Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 2172
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`REAL TIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`HAIVISION NETWORK VIDEO INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 17-cv-1520-CFC-SRF
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On October 26, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC ("Realtime") filed a complaint
`
`against Hai vision Network Video Inc. ("Haivision"), asserting infringement of United States
`
`Patent Numbers 8,934,535 ("the '535 patent"), 9,769,477 ("the '477 patent"), 8,929,442 ("the
`
`'442 patent"), 9,762,907 ("the '907 patent"), and 7,386,046 ("the '046 patent") (collectively, the
`
`"Fallon patents"). (D.I. 1; D.I. 22) Additionally, Realtime asserts infringement of United States
`
`Patent Numbers 8,634,462 ("the '462 patent") and 9,578,298 ("the '298 patent") (collectively,
`
`the "Non-Fallon patents"). (D.I. 22 at ,i,i 161-211) Realtime is the owner by assignment of the
`
`patents-in-suit, which relate to the concept of encoding and decoding data, and the digital
`
`compression of data. (D.I. 22 at ,i,i 7, 38, 69, 100, 131, 162, 190) Pending before the court is the
`
`motion to dismiss the Fallon patent claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Non-Fallon patent claims pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.I. 23) For the following reasons, I recommend
`
`granting-in-part and denying-in-part Haivision's motion to dismiss.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2173
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`On February 20, 2018, Haivision filed this pending motion to dismiss for failure to state a
`
`claim. (D.1. 23) On April 10, 2018, Realtime filed a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1407 with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("the Panel") to consolidate
`
`in the District of Colorado actions it originally brought in Delaware, California, Texas,
`
`Massachusetts, and Colorado. (D.1. 32) On August 1, 2018, the Panel denied Realtime's motion
`
`due to the need for defendant-by-defendant analysis of individual design elements. (D.I. 33) On
`
`October 2, 2018, the court heard oral argument on the pending motion to dismiss. 1 (D.1. 38)
`
`B. Related Cases
`
`There is a related Realtime case currently pending before the court, Realtime Adaptive
`
`Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-1520-CFC-SRF (the "Netflix Litigation").2
`
`In the Netflix Litigation, Realtime asserts claims for infringement of all of the Fallon patents,
`
`except the '442 patent. (C.A. No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF, D.I. 1) There is a pending motion to
`
`1 At oral argument, the court also heard arguments regarding a similar motion to dismiss in a
`related case, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 17-1692-CFC(cid:173)
`SRF (the "Netflix Litigation"). (D.I. 38; see also C.A. No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF, D.I. 11)
`2 Two other related cases were before this court: (1) Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v.
`Brightcove Inc. et al, C.A. No. 17-1519-CFC-SRF (the "Brightcove Litigation"), and (2)
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc., C.A. No. 17-1693-CFC-SRF (the
`"Sony Litigation"). The parties in the Brightcove Litigation filed a joint motion to dismiss on
`October 29, 2018. (C.A. No. 17-1519-CFC-SRF, D.I. 40) On October 31, 2018, Judge Connolly
`dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice and defendant's claims without prejudice. (C.A. No.
`17-1519-CFC-SRF, D.I. 41) The parties in the Sony Litigation also filed a joint motion to
`dismiss on November 1, 2018. (C.A. No. 17-1693-CFC-SRF, D.I. 27) On November 5, 2018,
`Judge Connolly dismissed plaintiff's claims with prejudice and defendant's claims without
`prejudice. (C.A. No. 17-1693-CFC-SRF, D.I. 28)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 2174
`
`dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`filed by defendant Netflix.3 (C.A. No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF, D.I. 11)
`
`C. Patents-in-Suit
`
`The '535 patent is titled "Systems and Methods for Video and Audio Data Storage and
`
`Distribution." (D.1. 22 at ,r 7) Representative claim 15 recites: 4
`
`15. A method, comprising:
`
`Determining a parameter of at least a portion of a data block;
`
`Selecting one or more asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors
`based upon the determined parameter or attribute;
`
`Compressing the at least the portion of the data block with the selected one or more
`asymmetric compressors to provide one or more compressed data blocks; and
`
`Storing at least a portion of the one or more compressed data blocks.
`
`('535 patent, col. 22:1-12) The '046 patent is titled "Bandwidth Sensitive Data Compression and
`
`Decompression." (D.I. 22 at ,r 131) Representative claim 40 recites: 5
`
`40. A system comprising:
`
`A data compression system for compressing and decompressing data input;
`
`A plurality of compression routines selectively utilized by the data compression system,
`wherein a first one of the plurality of compression routines includes a first compression
`
`3 The court analyzed the Fallon patents in a Report and Recommendation in the related Netflix
`Litigation. (C.A. No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF) At oral argument, Haivision noted that arguments
`made by Netflix's counsel equally apply to Haivision, but did not indicate that the related matters
`should be consolidated. (D.I. 38 at 22:1-3) For the purposes of this Report and
`Recommendation, the court will only address the patents identified in defendant Haivision's
`motion to dismiss.
`4 Here, claim 15 of the '535 patent and claim 40 of the '046 patent are the representative claims.
`(See D.I. 24 at 8, 13) In the related Netflix Litigation, the representative claims are: claim 15 of
`the '535 patent, claim 1 of the '477 patent, claim 1 of the '907 patent, and claim 1 of the '046
`patent. (See C.A. No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF, D.I. 13 at 8, 11, 13, 14)
`5 This representative claim differs from that in the related Netflix Litigation, where claim 1 of the
`'046 patent was, instead, the representative claim for the '046 patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 2175
`
`algorithm and a second one of the plurality of compression routines includes a second
`compression algorithm; and
`
`A controller for tracking throughput and generating a control signal to select a
`compression routine based on the throughput, wherein said tracking throughput
`comprises tracking a number of pending access requests to a storage device; and
`
`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.
`
`('046 patent, col. 27:25-28: 10)
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A. Federal Pleading Standard under Rule 12(b )(6)
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
`
`upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b )( 6). When considering a Rule 12(b )( 6)
`
`motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and view
`
`them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Umland v. PLAN CO Fin. Servs. Inc., 542 F .3d
`
`59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).
`
`To state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint
`
`must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
`
`relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the
`
`complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that
`
`is plausible on its face." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft
`
`v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations
`
`allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
`
`alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 2176
`
`When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps.6 See
`
`Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010). First, the court must identify
`
`the elements of the claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675. Second, the court must identify and reject
`
`conclusory allegations. Id. at 678. Third, the court should assume the veracity of the well(cid:173)
`
`pleaded factual allegations identified under the first prong of the analysis, and determine whether
`
`they are sufficiently alleged to state a claim for relief. Id.; see also Malleus v. George, 641 F .3d
`
`560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). The third prong presents a context-specific inquiry that "draw[s] on
`
`[the court's] experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64; see also Fowler v.
`
`UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203,210 (3d Cir. 2009). As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal,
`
`"where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
`
`misconduct, the complaint has alleged- but it has not 'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to
`
`relief."' Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).
`
`B. Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Section 101 provides that patentable subject matter extends to four broad categories,
`
`including "new and useful process[es], machine[s], manufacture, or composition[s] of matter."
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101; see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593,601 (2010) ("Bilski If'); Diamondv.
`
`Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303,308 (1980). The Supreme Court recognizes three exceptions to the
`
`statutory subject matter eligibility requirements: "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and
`
`abstract ideas." Bilski II, 561 U.S. at 601 (internal quotations omitted). In this regard, the
`
`Supreme Court has held that "[t]he concepts covered by these exceptions are 'part of the
`
`6 Although Iqbal describes the analysis as a "two-pronged approach," the Supreme Court
`observed that it is often necessary to "begin by taking note of the elements a plaintiff must plead
`to state a claim." 556 U.S. at 675, 679. For this reason, the Third Circuit has adopted a three(cid:173)
`pronged approach. See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 n.7 (3d Cir. 2010);
`Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 2177
`
`storehouse of knowledge of all men ... free to all men and reserved exclusively to none."' Id. at
`
`602 (quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kala Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)). At issue in
`
`the present case is the third category pertaining to abstract ideas, which "embodies the
`
`longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l,
`
`134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012),
`
`the Supreme Court articulated a two-step "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
`
`of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
`
`applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In accordance with the first step of
`
`the Alice test, the court must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent(cid:173)
`
`ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. See id. If so, the court must turn to the second step,
`
`under which the court must identify an '"inventive concept'-i.e., an element or combination of
`
`elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
`
`than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. (internal citation omitted). The two steps
`
`are "plainly related" and "involve overlapping scrutiny of the content of the claims." Elec.
`
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`At step 1, "the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character
`
`as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
`
`Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV,
`
`LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The 'abstract idea' step of the inquiry calls upon us
`
`to look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's
`
`'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter."). However, "courts must be
`
`careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 2178
`
`for the specific requirements of the claims." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
`
`F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). "Whether at step
`
`one or step two of the Alice test, in determining the patentability of a method, a court must look
`
`to the claims as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual
`
`steps." Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`At step 2, the Federal Circuit instructs courts to "look to both the claim as a whole and
`
`the individual claim elements to determine whether the claims contain 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." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312
`
`(internal brackets and quotation marks omitted). Under the step 2 inquiry, the court must
`
`consider whether claim elements "simply recite 'well-understood, routine, conventional
`
`activit[ies]."' Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359) (alteration in original). "Simply appending
`
`conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, [is] not enough to supply an inventive
`
`concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (internal quotations omitted).
`
`The Federal Circuit looks to the claims as well as the specification in performing the
`
`"inventive concept" inquiry. See Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1271 ("[N]either the claim nor the
`
`specification reveals any concrete way of employing a customized user interface."). "The
`
`inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was
`
`known in the art." Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. In Bascom, the Federal Circuit held that "the
`
`limitations of the claims, taken individually, recite generic computer, network and Internet
`
`components, none of which is inventive by itself," but nonetheless determined that the patent
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 2179
`
`adequately alleged an ordered combination of these limitations to be patent-eligible under step 2
`
`at the pleading stage. Id at 1349.
`
`The "mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
`
`idea into a patent-eligible invention" under step two. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. "Given the
`
`ubiquity of computers ... wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of
`
`additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
`
`effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself." Id (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted). The Federal Circuit has held that certain improvements in computer software are not
`
`abstract ideas under Alice step one. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016); see also Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). The relevant question in determining if computer technology is directed to an abstract
`
`idea is whether the claims direct to an improvement on computer functionality itself, or an
`
`improvement on economic or other tasks for which a computer is merely used as a tool. 7 Enjish,
`
`822 F.3d at 1335-36.
`
`Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law suitable for resolution on a motion to
`
`dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). See In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC Patent
`
`Litig., 823 F.3d 607,610 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying regional circuit law to the de novo review of
`
`a district court's patent eligibility determination under§ 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
`
`dismiss). However, the Federal Circuit recently emphasized that, "like many legal questions,
`
`there can be subsidiary fact questions which must be resolved en route to the ultimate legal
`
`7 "Where the claims at issue provide for an improvement in the operation of a computer, such as
`a new memory system, a new type of virus scan, or a new type of interface that makes a
`computer function more accessible, the Federal Circuit has found the claims patent-eligible."
`Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc., 2018 WL 6201582 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) (citing Data Engine
`Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 2180
`
`determination." Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018). "The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well(cid:173)
`
`understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of
`
`fact[]" that goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
`
`F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). On a motion to dismiss, this question of fact, like all questions
`
`of fact, must be resolved in the plaintiffs favor. Aatrix Software, Inc., 882 F.3d at 1128.
`
`IV.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A. Alice Step 1
`
`Applying the first step of the Alice framework to the asserted claims, the court concludes
`
`that the Fallon patents are directed to the abstract idea of encoding and decoding data, and the
`
`digital compression of data. As a preliminary matter, the court addresses a few recurring
`
`arguments between Haivision and Realtime. First, Haivision claims the representative claims are
`
`claim 15 of the '535 patent and claim 40 of the '046 patent. (D.I. 24 at 8, 13) Realtime does not
`
`explain why the court should not consider these claims representative. (See D.I. 28) Under
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014), each claim does not need to be repeatedly attacked individually, so long as "all the
`
`claims are substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea." Content Extraction, 776
`
`F.3d at 1348 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Here, this court recommends finding that that the above listed claims are representative of
`
`each of the Fallon patents. Similar to the plaintiff in Content Extraction, Realtime has not
`
`identified claims that "it believe[s] would not be fairly represented" by these claims in a§ 101
`
`analysis. Id. Nor has Realtime identified "any other claims as purportedly containing an
`
`inventive concept." Id. Ultimately, Realtime has failed to "present any meaningful argument for
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 2181
`
`the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim[ s]."
`
`Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365 (citing Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1352; Intellectual Ventures I
`
`LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 & n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, for the purpose
`
`of our§ 101 analysis, claim 15 of the '535 patent and claim 40 of the '046 patent are
`
`representative of the Fallon patents.
`
`Additionally, Realtime contends that claim construction should be completed to
`
`"illuminate the eligibility of the patents" prior to any § 101 analysis. (D.I. 28 at 18 & n.22)
`
`However, "claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under §
`
`101." Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1349 (affirming the district court's dismissal of the patent
`
`claims as "patent-ineligible under§ 101 at the pleading stage"); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1360-62 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal on the
`
`pleadings); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming Rule
`
`12(b)(6) dismissal); Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Juno Online Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 1240182, at
`
`*7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) ("[A]fter Alice, courts have frequently decided patent-eligibility on
`
`the pleadings."). Realtime does not identify any claim construction issues that need resolution or
`
`any facts in dispute. See Smart Software, Inc. v. PlanningEdge, LLC, 192 F. Supp. 3d 243,247
`
`(D. Mass. 2016) (deciding§ 101 eligibility without claim construction where plaintiff failed to
`
`offer any specific claim construction issues that would affect the analysis). Therefore, claim
`
`construction is not necessary and determining whether the patents-in-suit are patent eligible
`
`under § 101 is appropriate at this stage of the proceedings.
`
`Furthermore, Realtime asserts that Haivision incorrectly states that courts may consider
`
`results-based, functional language in determining whether a patent is directed towards an abstract
`
`idea under the first step of the Alice analysis. (D.I. 28 at 9-10) Realtime cites Amdocs (Israel)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 2182
`
`Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to support its assertion. (Id.)
`
`However, plaintiff relies on the Federal Circuit's commentary on the dissent's paradigm for
`
`identifying an abstract idea. (Id.) See Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1295 ("[T]he dissent would save the
`
`patent's eligibility under § 101 only if the claim at issue itself explicitly states the necessary
`
`'means.'"). Plaintiff misinterprets this commentary as rejecting all "result-based, functional
`
`language" arguments. (D.I. 28 at 9-10) Subsequently, the Federal Circuit, in Two-Way Media
`
`Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017), considered the
`
`result-based, functional claim language in determining whether the patent was directed towards
`
`an abstract idea. See Two-Way, 874 F.3d at 1337-38 ("Claim 1 recites a method for routing
`
`information using result-based functional language ... , but does not sufficiently describe how to
`
`achieve these results in a non-abstract way."). The Federal Circuit has also stated that "the
`
`essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of
`
`claims held ineligible under § 101, especially in the area of using generic computer and network
`
`technology to carry out economic transactions." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356.
`
`Finally, Realtime argues that the court must find the patents-in-suit patent eligible
`
`because other courts have so held. (D.I. 28 at 1-2, 8-9). However, these cases were decided by
`
`the District Courts for the District of Colorado, Eastern District of Texas, and Central District of
`
`California. (Id.; DJ. 40, Ex. 1) These decisions are not binding on this court and remain only
`
`persuasive authority.
`
`1. The '535 Patent
`
`Realtime contends that the '535 patent marked an improvement in computer functionality
`
`because it "overcame limitations and issues relating to 'a compromise between efficient data
`
`storage, access speed, and addressable data space."' (D.I. 28 at 10-11) (citing '535 patent at col.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 2183
`
`6:31-53) However, Realtime has not identified how the '535 patent solved these issues, or how
`
`the solution is reflected in the claim language. Instead, Realtime repeatedly concludes that the
`
`Fallon patents provide "technical solutions to technical problems," but does not provide any
`
`evidence to support this conclusion. (Id. at 11-12)
`
`The '535 patent does not improve the functioning of a computer. Claim 15 of the '535
`
`patent is drawn to the abstract idea of: (1) determining a parameter, (2) selecting a method of
`
`compression, (3) compressing the data with the chosen algorithm, and (4) storing the data. The
`
`claims use a wholly generic computer system to obtain functional results of determining a
`
`parameter, selecting a compression algorithm, applying that algorithm, and storing the resulting
`
`data, with no technical detail describing how to achieve those results. The claims of the '535
`
`patent "do[] not sufficiently describe how to achieve" the results "in a non-abstract way." Two(cid:173)
`
`Way, 874 F.3d at 1337. Similar claims that recite a computer "evaluating and selecting" have
`
`been found to be abstract and patent ineligible. See SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological
`
`Labs., SA, 555 F. App'x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) The Federal Circuit has also found that "the
`
`concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known." Content
`
`Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347.
`
`Haivision asserts that claim 15 of the '535 patent is strikingly similar to the patent at
`
`issue in RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017). (D.I. 24 at 14)
`
`Realtime argues that the method described in claim 15 of the '535 patent differs from that in
`
`RecogniCorp because the method cannot be performed verbally, does not claim mathematical
`
`formulas, and discusses data "not easily recognizable to humans." (D.I. 28 at 12) (citing '535
`
`patent, col. 2:28-30) These distinctions are not relevant and Realtime fails to focus on the
`
`subject matter of the claims as a whole. See RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326. The method
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 2184
`
`described in the '535 patent resembles that in RecogniCorp, which described a method of
`
`displaying facial feature images, selecting and manipulating the inputs, deriving an output code,
`
`and reproducing the composite image on a second display by performing the sequence in reverse.
`
`Id. at 1324-25. The Federal Circuit concluded that the patent was directed to the "abstract idea
`
`of encoding and decoding image data," and was essentially a process that "started with data,
`
`added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data." Id. at 1326-27 (citing Digitech Image
`
`Techs., LLCv. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Here, claim
`
`15 details a system that applies a compression algorithm based on the data received and then
`
`stores the resulting data. The method described here follows the formulaic method of adding an
`
`algorithm that changes the data to a new form of data - a method that rendered the claim abstract
`
`in RecogniCorp and Digitech.
`
`Because the '535 patent is directed to an abstract idea, the court must then search for an
`
`inventive concept according to Alice step two.
`
`ii. The '046 Patent
`
`During oral argument, Realtime urged that the '046 patent "chang[ed] the way that [the
`
`computer] uses compression to make that compression a better, more useful, functional aspect of
`
`the computer." (D.I. 38 at 35:9-11) Netflix, on the other hand, compared the method described
`
`in claim 1 of the '046 patent in the following manner: "[i]f what you are using is too slow, pick
`
`something from your toolbox that is faster." (Id. at 48:20-21) Claim 40 of the '046 patent is
`
`directed to the abstract idea of selecting two compression algorithms, using a tracking
`
`throughput, and compressing data using selected algorithms.
`
`The claims here utilize a generic computer system to obtain the functional result of
`
`compressing data with a tracking throughput. Although Realtime claims the '046 patent (and all
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 2185
`
`of the Fallon patents) changed the way computers utilize compression, the claims of the '046
`
`patent fail to sufficiently describe how it does so in a non-abstract way. See Two-Way, 874 F.3d
`
`at 1337; 3G Licensing, SA. v. Blackberry Ltd., 302 F. Supp. 3d 640, 651-52 (D. Del. 2018). 8
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to the idea of encoding and decoding data are
`
`abstract. See RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326 ("Morse code, ordering food at a fast food
`
`restaurant via a numbering system, and Paul Revere's 'one by land, two ifby sea' signaling
`
`system all exemplify encoding at one end and decoding at the other end."). Although claim 40
`
`of the '046 patent describes the process of selecting and applying two compression algorithms,
`
`applying two compression algorithms is not any less abstract than applying it once.
`
`Similarly, the idea of "selecting" has been found to be abstract and patent ineligible. See
`
`SmartGene, 555 F. App'x at 955. The idea of"tracking" has also been deemed abstract, and can
`
`be performed manually. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (US.), 687
`
`F.3d 1266, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The addition of a tracking throughput does not make the claim
`
`non-abstract because it adds another abstract idea to the method that can be performed by a
`
`human. The Federal Circuit has noted that "[a]dding one abstract idea ... to another abstract
`
`idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract." RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327.
`
`Therefore, because the asserted claim is directed to the abstract idea of selecting two
`
`compression algorithms, using a tracking throughput, and compressing data using selected
`
`algorithms, the Alice analysis proceeds to step two.
`
`8 A timely appeal of this decision to the Federal Circuit was made on April 23, 2018, but the
`appeal has not yet been decided.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 2186
`
`iii. Realtime's Cited Caselaw is Inapposite
`
`Prior to addressing the second step of the Alice analysis, the court addresses the general
`
`arguments made by Realtime. Realtime relies upon five decisions to generally oppose the
`
`motion to dismiss all of the Fallon patents. (See D.I. 28 at 3-8)
`
`Realtime argues that Haivision cannot establish that the Fallon patents' claims are
`
`directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one because the Fallon patents are similar to those
`
`in: (1) Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018), (2) Enfish, (3) Visual
`
`Memory, (4) Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018), and (5) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). (D.I. 28
`
`at 3-8) However, these cases are inapposite. The Federal Circuit in Finjan noted that the patent
`
`at issue recited "specific steps ... that accomplish the desired result" and enabled a "computer
`
`security system to do things it could not do before." Finjan, 2018 WL 341882, at *4. The
`
`invention in Finjan solved a technological problem in a technological manner by fashioning a
`
`new way of conducting virus scans. See id. at *3. The Fallon patents are dissimilar in that they
`
`do not enable a computer system to do anything it could not already. To the extent that the
`
`Fallon patents change a computer system's capabilities, they allow the system to compress data
`
`at a faster rate by "picking the right tool for the job." (D.I. 38 at 8:6) This is insufficient for a
`
`claim to be considered non-abstract. See OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 ("[R]elying on a
`
`computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a
`
`claim patent eligible.").
`
`The court in Enfish warned 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." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. The patent in Enfish described a self-referential
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 41 Filed 12/12/18 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 2187
`
`table that differed from conventional database structures. Id. The Federal Circuit concluded the
`
`district court had oversimplified the benefits of the patent at issue to simply "storing, organizing,
`
`and retrieving memory in a logical table." Id. The claims were an improvement to computer
`
`functionality because the self-referential