Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 2131
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 17-1519-JFB-SRF
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHTCOVE INC., AND
`BRIGHTCOVE HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION (D.I. 15) TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO
`RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`February 9, 2018
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`Brian D. Ledahl
`Reza Mirzaie
`C. Jay Chung
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`(310) 826-7474
`Los Angeles, CA 90025-1031
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
`Sara E. Bussiere (No. 5725)
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2132
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`BRIGHTCOVE’S IQBAL / TWOMBLY ARGUMENTS FAIL. ........................................... 1
`A. Realtime’s Element-By-Element Factual Allegations Regarding The Fallon
`Patents Easily Exceed the Iqbal / Twombly Standard..............................................2
`B. Realtime’s Element-By-Element Factual Allegations Regarding The ‘462
`And ‘298 Patents Also Easily Exceed the Iqbal / Twombly Standard. ....................5
`BRIGHTCOVE FAILS TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE 143 CLAIMS OF THE FIVE
`FALLON PATENTS ARE INVALID UNDER §101........................................................... 6
`A. Brightcove Cannot Establish That The Patent Claims Are Directed To An
`Abstract Idea Under Alice Step 1.............................................................................6
`1. Examining the patents confirms that they claim technological solutions
`to technological problems, not abstract subject matter................................7
`2. Another court has repeatedly held that the subject matter of the Fallon
`patents is patent-eligible despite several prior challenges. ........................11
`3. Brightcove’s flawed arguments mischaracterize the law and claims................13
`B. Brightcove Also Cannot Establish That the Claims Are Patent Ineligible
`Under Alice Step 2. ................................................................................................17
`1. Under any reasonable characterization, the patented claims include
`additional limitations that are unconventional...........................................17
`2. Brightcove’s arguments under step 2 are based on attorney arguments
`that not only rely on a misapplication of controlling law, but are
`also contradicted by the patents themselves. .............................................19
`C. Brightcove Fails To Analyze Every Single Claim Separately....................................19
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 2133
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Amdocs v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 18
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009)................................................................................................................ 2
`
`Atlas IP LLC v. PG&E Co.,
`2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016).............................................................................. 2
`
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp.,
`189 F. Supp. 3d 768 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`Bascom Global v. AT&T Mobility,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 17
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018).................................................................................... 17
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 14
`
`C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc.,
`156 F. Supp. 3d 540 (D. Del. 2016).......................................................................................... 20
`
`Cal. Institute of Tech. v. Hughes Commcn’s Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156763 (C.D. Cal Nov. 3 2014)....... 15
`
`Card Verification Solutions, LLC. v. Citigroup Inc.,
`No. 13-C-6339, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137577 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2014) ............................... 6
`
`Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diag. LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 20
`
`Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 14
`
`Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`--- F.3d ---, 2018 WL 542672 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)............................................................. 9
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 2134
`
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................. 14
`
`DDR v. Hotels.com LP,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 8
`
`Delavau, LLC v. Corbion NV,
`2016 WL 3410176 (D.N.J. June 16, 2016)................................................................................. 4
`
`Digitech Image Techs. v. Electronics for Imaging,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 14
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 8
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`--- F.3d ---, 2018 WL 341882 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2018)............................................................. 7
`
`In re Bill of Lading,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 4
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 14
`
`JSDQ Mesh Techs. LLC v. Fluidmesh Networks, LLC,
`No. 16-CV-212-GMS, 2016 WL 4639140 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016)............................................ 6
`
`Lifetime Indus. Inc. v. Trim-Lok Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................... 2
`
`MAZ Encryption Techs. LLC v. Blackberry Corp.,
`No. 13-304-LPS, 2016 WL 5661981 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016) .......................................... 17, 19
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 17
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. TCL Corp.,
`2017 WL 6524526 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2017)................................................................................ 2
`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 12
`
`Prowire LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3444689 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017). ................................................................................ 2
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 2135
`
`Raindance Tech. Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) ................................................................................... 2
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2590195 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2017).......................................................................... 11
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 14
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S.,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................... 9
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc.,
`2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014). ........................................................................... 15
`
`U.S. Gypsum Co. v. New NGC, Inc.,
`2017 WL 5187845 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2017). .............................................................................. 1
`
`Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc.,
`569 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 5
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................. 8, 13
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 2136
`
`First, Brightcove
`
`argues
`
`that Realtime’s
`
`allegations
`
`are
`
`insufficient
`
`under
`
`Iqbal/Twombly. A review of Realtime’s 75-page First Amended Complaint (FAC) shows the
`
`fallacy of
`
`that argument.The FAC does not merely “alleg[e] only that
`
`the accused
`
`instrumentalities are compatible with H.264 and H.265” (Mot. at 1), but rather provides a
`
`detailed claim element-by-element of factual allegations. Brightcove’s arguments are legally and
`
`factually incorrect.
`
`Second, as to the Fallon patents,1 Brightcove also argues that they are abstract under
`
`§101. But the Fallon patent claims are not abstract, but rather are limited to a particularized
`
`subset of the non-abstract realm of digital-data compression. They are patent eligible because
`
`they provide specific technological
`
`solutions
`
`that
`
`improve computer capabilities—e.g.,
`
`improving the ability to more effectively compress digital data so as to increase the capacity of a
`
`computer system to store more data or to transfer data more efficiently. The claims describe
`
`specific ways (using multiple compressors, asymmetric compressors, determining parameter of
`
`data block and/or throughput of a communication channel) to make this happen.2 Brightcove’s
`
`§101 arguments should be rejected.
`
`I.
`
`BRIGHTCOVE’S IQBAL / TWOMBLY ARGUMENTS FAIL.
`
`The task of the court at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage is simply to assess whether the complaint
`
`“plead ‘enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” U.S. Gypsum Co. v.
`
`New NGC, Inc., 2017 WL 5187845, *1-2 (D. Del. Aug. 18, 2017). “Specific facts are not
`
`1 The ‘535, ‘477, ‘907, ‘442, and ‘046 patents asserted in this case (“Fallon patents”) are related to each other and
`share substantially the same specification. Brightcove has not argued that the remaining two asserted patents (the
`‘462 and ‘298 patents) are patent ineligible under §101.
`2 The §101 arguments similar to those of Brightcove have been considered and rejected by another court involving
`other Realtime patents that are incorporated by reference into the Fallon patents asserted in this case. Specifically,
`two judges in Texas have repeatedly found patents of the same inventor involving the same field (compression) (and
`incorporated by reference in the Fallon patents) to be eligible under §101. (See Ex. 1-3.) The motion here similarly
`fails.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 2137
`
`necessary”; a complaint containing “more than labels and conclusions” is sufficient. Id.3
`
`Indeed, a complaint need only “place the alleged infringer ‘on notice of what activity ... is being
`
`accused of infringement.’” Lifetime Indus. Inc. v. Trim-Lok Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017).
`
`“There is no requirement for [plaintiff] to ‘prove its case at the pleading stage.’” Id. The
`
`test is not even probably success on the merits. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).
`
`Instead, it is a threshold test: whether, taking all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those
`
`facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the claim is plausible, i.e., “above a speculative
`
`level.” Prowire LLC v. Apple, Inc., 2017 WL 3444689, *4 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017). As this Court
`
`stated:
`
`[I]t is logical to presume that a defendant has greater access to and, therefore, more
`information about its accused method. … [T]he question … is whether the plaintiff at bar
`has provided sufficient information to allow the court to determine plausibility and to
`allow the named defendant to respond to the complaint. Absent specific guidance from
`the Federal Circuit directing the court to front-load the litigation process by requiring a
`detailed complaint in every instance, the court declines to do so.
`
`U.S. Gypsum, 2017 WL 5187845, at *3.4 Realtime’s 75-page FAC far exceed the standard.
`
`A.
`
`Realtime’s Element-By-Element Factual Allegations Regarding The Fallon
`Patents Easily Exceed the Iqbal / Twombly Standard.
`
`The FAC has detailed factual allegations. (D.I. 8 ¶¶ 6-99.) For example, the allegations
`
`just for the ‘535 patent span 18 paragraphs over 10 pages. (Id. ¶¶ 6-23.) The FAC provides
`
`element-by-element allegations, pointing to exemplary evidence, e.g., documents available on
`
`Brightcove website, the H.264 standard, etc. (Id.) These are far beyond “labels and conclusions.”
`
`3 All emphasis in quotes are added, unless otherwise stated.
`4 All of cases cited by Brightcove are inapposite. E.g., Atlas IP LLC v. PG&E Co., 2016 WL 1719545, *1 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 9, 2016) (complaint that “does not specific link” the accused products to any claim of the asserted patent);
`Raindance Tech. Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc., 2016 WL 927143, *2 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016) (complaint that “makes no
`attempt to relate any their factual assertions with any of the asserted claims”); Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. TCL
`Corp., 2017 WL 6524526, *3 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2017) (complaint that “simply parrot[] back words of the claim”
`without alleging “any facts”); Atlas IP, LLC v. Exelon Corp., 189 F. Supp. 3d 768, 776-79 (N.D. Ill. 2016)
`(“hopeless,” “entirely speculative,” and “contradict[ory]” complaint).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 2138
`
`Brightcove’s argument that the FAC “does not point to the actual operation of any
`
`accused Brightcove products” (Mot. at 5) is false. The FAC specifically alleges that
`
`the
`
`Brightcove products comply with the H.264 standard and provides allegations and analysis
`
`mapping the products and specific portions of the H.264 standard to an exemplary claim. (D.I. 8
`
`at ¶¶ 10-14.) As such, these allegations are about the actual operation of Brightcove’s products.
`
`Brightcove’s argument that “Realtime summarily concludes … select[ing] between at
`
`least two asymmetric compressors” (Mot. at 5-6) is demonstrably false. One look at the FAC
`
`puts the lie to that argument—paragraph 13 of the FAC provides much more than Brightcove
`
`leads on:
`
`Based on the bitrate and/or resolution parameter identified (e.g. bitrate, max video bitrate,
`resolution, GOP structure or frame type within a GOP structure), any H.264-compliant
`system such as the Accused Instrumentalities would determine which profile (e.g.,
`“baseline,” “extended,” “main”, or “high”) corresponds with that parameter, then select
`between at
`least
`two asymmetric compressors.
`If baseline or extended is the
`corresponding profile, then the system will select a Context-Adaptive Variable Length
`Coding (“CAVLC”) entropy encoder. If main or high is the corresponding profile, then
`the system will select a Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding (“CABAC”) entropy
`encoder. Both encoders are asymmetric compressors because it takes a longer period of
`time for them to compress data than to decompress data. … Moreover, the H.264
`Standard requires a bit-flag descriptor, which is set to determine the correct decoder for
`the corresponding encoder. As shown below, if the flag = 0, then CAVLC must have
`been selected as the encoder; if the flag = 1, then CABAC must have been selected as the
`encoder.
`
`(D.I. 8 at ¶ 13.) The allegations include, e.g., identifying examples of such compressors (e.g.,
`
`CAVLC, CABAC) and how they are selected (e.g., using “profile,” bitrate, etc.). (Id.)
`
`Brightcove also argues that the H.264 standard cannot be cited because the standard
`
`purportedly “does not specify any process for compressing data” (Mot. at 6). This at best merely
`
`raises a factual issue, which is improper on a Rule 12(b) motion. Moreover, Brightcove is also
`
`factually incorrect; H.264 standard does provide details regarding compression—e.g., using
`
`“encoding,” “coding,” “compressing,” and other similar terms to describe compression. (E.g.,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 2139
`
`D.I. 8 at ¶¶ 11, 13, 14 (“Max video bit rate for video coding layer”; “Entropy Coding,” etc.).)
`
`Even assuming Brightcove’s assertion is accurate (contrary to fact), that does not mean
`
`that the H.264 standard is irrelevant to encoding. For example, if the standard states that CAVLC
`
`decoding is to be used,
`
`then a reasonable inference is that CAVLC encoding is used.
`
`Brightcove’s argument that the standard is solely about decoding is factually and legally flawed.5
`
`Brightcove also argues about ‘535 patent claim 15’s limitation “determine a parameter of
`
`data block” (Mot. at 6). The FAC provides allegations about such a parameter that is determined:
`
`“examples of such parameters include bitrate … and resolution parameters.” (D.I. 8 at ¶ 11.)
`
`Brightcove’s purported noninfringement/claim construction arguments here are improper in a
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) motion.6 Brightcove is also substantively wrong. For example, ‘535 patent claim
`
`15 does not recite “analyzing uncompressed data,” as asserted by Brightcove (Mot. at 6). And
`
`nothing supports Brightcove’s bald assertion that “bitrate and resolution parameters” must be
`
`“attributes of an already compressed file.” (Id.) On the contrary, “bitrate and resolution” can be
`
`parameters of uncompressed data that is about to subsequently compressed.
`
`Brightcove’s conclusory arguments about “remaining Fallon Patents” (Mot. at 7)
`
`similarly fail. For example, the argument about “determining throughput” fails because, e.g.,
`
`“throughput” and “bitrate” are related concepts (‘535 patent at 13:62-14:2), and as explained
`
`above,
`
`the FAC provides ample explanations and allegations regarding “determin[ing] a
`
`parameter” such as throughput/bitrate. (D.I. 8 at ¶¶ 24-99.) The argument about “selecting a
`
`compression scheme based on throughput” and “selecting two or more data compression
`
`5 See Delavau, LLC v. Corbion NV, 2016 WL 3410176, *3 (D.N.J. June 16, 2016) (“Court … cannot credit
`defendants’ interpretation of the exhibits … at this motion to dismiss stage.”).
`6 Federal Circuit held that “claim construction at the pleading stage—with no claim construction processes
`undertaken—was inappropriate.” In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d 1323, 1343, fn.13 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We afford the
`claims their broadest possible construction at this stage”); In re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1420 (“The issue is not
`whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the
`claims.”); Lupin Atlantis, 2011 WL 1540199, *3 (“an infringement adjudication cannot be completed … without
`taking into account any other evidence—including, most notably, expert testimony.”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 2140
`
`routines” also fail because the FAC describes specific exemplary compression scheme / routine
`
`(e.g., CAVLC, CABAC) and how they are selected based on, e.g., throughput / bitrate. (E.g., D.I.
`
`at ¶¶ 24-99.)7
`
`B.
`
`Realtime’s Element-By-Element Factual Allegations Regarding The ‘462
`And ‘298 Patents Also Easily Exceed the Iqbal / Twombly Standard.
`
`The allegations regarding the ‘462 and ‘298 patents are also detailed and specific,
`
`spanning 47 paragraphs over 22 pages. (D.I. 8 at ¶¶ 100-146.) These are far beyond “labels and
`
`conclusions.”
`
`As to the ‘462 patent, Brightcove makes the same argument that it made regarding the
`
`Fallon patents, i.e., that the standard cannot be relied upon purportedly because it is about
`
`“decoding” only (Mot. at 7-8). That is at best a factual argument improper on a Rule 12(b)
`
`motion. It is also substantively wrong, as H.265 standard does provide details regarding H.265
`
`encoding. (E.g., D.I. 8 at ¶¶ 107-117 (“video coding layer of HEVC employs …”; “bipredictive
`
`coding”; “decision whether to code a picture area using…”; “Residual coding sematics”).) Even
`
`assuming Brightcove’s assertion is accurate (contrary to fact), that does not mean the standard is
`
`irrelevant. For example, if the standard states that “block based motion compensation technique”
`
`is used in decoding, then a reasonable inference is that “block based motion compensation
`
`technique” is used for encoding. The ‘462 patent claim 1 recites “block based motion
`
`compensated” technique, and allegations regarding such a technique in the standard is logical.
`
`(See D.I. at ¶ 108.)
`
`As to the ‘298 patent, Brightcove’s argues that Realtime’s claim should be dismissed
`
`because the features identified in the FAC are purportedly “not required.” Brightcove seeks to
`
`7 If the Court were to grant some or all of Brightcove’s motion despite these arguments, Realtime respectfully
`requests an opportunity to amend its FAC. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (leave to amend “freely give[n]”); Univ. of
`Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc., 569 F.3d 1328, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“dismissal with prejudice ‘is a severe
`and disfavored remedy,’” citing Third Circuit law).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 2141
`
`impose a standard that would not even be applicable in a summary judgment motion, much less
`
`in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The FAC alleges that Brightcove performs each limitations and why,
`
`including performing what Brightcove asserts is “not required.” D.I. 8 at 133-136. Pleaded facts
`
`are taken as true and viewed in light most favorable to Realtime—i.e., that Brightcove does
`
`perform what it purports is “not required.” Indeed, Brightcove does not even deny that it
`
`processes “SEI messages” or otherwise dispute the allegations about the ‘298 patent (see Mot. at
`
`8). But even if it did, that would merely present a factual issue inappropriate for ruling on a
`
`motion to dismiss.
`
`II.
`
`BRIGHTCOVE FAILS TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE 143 CLAIMS OF THE
`FIVE FALLON PATENTS ARE INVALID UNDER §101.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101, patent eligibility is to be construed broadly, and the exceptions
`
`are narrow. One exception is the “abstract idea” exception. The Supreme Court has warned
`
`against interpreting the exception too broadly, as that could could “swallow all of patent law”
`
`because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
`
`2354 (2014).8
`
`A.
`
`Brightcove Cannot Establish That The Patent Claims Are Directed To An
`Abstract Idea Under Alice Step 1.
`
`The threshold, step 1 inquiry of the §101 analysis requires Brightcove to demonstrate that
`
`the patent claims are directed to an “abstract idea,” i.e., an “idea of itself” or “fundamental truths
`
`or fundamental principles the patenting of which would pre-empt the use of basic tools of
`
`scientific and technological work.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Brightcove fails to do so here.
`
`Under any fair characterization,
`
`the claims here are patent-eligible because they provide
`
`8 “At the motion to dismiss stage a patent claim can be found directed towards patent-ineligible subject matter if the
`only plausible reading of the patent must be that there is clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility.” JSDQ Mesh
`Techs. LLC v. Fluidmesh Networks, LLC, 2016 WL 4639140, *1 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016) .
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 2142
`
`particular, technical solutions to technical problems specific to compression of digital computer
`
`data.
`
`1.
`
`Examining the patents confirms that they claim technological
`solutions to technological problems, not abstract subject matter.
`
`Under the Supreme Court’s Alice framework, claims that “improve[] an existing
`
`technological process” or “solve a technological problem in ‘conventional industry practice’” are
`
`patent eligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The Federal Circuit has applied these standards in
`
`several controlling cases to uphold the patentability of claims challenged as abstract.
`
`In Finjan, the Federal Circuit held eligible a patent for identifying suspicious computer
`
`virus. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2018 WL 341882, *2-4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10,
`
`2018). Finjan’s claim recited only three steps: (a) “receiving” computer program; (2) “generating
`
`… security profile that identifies suspicious code;” and (3) “linking” the security profile to the
`
`computer program. Id. The claim did not specify how to “identif[y] suspicious code.” Id. at *2.
`
`While acknowledging that prior Federal Circuit precedent has held that “virus screening,” by
`
`itself, is an abstract idea, the court nevertheless held that Finjan’s patent claim was not abstract
`
`because it was not directed to just any “virus screening,” but instead limited to a particular type
`
`of virus screening, which constituted improvement in computer functionality. In so holding, the
`
`court rejected the same argument advanced by Brightcove here, namely, that the claims “do not
`
`sufficiently describe how to implement” any idea. Id. at *3-4. On this point, the court held that
`
`the three recited claimed steps were all that was needed to render the claim patent-eligible. Id.
`
`The Realtime claims here present an even clearer case for patent-eligibility than those at
`
`issue in Finjan. In contrast to Finjan’s patent, which was about “virus screening” that previously
`
`was held to be abstract, Realtime’s claims are directed to digital data compression, which plainly
`
`is not abstract. See DDR, 733 F.3d at 1259. And the asserted claims are not just directed to
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 2143
`
`digital data compression in general, but a particularized subset of novel digital data
`
`compression, which is directed to improving the capacity of a computer system to store more
`
`data or to transfer data more efficiently across computer systems. Moreover, the asserted claims
`
`require even more specific steps and components than those held eligible in Finjan. These
`
`include: (i) the use of “a plurality of different” compression algorithms or techniques; (ii)
`
`determining “data parameters” or “attributes” of a digital data block; (iii) “select[ing]” specific
`
`techniques based upon that determination relating to “a throughput of a communication
`
`channel,” or a digital data “access profile,” (iv) requiring the selected techniques to be
`
`“asymmetric,” and other novel elements. E.g., ‘535 patent claims 1 & 15; ‘477 claim 1; ‘442
`
`claim 8; ‘907 claim 1; ‘046 patent claim 40.
`
`In Enfish, the Federal Circuit reversed an ineligibility ruling on a database patent, which
`
`the district court described as being directed to “storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a
`
`logical table.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal
`
`Circuit held that “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from
`
`the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to §101 swallow the rule.” Id. It
`
`further criticized the district court’s analysis for “downplay[ing] the invention’s benefits”
`
`disclosed in the specification. Id. at 1337–38. Because the claims were “designed to improve
`
`the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory,” they were “directed to a specific
`
`implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” and, thus, “not directed to an
`
`abstract idea.” Id. at 1339.9
`
`9 Similarly, in DDR, the claims addressed “the problem of retaining website visitors.” DDR v. Hotels.com LP, 773
`F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Despite being directed to e-commerce, the court held that these claims “stand
`apart” from abstract claims “because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known
`from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet.” Id. Instead, “the claims
`recite[d] an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.” Id. at 1259. Thus, they were
`eligible because the patented claims were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
`problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 2144
`
`In Visual Memory, the claims recited a system with “operational characteristics” which
`
`“determines a type of data.” Visual Memory LLC v. NVidia, 867 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). The court rejected defendant’s argument that the claims “are directed to no more than a
`
`desired result” and that the patent claim “nothing more than a black box.” Id. at 1260-61. The
`
`court cautioned against over-simplifying the claims, and held that
`
`they were directed to
`
`“improvements to computer functionality” as opposed to “economic or other tasks for which a
`
`computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1258-1261.
`
`In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit affirmed eligibility of a patent about summarizing
`
`and presenting information in electronic devices. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., Inc., ---
`
`F.3d ---, 2018 WL 542672, *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). In so doing, the court rejected
`
`defendants’ failure to acknowledge key claim elements and cautioned that courts “must be
`
`mindful that all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature,
`
`natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Id. at *3. It held that the patent claimed “an improvement
`
`in the functioning of computers” (id. at *3-4) because the claims were limited “to a particular
`
`manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.” Id. at *4. As in Core
`
`Wireless, the patents at issue here claim particular manners of selecting and compressing digital
`
`data to improve the capacity of a computer system to store more data or to transfer data more
`
`efficiently.10
`
`As in Finjan, Enfish, DDR, Core Wireless, and Visual Memory, the claimed inventions
`
`here provide particular technological solutions to overcome technological problems, i.e., those
`
`specific to the field of digital-data compression. The patents themselves state they are directed to
`
`10 Moreover, the Thales court held a patent to be eligible under §101 even though the claims recited conventional
`components (e.g., sensors) and mathematical equations because the claims specified a particular configuration of the
`sensors. Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The court relied on the patent
`specification in its ruling. Id.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01519-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 02/09/18 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 2145
`
`problems unique to the realm of digital data, a form of computer data “not easily recognizable
`
`to humans in native form.” (E.g., ‘535 patent at 2:28-30.)11 In this realm, the patents describe
`
`using a combination of particular steps or structural computer components to help improve
`
`detection and exploitation of redundancies, for example, in the incoming strings of computer
`
`“1s” and “0s.”
`
`Like the inventions in Finjan, DDR, Enfish, Core Wireless, and Visual Memory, the
`
`patents teach spec