patent-Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ...........................9 
`The Fallon Patents’ Ineligibility Is Ripe For Decision Under Rule
`1. 
`12..................................................................................................................9 
`The Claims Should Rise Or Fall Together ...................................................9 
`Abstract Ideas Coupled With Conventional Technology Are Not
`Patent Eligible ............................................................................................10 
`Step One: The Fallon Patents Are Directed To An Abstract Idea ............11 
`Step Two: The Fallon Patents Claim Only Conventional
`Technology ................................................................................................15 
`None Of The Minor Variations On The Abstract Idea Found In
`Other Claims Alter The Analysis ...............................................................18 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................20 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`B. 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`
`4. 
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 700
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................9
`
`Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter,
`620 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................4
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................1, 4, 8
`
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp.,
`189 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .........................................................................................5
`
`Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec.,
`No. 15-cv-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ..................................4, 7
`
`Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................1, 4
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................6
`
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff’d, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...........................9
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................9, 18
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................10, 11, 14, 17
`
`CyberFone Sys., LLC v. Cellco P’ship,
`885 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2012) .........................................................................................18
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................15
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 701
`
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................11, 13, 14
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................15, 16
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................18
`
`Modern Telecom Sys., LLC v. TCL Corp.,
`C.A. No. 17-583-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 6524526 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2017) .................................5
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc.,
`161 F. Supp. 3d 325 (D. Del. 2015), aff’d sub nom., 671 F. App’x 777 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................................................20
`
`Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-152-RGA, 2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ............................................4
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Carbonite, Inc.,
`No. 6:17-cv-00121, 2017 WL 4693969 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2017)........................................17
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ passim
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................9
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................11
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................11, 14, 16, 17
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................17
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................9, 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................1, 9, 11, 17
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 .................................................................................................9
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 702
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`“Realtime” or “Plaintiff”
`“Brightcove” or “Defendants”
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`Defendants Brightcove Inc. and Brightcove
`Holdings, Inc.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907
`U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046
`the five patents referenced above, collectively
`U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462
`U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298
`
`the “’535 patent”
`the “’477 patent”
`the “’442 patent”
`the “’907 patent”
`the “’046 patent”
`the “Fallon Patents”
`the “’462 patent”
`the “’298 patent”
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 703
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Realtime sued Brightcove on October 26, 2017, alleging infringement of five patents
`
`relating to data compression, all of which share a specification and the same inventors (the
`
`“Fallon Patents”). Realtime’s only basis for infringement is that Brightcove’s products are
`
`compatible with the H.264 video encoding standard.
`
`On December 1, 2017, Realtime amended its complaint to add two additional patents it
`
`had apparently acquired from third parties. Its only basis for infringement of these new patents is
`
`that Brightcove’s products are compatible with the H.265 standard (the successor to H.264).
`
`Brightcove moves to dismiss all claims, on two separate and independent bases.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`First, Realtime fails to plead any facts to support a plausible inference that Brightcove
`
`infringes the asserted patents. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Iqbal and Twombly require that
`
`a plaintiff plead actual facts to support a plausible inference that the defendant infringes at least
`
`one claim of each patent. By alleging only that the accused instrumentalities are compatible with
`
`H.264 and H.265, Realtime fails to meet this burden. As described in detail below, simply
`
`because a product is compatible with these standards does not mean it infringes. (And in fact,
`
`Brightcove categorically does not infringe, and is therefore asking Realtime to drop this suit.)
`
`Second, the Fallon Patents are invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act. Patent law
`
`does not protect abstract ideas, even when claimed in a particular context or in connection with
`
`conventional technology. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014).
`
`The Fallon Patents violate this principle. They are directed to no more than the abstract idea of
`
`selecting a compression scheme based on a characteristic of data or its communication medium.
`
`The patents explain that if, for example, one is faced with limited storage space, one may choose
`
`a slower encoder that will result in a higher degree of compression. See, e.g., D.I. 8-1 at 12:1–25.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 704
`
`
`Humans, using pen and paper, have for centuries used different compression schemes depending
`
`on such constraints. Faced with little space within which to enter a date, one might compress
`
`January 25, 2018 to “01.25.18.” With more space, one might select a compression scheme
`
`resulting in “Jan. 25, 2018.” The only thing the patents add to this basic, abstract concept is a set
`
`of conventional computer implementations. Under Alice, this cannot save the claims.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`
`The Fallon Patents And Realtime’s Infringement Allegations
`
`All of the Fallon Patents are directed to the concept of selecting a compression scheme
`
`based on a characteristic of data or its communication medium. The patents begin by explaining:
`
`“The present invention relates . . . in particular, to a system and method for compressing and
`
`decompressing data based on an actual or expected throughput (bandwidth) of the system that
`
`employs data compression.” See id. at 1:21–25. The patents go on to explain that there already
`
`exist a number of different compression schemes. Id. at 1:31–46. Some have high compression
`
`ratios, compressing data to a small size, but “take a long time to execute.” Id. at 1:38–40. Others
`
`are faster “but at the possible cost of a lower compression ratio.” Id. at 1:40–46.
`
`The Fallon Patents claim to “provide dynamic modification of compression system
`
`parameters so as to provide an optimal balance between execution speed of the algorithm
`
`(compression rate) and the resulting compression ratio.” Id. at 1:56–60. That means, for example,
`
`one might implement “different compression algorithms” based on a situation where “a
`
`bottleneck occurs so as to increase the throughput and eliminate the bottleneck.” Id. at 9:53–59.
`
`The claims of the patent do not claim much more than this basic concept of choosing a
`
`compression scheme depending on the data or communications channel. Claim 1 of the ’046
`
`patent, as an example, provides:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 705
`
`
`compressing data using a first compression routine providing a first compression
`rate, wherein the first compression routine comprises a first compression algorithm;
`tracking the throughput of a data processing system to determine if the first
`compression rate provides a throughput that meets a predetermined throughput
`threshold, wherein said tracking throughput comprises tracking a number of pending
`requests for data transmission; and
`when the tracked throughput does not meet the predetermined throughput threshold,
`compressing data using a second compression routine providing a second
`compression rate that is greater than the first compression rate, to increase the
`throughput of the data processing system to at least the predetermined throughput
`level, wherein the second compression routine comprises a second compression
`algorithm.
`
`D.I. 8-5, Claim 1. The claims are entirely silent as to how this might happen. That is, none of the
`
`claims provide a specific compressor—or a variety of compressors—to use based on constraints
`
`presented by the data or the communication medium. None of the claims even identify an
`
`algorithm to be used in compressing the data. And none specify particular conditions or levels
`
`that trigger the use of different compressors—or technology for detecting when those levels have
`
`been met. The only aspects the claims add to the patent’s basic concept are conventional
`
`computer operations.
`
`With respect to the Fallon Patents, Realtime alleges no more than that Brightcove’s
`
`products use the H.264 standard, which Realtime contends infringes. See, e.g., D.I. 8 ¶¶ 28–34
`
`(alleging that Brightcove uses H.264 and contending that elements of H.264—rather than any
`
`accused Brightcove instrumentality—purportedly meet the claim limitations).
`
`B.
`
`The Non-Fallon Patents And Realtime’s Infringement Allegations
`
`The ’462 patent recites a “[m]ethod for coding a video signal using hybrid coding.”
`
`D.I. 8-6 at [57]. The claims require a very specific and detailed series of steps including: (1) the
`
`calculation of “quantization efficiency”; (2) setting certain “quantized values” to “all zeroes”;
`
`(3) “selecting” which of a “first and second quantization efficiencies is a higher efficiency”; and
`
`(4) “selecting” a particular subblock based on the relative “quantization efficiency” of the at least
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 706
`
`
`two subblocks at issue. Id. at Claim 1.
`
`The ’298 patent is directed to processing of “stereoscopic” video streams—which are
`
`streams for displaying three-dimensional video that contain two (i.e., “stereo”) images for each
`
`frame—one for each eye. See generally D.I. 8-7.
`
`With respect to the non-Fallon Patents, Realtime alleges that Brightcove uses the H.265
`
`standard and concludes—without any supporting facts concerning Brightcove’s accused
`
`instrumentalities—that there is infringement of the (fairly detailed) elements of both sets of
`
`claims. Incredibly, Realtime relies on non-essential elements of the H.265 standard for
`
`infringement, thereby providing no possible inference that using the standard means infringing
`
`the claims. See, e.g., D.I. 8 ¶¶ 130–139.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Realtime’s Claims Fail Under Twombly And Iqbal
`
`A complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
`
`upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The plaintiff “must
`
`plead enough factual matter that, when taken as true, states a claim to relief that is plausible on
`
`its face.” Addiction & Detoxification Inst. L.L.C. v. Carpenter, 620 F. App’x 934, 936 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015).1 “The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
`
`acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`Under this standard, a plaintiff must adequately plead infringement of at least one patent
`
`claim. Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec., No. 15-cv-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545, at *5 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (“PGE”); Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., C.A. No. 15-152-
`
`RGA, 2016 WL 927143, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) (finding that complaint failed to state a
`
`1
`Internal quotation marks and alterations omitted, and emphasis supplied, unless otherwise
`noted.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 707
`
`
`claim for direct patent infringement after conducting a limitation-by-limitation analysis,
`
`comparing the asserted claim to the factual allegations in the complaint); Modern Telecom Sys.,
`
`LLC v. TCL Corp., C.A. No. 17-583-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 6524526, at *2 (D. Del. Dec. 21,
`
`2017). “[F]actual allegations that do not permit a court to infer that the accused product infringes
`
`each element of at least one claim are not suggestive of infringement—they are merely
`
`compatible with infringement.” Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., 189 F. Supp. 3d 768, 775 (N.D.
`
`Ill. 2016). “Because the failure to practice even a single element is all that separates innovation
`
`from infringement, there is always an obvious alternative explanation where a plaintiff does not
`
`allege facts about each element . . . .” Id. Realtime’s allegations fail under these principles.
`
`1.
`
`Realtime Fails To State A Claim For The Fallon Patents
`
`Every claim of the Fallon Patents requires determining a characteristic of data or its
`
`communication medium—such as the “throughput” of that medium—and choosing a
`
`compression scheme based on that determination. Here is an example from each Fallon Patent:
`
` Claim 40 of the ’046 patent requires tracking “throughput” and providing a “faster rate of
`compression so as to increase throughput” whenever “throughput falls below a
`predetermined threshold.” D.I. 8-5, Claim 40.
` Claim 1 of the ’907 patent requires analyzing “a throughput of a communications
`channel” to “select two or more different data compression routines.” D.I. 8-4, Claim 1.
` Claim 8 of the ’442 patent requires selecting a compression scheme “based upon a
`throughput of a connection channel.” D.I. 8-3, Claim 8.
` Claim 1 of the ’477 patent requires analyzing the “throughput of a communications
`channel” and, based on that analysis, selecting an encoder from a plurality of encoders
`having different compression rates. D.I. 8-2, Claim 1.
` Claim 15 of the ’535 patent requires “determining a parameter of . . . a data block” and
`“selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute.” D.I. 8-1, Claim 15.
`
`Realtime’s infringement allegations are that Brightcove uses the H.264 standard, so it
`
`necessarily infringes the Fallon Patents; that is, Realtime does not point to the actual operation of
`
`any accused Brightcove products to show infringement. Instead, Realtime summarily concludes:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 708
`
`
`“any H.264-compliant system such as the Accused Instrumentalities would . . . select between at
`
`least two asymmetric compressors.” D.I. 8 ¶ 13.
`
`This is wrong. As documented in the H.264 standard cited in the Amended Complaint—
`
`the standard does not specify any process for compressing data, much less selecting among
`
`various compression processes based on data or throughput. Rather, the standard expressly says
`
`that it specifies processes for decoding a compressed H.264-compliant video and leaves the
`
`compression process discretionary. See Ex. A2 (H.264 Standard) at § 3.44 and § 3.49 (stating that
`
`the “decoding process” is “specified in this Recommendation,” but that the “encoding process” is
`
`“not specified in this Recommendation”). Thus, Realtime’s allegations fail to support a plausible
`
`inference of infringement. See In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`
`681 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding that infringement allegations failed to state a
`
`claim because they were contradicted by materials referenced in the complaint). In other words,
`
`pointing to the standard is just not enough.
`
`Moreover, with respect to Claim 15 of the ’535 patent’s limitation of “determin[ing] a
`
`parameter of a data block,” Realtime appears to assert that, because the H.264 standard supports
`
`a “range” of different “bitrates” (which is the density, in terms of units of data per second, of
`
`compressed video) and “resolutions,” the standard must necessarily “determine[] a parameter of
`
`a data block.” See D.I. 8 ¶¶ 11–12. But the bitrate and resolution parameters are both attributes of
`
`an already compressed file. Again, all five Fallon Patents revolve around the concept of
`
`analyzing uncompressed data (here, Claim 15’s “a portion of a data block”)—or a throughput of
`
`a communications medium (in other claims)—and choosing a compression algorithm based on
`
`that analysis. Thus, even if a product were to permit a user to select the bitrate and resolution of
`
`
`2
`Exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Timothy C. Saulsbury filed herewith.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 709
`
`
`the compressed bitstream, this cannot support an inference that the product determines any
`
`parameter of a pre-compression data block, as the “determining” step of Claim 15 requires.
`
`Realtime provides no additional factual allegations for any claim of the remaining Fallon
`
`Patents—including, for example, (1) determining throughput (Claims 40 of the ’046, 1 of the
`
`’907, and 8 of the ’442), (2) selecting a compression scheme based on throughput (Claim 8 of the
`
`’442), and (3) selecting two or more different data compression routines (Claim 1 of the ’907),
`
`among many other elements. See D.I. 8 ¶¶ 24–99. Instead, it simply recycles the allegations
`
`made for Claim 15 of the ’535 patent, which themselves are insufficient and say nothing of the
`
`additional limitations found in the remaining Fallon Patents. Thus in numerous respects, the
`
`allegations for the Fallon Patents do not create a plausible basis for infringement. See PGE, 2016
`
`WL 1719545, at *4.
`
`2.
`
`Realtime Fails To State A Claim For The Non-Fallon Patents
`
`Similar to its allegations with respect to the Fallon Patents, the only factual allegation in
`
`support of Realtime’s claim of infringement of the non-Fallon Patents is that Brightcove supports
`
`the H.265 standard. It does not identify any aspects of Brightcove’s products that infringe. This
`
`fails as both a legal and a logical matter because Realtime identifies portions of H.265 standard
`
`that are non-essential—meaning that the processes need not be performed in a manner set out in
`
`the H.265 specification. Indeed, with respect to the processes that Realtime contends infringe
`
`each of the non-Fallon Patents, the H.265 standard itself is express that they need not be
`
`performed in any particular manner.
`
`The ’462 patent, for example, claims to be directed to an optimized method of video
`
`encoding—called “hybrid” encoding—where one of two alternative predictive encoding
`
`solutions may be used. D.I. 8-6, Claim 1. The patent calls for calculating the efficiency of each
`
`solution, and then selecting the most efficient one, thereby “always select[ing] the best out of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 710
`
`
`two solutions.” Id. at Claim 1; id. at 4:11–63. As is evident from the patent’s description of the
`
`purported innovation (see, e.g., id. 4:11–63) and the language of Claim 1 (the sole claim
`
`addressed in the Amended Complaint), Claim 1 is directed to a process for encoding a video
`
`bitstream—not to any aspect of decoding a bitstream. However, in a now-familiar mantra, the
`
`H.265 standard
`
`is express
`
`that “[e]ncoding algorithms” are “not specified
`
`in
`
`this
`
`Recommendation.” Ex. B (H.265 Spec.) § 0.7. Incredibly, Realtime admits as much, stating that
`
`“the coding algorithms tha[t] can be used for reaching specific efficiency targets are not
`
`specified by the HEVC Spec (as stated in clause 0.7).” D.I. 8 ¶ 112.
`
`Realtime’s ’298 patent allegations are similarly deficient. The patent is directed to
`
`methods for processing “stereoscopic” video streams, i.e., streams for displaying three-
`
`dimensional video that contain two (“stereo”) images in each frame—one for each eye. See
`
`D.I. 8-7. Realtime’s infringement allegations are premised on the H.265 standard’s identification
`
`of a type of metadata, called “SEI messages” that can be used to determine how the two
`
`constituent images of a stereoscopic frame are “packaged” (e.g., which constitutes the left-hand
`
`view and which is the right-hand). See, e.g., D.I. 8 ¶¶ 133–136; Ex. B (H.265 Spec.) at p. 333.
`
`But, here too, the H.265 standard is express that “[c]onforming decoders are not required to
`
`process this information for output order conformance to this Specification” and that
`
`“specification for presence of SEI messages are also satisfied when those messages (or some
`
`subset of them) are conveyed to decoders (or to the HRD) by other means not specified in this
`
`Specification.” Ex. B at p. 284. Thus, again, alleging that the H.265 standard infringes is just not
`
`enough. Even more fundamentally, Realtime pleads no facts supporting a plausible inference
`
`that Brightcove processes any stereoscopic video streams (let alone in the specific manner
`
`claimed by the ’298 patent), which alone is fatal to its infringement claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 711
`
`
`678.
`
`B.
`
`The Fallon Patents Are Patent-Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Patent law protects only concrete and tangible inventions. It does not protect abstract
`
`ideas, even when they are claimed in a particular context or in connection with conventional
`
`technology. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The Fallon Patents violate this principle because all five
`
`are directed to the abstract idea of selecting a compression scheme based on a characteristic of
`
`data or its communication medium. The challenged claims add nothing to this abstract concept
`
`other than a generalized invocation of routine and conventional computer technology and the
`
`Internet. The claims are, therefore, invalid as abstract under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`1.
`
`The Fallon Patents’ Ineligibility Is Ripe For Decision Under Rule 12
`
`“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 is a threshold
`
`inquiry” and “an issue of law.” In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 950–51 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff’d, Bilski
`
`v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602 (2010) (describing § 101 as “a threshold test”); SiRF Tech., Inc. v.
`
`ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject
`
`matter is an issue of law . . . .”). For this reason, the Federal Circuit repeatedly has upheld district
`
`court decisions finding claims abstract in response to motions brought under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 12. See, e.g., buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 711–12 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`2.
`
`The Claims Should Rise Or Fall Together
`
`The inquiry under § 101 turns on the subject matter of the claims and not on minor
`
`variations or the form in which they are written. Thus, the Supreme Court has “long warn[ed] . . .
`
`against interpreting § 101 in ways that make patent eligibility depend simply on the draftsman’s
`
`art.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see also Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software,
`
`Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (system claims should rise and fall with method
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 712
`
`
`claims despite their recitation of additional hardware components).
`
`In line with this principle, an applicant may challenge eligibility through representative
`
`claims and without engaging in a repetitive attack on each claim individually. For example, in
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, the plaintiff objected
`
`that the movant’s (and the district court’s) failure “to individually address every one of its claims
`
`is inconsistent with the statutory presumption of validity.” 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`The Federal Circuit rejected this assertion and instead found that the “district court . . . correctly
`
`determined that addressing each claim of the asserted patents was unnecessary” because “all the
`
`claims are ‘substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.’” Id.; Cleveland Clinic
`
`Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). All of the claims
`
`of the Fallon Patents are substantially similar, addressed to the same abstract idea, and contain
`
`(at best) entirely generic computing references. The claims should, therefore, rise or fall together.
`
`3.
`
`Abstract Ideas Coupled With Conventional Technology Are Not
`Patent Eligible
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth a two-part framework for analyzing eligibility,
`
`namely: (1) determining whether the claims “are directed to [a] patent-ineligible concept[],” and
`
`if they are, (2) determining whether the claims contain “additional elements [that] ‘transform the
`
`nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
`
`Under step one of Alice, “[t]he inquiry often is whether the claims are directed to ‘a
`
`specific means or method’ for improving technology or whether they are simply directed to an
`
`abstract end-result.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Put differently, the question in the case of a computer-implemented claim is whether the claim
`
`“improves the functioning of a computer” or whether it claims an “‘abstract idea’ for which
`
`computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1327. For this reason, the Federal Circuit has
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 16 Filed 01/26/18 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 713
`
`
`repeatedly found “process[es] that start[] with data, add[] an algorithm, and end[] with a new
`
`form of data” ineligible as abstract. Id.; Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`
`758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1346. This is because such processes merely
`
`invoke computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea, rather than improving the functioning
`
`of a computer itself. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327.
`
`If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, the court proceeds to step two, under which the
`
`court must search for an inventive concept: “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