Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1192
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 17-cv-01520-VAC-JFB
`
`)))))))))))
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HAIVISION NETWORK VIDEO INC.,
`HAIVISION NETWORK VIDEO CORP.,
`and HAIVISION KB INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Howard E. Silverman
`Sara Skulman
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`Suite 3100
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 456-8400
`
`Dated: February 20,2 018
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`Steven T. Margolin (#3110)
`Gregory E. Stuhlman (#4765)
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 661-7000
`margolins@gtlaw.com
`stuhlmang@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`HaiVision Network Video Inc.
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 1193
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101 .................................................................5
`
`INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................................................3
`A.
`Overview of the Fallon Patents ...............................................................................3
`B.
`Overview of compression technology in general and as admitted in the Fallon
`Patents......................................................................................................................3
`Overview of the ‘462 and ‘298 Patents and Realtime’s Infringement Allegations.4
`C.
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................5
`A.
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)................................................................5
`B.
`THE FALLON PATENTS ARE PATENT INELIGIBLE..................................................8
`A.
`Step One: The Fallon Patents’ Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea .............8
`1.
`The ‘046 patent claims are directed to an abstract idea...............................8
`2.
`The ‘535 patent claims are directed to an abstract idea.............................13
`3.
`The remaining Fallon Patents are directed to an abstract idea ..................14
`Step Two: Nothing In The Fallon Patents’ Claims “Transforms” The Abstract
`Idea ........................................................................................................................15
`REALTIME’S REMAINING ALLEGATIONS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER
`RULE 12(B)(6)..................................................................................................................19
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 1194
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................7
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..............................................................................................6, 7, 14, 17
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................................6, 19
`Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ..............................................................................................................6
`Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec.,
`2016 WL 1719545 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ..........................................................................19
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .........................................................................................11, 17
`Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................................................................19
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`No. 2017-1437, 2018 WL 774096 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018)..........................................8, 16, 18
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ..................................................................................................................7
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).......................................6
`BroadSoft, Inc. v. CallWave Commc’ns, LLC,
`2017 WL 4364216 (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2017).................................................................................6
`buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc (Fed. Circ. 2014)
`765 F.3d 1350..........................................................................................................................18
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................8
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013), aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).......................................2, 7, 16
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n
`776 F.3d 1347......................................................................................................................8, 14
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................15
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc.,
`211 F. Supp. 3d 669 (D. Del. 2016) ......................................................................................6, 7
`ii
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 1195
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................................16
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................6
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................10, 12, 15, 16, 18
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................11
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) ........................................................................................................9, 10, 16
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`2017 WL 5041460 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3, 2017) ...........................................................................11
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................7
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)
`566 U.S. 66................................................................................................................................7
`Modern Telecom Sys., LLC v. TCL Corp.,
`2017 WL 6524526 (D. Del. Dec. 21, 2017) ............................................................................19
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (2015)...........................................6, 17
`Raindance Techs., Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.,
`2016 WL 927143 (D. Del. Mar. 4, 2016)................................................................................19
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Brightcove Inc., et. al.,
`C.A. No. 17-01519-JFB (D. Del.) .......................................................................................3, 19
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al.,
`C.A. No. 17-01692 (D. Del) ......................................................................................................3
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al.,
`C.A. No. 17-01693 (D. Del.) .....................................................................................................3
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, 18
`Schmidt v. Skolas,
`770 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................................6
`Smartgene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs.,
`SA, 555 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Circ. 2014) .................................................................................10
`TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc., v. AKM Enter., Inc.,
`657 F. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1230 (2017) ..............................11
`In re TLI,
`823 F.3d at 612 ..................................................................................................................14, 17
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 1196
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................6, 12, 15
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................................................................17, 18
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ...............................................................................................................6, 7
`U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 ...............................................................1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18
`U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462 .....................................................................................................2, 4, 19
`U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442 ...............................................................................................1, 7, 15, 18
`U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 .............................................................................1, 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18
`U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298 .....................................................................................................2, 5, 20
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,907 ...............................................................................................1, 7, 15, 18
`U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 .........................................................................................1, 7, 14, 15, 18
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 1197
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC’s (“Realtime”) asserts that Haivision
`
`Network Video Inc. (“Haivision”) infringes seven patents.1 Five patents (collectively referred to
`
`as the “Fallon Patents”2) share a common specification, common inventors and similar claim
`
`language. As discussed below, these patents are invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. §101 because
`
`they merely claim an abstract idea. All of the Fallon Patents broadly claim a system or method
`
`for encoding data by selecting, based on a parameter, an encoding/compression algorithm from
`
`amongst conventional multiple encoding/compression algorithms. The Fallon Patents admit that
`
`compression algorithms were well known, and do not claim to have invented any new
`
`compression algorithm. Instead, the Fallon Patents allege to have invented a rule for selecting
`
`amongst well-known compression algorithms. The Fallon Patents assert that the purported
`
`benefit of selecting an algorithm based on a parameter of data is that the selected algorithm may
`
`achieve a balance between “speed and efficiency.” Id. at 1:44-47.
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that encoding data is a well-known, abstract concept.
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Fallon Patents
`
`do nothing more than select a known encoding algorithm from amongst several known encoding
`
`algorithms, based on a known recognized characteristic or parameter of the data being encoded.
`
`This application is nothing more than using a computer to do what a human could do, namely
`
`identify at least one characteristic or parameter of the data to be encoded and then select an
`
`
`1 Realtime accuses two other nonexistent entities, Haivision KB Inc. and Haivision Network
`Video Corp. Realtime did not serve the Second Amended Complaint on these entities. Thus, at
`this time, no response is due from these entities.
`
`2 The five Fallon Patents asserted against Haivision in this case are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,046
`(“the ’046 patent”), 8,934,535 (“the ’535 patent”), 8,929,442 (“the ’442 patent”), 9,762,907 (“the
`’907 patent”) and 9,769,477 (“the ’477 patent”). The patents share a common specification and
`named inventors, James Fallon and Stephen McErlain.
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 1198
`
`appropriate well-known algorithm to compress data based upon that characteristic/parameter.
`
`Implementing this selection method by way of a computer to increase efficiency does not save
`
`the claims. CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013), aff'd, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or
`
`efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim
`
`scope for purposes of patent eligibility”). As such, the Fallon Patents do not comprise patentable
`
`subject matter.
`
`The other two patents being asserted against Haivision by Realtime, namely U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,634,462 (“the ‘462 patent”) and 9,578,298 (“the ‘298 patent”), are legally unrelated to the
`
`Fallon Patents. The ‘462 and ‘298 patents each contain detailed claim limitations for which
`
`Realtime has failed to identify any component of any Haivision product that corresponds to any
`
`limitation. Thus, these counts and allegations with respect to the ‘462 and ‘298 patents should
`
`similarly be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In particular, while Realtime cites to optional
`
`portions of a standard regarding compression techniques to support its alleged infringement, it
`
`fails to affirmatively assert that any Haivision product actually uses that optional technique. The
`
`decoding standards that Realtime relies on clearly state that the referenced encoding techniques
`
`are discretionary. Products would still be standard compliant without using the referenced
`
`encoding techniques. As such, Realtime fails to point to anything alleging that Haivision’s
`
`products actually operate in the manner claimed. 3
`
`
`3 Realtime is the sole plaintiff in lawsuits pending before this Court in which Realtime has also
`asserted these same seven patents, namely against Sony, Netflix, and Brightcove. Realtime
`Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., 17-01692 (D. Del); Realtime Adaptive Streaming
`LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al., 17-01693 (D. Del.); and Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`v. Brightcove Inc., et. al., C.A. No. 17-01519-JFB (D. Del.). Two of these co-defendants
`recently moved to dismiss the Realtime complaint based on similar grounds as those discussed
`herein. See Brightcove Case at D.I. 15; Netflix Case at D.I. 11.
`2
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 1199
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Overview of the Fallon Patents
`
`As described in the Technical Field Section common to the Fallon Patents, “The present
`
`invention relates generally to data compression and decompression and, in particular, to a system
`
`and method for compressing and decompressing data based on an actual or expected throughput
`
`(bandwidth) of a system that employs data compression.” D.I. 10-5 (‘046 patent) at 1:13-18.4 As
`
`explained below, for all of the Fallon Patents, the claims’ focus is on the abstract idea of (1)
`
`determining a parameter of the data to be compressed and (2) based on this, selecting a
`
`compression algorithm from at least two compression algorithms.
`
`B.
`
`Overview of compression technology in general and as admitted in the Fallon
`Patents
`
`Compression (or encoding) is the process of substituting one way of representing data
`
`with another. For example, Morse code encodes the letters of the alphabet with dots and dashes
`
`that can be transmitted on a telegraph or via radio (i.e., a = .-, b = -…, c = -.-., etc.). As the
`
`Federal Circuit noted, Morse code “exemplif[ies] encoding at one end and decoding at the other
`
`end.” RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326. “[S]tandard Encoding and decoding” is an abstract idea,
`
`“long utilized to transmit information.” Id.
`
`Here, the actual compression algorithms used by the claims are admittedly well known.
`
`D.I. 10-5 at 1:24-25 (“There are a variety of data compression algorithms that are currently
`
`available, both well defined and novel.”); 4:50-51 (“A rich and highly diverse set of lossless data
`
`compression and decompression algorithms exist within the current art”). The Fallon Patents
`
`even give examples of well-known, conventional compression algorithms (both asymmetric and
`
`symmetric). Id. at 10:4-5 (“Examples of asymmetrical compression algorithms include
`
`
`4All references to the common specification are made to the ‘046 patent at D.I. 10-5.
`3
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 1200
`
`dictionary-based compression schemes such as Lempel-Ziv.”); 10:9-10 (“Examples of
`
`symmetrical algorithms include table-based compression schemes such as Huffman.”).
`
`The Fallon Patents further expressly acknowledge that the claimed benefits of
`
`compression algorithms were well known and included increasing processing speed, transmitting
`
`speed, and storing speed. D.I. 10-5 at 2:44-46 (“Data compression is widely used to reduce the
`
`amount of data required to process, transmit, or store a given quantity of information.”); 4:17-25
`
`(“It is well known within the current art that data compression provides several unique benefits.
`
`First, data compression can reduce the time to transmit data by more efficiently utilizing low
`
`bandwidth data links. Second, data compression economizes on data storage and allows more
`
`information to be stored for a fixed memory size by representing information more efficiently.”).
`
`C.
`
`Overview of the ‘462 and
`Allegations
`
`‘298 Patents and Realtime’s Infringement
`
`The ‘462 patent purportedly “relates to a method of coding, coder and decoder involving
`
`quantization of hybrid video coding and data signals.” D.I. 10-6 (‘462 patent) at 1:5-8. Realtime
`
`alleges that the accused products infringe claim 1, which requires very specific limitations such
`
`as “calculating a first quantization efficiency,” “setting the quantized values…to all zeroes,”
`
`“calculating a second quantization efficiency,” and “selecting which of the…efficiencies is a
`
`higher efficiency.” In support of its infringement allegations of claim 1 of the ‘462 patent,
`
`Realtime relies solely on third-party documents that do not mention or in any way reference any
`
`Haivision product. See D.I. 22 at ¶¶170-181. For example, Realtime relies primarily on the
`
`“HEVC Spec,”5 a “IEEE HEVC” article (id at ¶1706) and the “HEVC Reference Software”
`
`
`5 The “ITU-T H.265 Series H: Audiovisual and Multimedia Systems, “Infrastructure of
`audiovisual services – Coding of moving video” High efficiency video coding” is the “HVEC
`Spec.” Id. at ¶170.
`
`6 An article allegedly published by third parties in IEEE in 2012 titled “Overview of the High
`4
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 1201
`
`found on a third-party website (id. at ¶177). These third-party documents (none of which
`
`reference a Haivision product) are the only support for finding infringement of any claim
`
`limitation. Realtime nevertheless asserts that, “[o]n information and belief, all of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities perform the claimed methods in substantially the same way, e.g., in the manner
`
`specified in the HEVC (or H.265) standard.” Id. at ¶182.
`
`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. D.I. 10-7 (‘298 patent) at claim 1. Again, in support of its infringement
`
`allegations, Realtime relies solely on third-party documents that have no mention of or reference
`
`to Haivision products. D.I. 22 at ¶¶198-204 (Realtime’s complete analysis regarding
`
`infringement of any claim in the ‘298 patent, rely exclusively on the third-party document
`
`“HEVC Spec”). Again, Realtime summarily concludes that “[o]n information and belief, all of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities perform the claimed methods in substantially the same way, e.g.,
`
`in the manner specified in the HEVC (or H.265) standard.” Id. at ¶205.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
`
`Under Rule12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim.
`
`In deciding whether a complaint fails to state a claim, courts consider documents attached to or
`
`incorporated by explicit reference in the complaint, as well as facts alleged in the complaint.
`
`Schmidt v. Skolas, 770 F.3d 241, 249 (3d Cir. 2014). Although factual allegations are taken as
`
`true, legal conclusions are given no deference. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101
`
`
`Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard” is the “IEEE HEVC” article. Id.
`5
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 1202
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 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 applied “an important implicit exception” to §101: “Laws
`
`of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
`
`Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
`
`Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)).
`
`Whether a patent claims patent-eligible subject matter is “a threshold inquiry.” In re
`
`Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Moreover,
`
`Section 101 is a question of law. Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit and this Court have confirmed that Section 101 may
`
`properly be addressed on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
`
`Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming judgment on the pleadings that
`
`claims directed to “converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating
`
`records” were invalid under §101); Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google Inc., 211 F. Supp. 3d 669,
`
`677 (D. Del. 2016) (granting rule 12(b)(6) motion that three patents were invalid under §101
`
`based upon a single representative claim from just one patent).
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step test for determining whether claims
`
`directed toward computer-implemented inventions are patent eligible. Id. at 2352-55. In step
`
`one, the court must determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract
`
`concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. To determine whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract
`
`idea, the court must determine the “focus of the claimed advance over the prior art”—that is,
`
`what is the “character [of the claim] as a whole.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 1203
`
`850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLC, 838
`
`F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Where, as here, the “character of the claim” pertains to
`
`standard encoding and decoding, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and fails Alice step one.
`
`See RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326.
`
`If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, then, in step two, the court must determine if
`
`the claim has “additional elements” (beyond the abstract idea) that embody an “inventive
`
`concept” sufficient to “transform” the idea into a patent eligible concept.7 Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2355. An idea is not transformed by purporting to cover “a particular technological
`
`environment,” or where claims add “insignificant postsolution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561
`
`U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither is a claim incorporating
`
`“well-understood, routine, conventional” features. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-80 (2012). Finally, it is undisputed that “the mere recitation of a
`
`generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
`
`invention.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
`
`While recent Federal Circuit decisions have stated that the question of whether a
`
`limitation is “well-understood, routine or conventional” may include underlying factual
`
`questions, where the patentee admits a component is known in the art, there is no factual
`
`question to be resolved; that limitation must be found to be “well-understood, routine, and
`
`
`7 In performing this analysis, courts need not analyze each claim with the same degree of
`precision. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (determining that eleven claims in a
`patent application were invalid after only analyzing two claims in detail); Data Engine Techs.
`LLC v. Google Inc., 211 F. Supp. 3d 669, 677 (D. Del. 2016) (granting rule 12(b)(6) motion that
`three patents were invalid under §101 based on a single claim from just one patent). In this case,
`Realtime does not separately identify infringed claims or the basis of that infringement. It
`merely alleges that all claims of each asserted patent are infringed “for similar reasons” as the
`claims identified and analyzed herein. D.I. 22 at ¶29 (’535 patent), ¶60 (’477 patent), ¶91 (‘442
`patent), ¶122 (’907 patent), ¶153 (‘046 patent).
`
`7
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 1204
`
`conventional.” See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., No. 2017-1437, 2018 WL 774096, at *6-7 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Feb. 8, 2018).
`
`IV.
`
`THE FALLON PATENTS ARE PATENT INELIGIBLE
`
`The claims of the Fallon Patents are patent ineligible under Section 101 because they are
`
`directed to the abstract idea of determining a parameter about the data to be compressed, and
`
`then selecting a compression algorithm based on this determination. In fact, some of the claims
`
`do not even require actual implementation of the selected compression algorithm. As explained
`
`in more detail below, the abstract idea of “determining” information about data and then
`
`“selecting” an algorithm based on that determination is simply not patent eligible.
`
`A.
`
`Step One: The Fallon Patents’ Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea
`
`1.
`
`The ‘046 patent claims are directed to an abstract idea
`
`Claim 40 of the ‘046 patent, which is asserted as infringed in the Second Amended
`
`Complaint and is representative for the purposes of the §101 analysis of all of the Fallon Patent
`
`claims,8 is shown below, along with a description of the claim’s character and focus as a whole:
`
`’046 Patent Claim 40
`40. A system comprising:
`
`a data compression system for compressing and decompressing data
`input;
`
`1. Compression system
`
`a plurality of compression routines selectively utilized by the data
`compression system…include[ing] a first compression algorithm
`and…a second compression algorithm; and
`
`2. Multiple compression
`algorithms
`
`a controller
`
`3. Controller:
`
`for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a
`compression routine
`
`8 Patent eligibility may be challenged through representative claims and without engaging in a
`repetitive attack on each claim individually. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics
`LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`a. for selecting one of
`the compression
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 1205
`
`based on the throughput, wherein said tracking throughput
`comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage
`device; and
`
`b. “based on” a
`parameter
`(throughput), and
`
`algorithms
`
`wherein when the controller determines that the throughput falls
`below a predetermined throughput threshold, the controller
`commands the data compression engine to use one of the plurality of
`compression routines to provide a faster rate of compression so as to
`increase the throughput.
`
`c. “to provide a faster
`rate of compression”
`
`The only non-functional limitations in claim 40 include a generic “compression system,”
`
`well-known “compression routines” (or algorithms) and a non-descript “controller.” Even
`
`assuming that these claims require “digital data” as Realtime has argued in other responses,
`
`operating in the digital realm is not sufficient to render these claims non-abstract.9 This is
`
`because the “focus” of the claim is on the functional elements of (1) collecting information about
`
`the data and (2) selecting a compression algorithm based on the collected information about the
`
`data, all of which is abstract disclosure.
`
`Determining information about a “parameter” or “throughput” is nothing more than
`
`collecting information about data. The Federal Circuit has consistently “treated collecting
`
`information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as
`
`information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
`
`F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting cases).
`
`9 The only claim construction issue Realtime raised in response to other Section 101 motions is
`that “data” should be construed as “digital data.” Even accepting this construction for this
`motion, Realtime’s claims are still directed to the abstract algorithm/rule of selecting from a
`plurality of encoding algorithms based on a parameter of “digital data.” The claims wholly
`preempt all practical applications of the claimed rule/algorithm to be implemented , rendering
`them abstract. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972) (“The mathematical formula
`involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital
`computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-
`empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm
`itself.”).
`
`9
`
`CHI 68933978v9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-JFB-SRF Document 24 Filed 02/20/18 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 1206
`
`Selecting amongst the multiple compression algorithms based on the collected data is
`
`similarly abstract. This is nothing more than analyzing the collected data (i.e., throughput) “to
`
`select a compression routine.” The Federal Circuit has also similarly “treated analyzing
`
`information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without
`
`more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power Grp., 830
`
`F.3d at 1354 (collecting cases). In claim 40 of the ‘046 patent, the analysis is based on the simple
`
`rule that if the throughput falls below a certain threshold, then t