Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 2213
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`HAIVISION NETWORK VIDEO INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C.A. No. 17-1520-JFB-SRF
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`DEFENDANT HAIVISION’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION
`TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (D.I. 42)
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Howard E. Silverman
`Sara Skulman
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`(312) 456-8400
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`silvermanh@gtlaw.com
`skulmans@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2019
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`Steven T. Margolin (#3110)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`Samuel L. Moultrie (#5979)
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 661-7000
`margolins@gtlaw.com
`schladweilerb@ramllp.com
`moultries@gtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Haivision Network
`Video Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2214
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II. ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`a. Realtime fails to Comply with the Court’s Standing Order ..............................................1
`
`i. Realtime impermissibly raises the new argument that representative
`claims could not be used .............................................................................................2
`
`ii. Realtime impermissibly raises the new argument that the “access profile”
`element is a critical element for every claim ..............................................................3
`
`iii. Realtime impermissibly raises the new argument that the claims are an
`ordered combination ...................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b. Magistrate Judge Fallon did not find that the claims improved the functioning
`
`of the computer, and Realtime’s recitation of purported benefit of increased
`
`processing speed does not save the claims .......................................................................4
`
`c. Magistrate Judge Fallon correctly and fully analyzed the claims “as a whole.” ..............6
`
`d. The generic computer elements do not transform the claims under Alice Step 2 ............8
`
`III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 2215
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Bukovinsky v. Pennsylvania,
`455 F. App’x 163 (3d Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................1
`
`buySAFE v. Google Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Circ. 2014) ................................................................................................8
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) .................................................5, 7
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................7, 8
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................5
`
`Glasswall Sols. Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.,
`No. 2018-1407, 2018 WL 6720014 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2018) ..................................................9
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`711 F. App’x 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................4
`
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................4
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................4, 5, 7
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`In re TLI,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 2216
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................6
`
`U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Nat’l Collegiate Student Loan Tr. 2003-1,
`No. 1:16CV341, 2018 WL 4462369 (D. Del. Sep. 17, 2018) ...................................................1
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 2217
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a detailed Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” D. I. 41)1
`
`wherein she recommends dismissal of Realtime’s allegations against Haivision regarding the five
`
`“Fallon Patents.”2 The R&R found that “the Fallon [P]atents are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`encoding and decoding data, and the digital compression of data.” (D.I. 41 at 9.) As explained
`
`below, Magistrate Judge Fallon’s findings are sound and Realtime’s Objections to the R&R (D.I.
`
`42) should be overruled.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`a. Realtime fails to Comply with the Court’s Standing Order
`
`The Court’s Standing Order requires that all objections “must include…a written statement
`
`either certifying that the objections do not raise new legal/factual arguments, or identifying the
`
`new arguments and describing the good cause for failing to previously raise the new legal/factual
`
`arguments before the Magistrate Judge.” (Standing Order at ¶5 (emphasis in original).) Realtime’s
`
`Objection does neither. Arguments raised for the first time are deemed waived. Bukovinsky v.
`
`Pennsylvania, 455 F. App'x 163, 166 (3d Cir. 2011); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Nat'l Collegiate
`
`Student Loan Tr. 2003-1, No. 1:16CV341, 2018 WL 4462369, at *12 (D. Del. Sep. 17, 2018).
`
`Realtime has failed to provide any statement, let alone provide a Certification, that no new
`
`issues have been raised. Nor can it -- as Realtime has raised at least three new issues not previously
`
`
`1 Magistrate Judge Fallon also issued an R&R in the co-pending case against Netflix, where she
`similarly recommended a finding that four of the five Fallon Patents (the only ones asserted in that
`case) were also invalid under §101. (Realtime v. Netflix, 1-17-cv-01692, D.I. 48.) Despite the
`Court issuing two different R&Rs, Realtime filed a single Objection. (Compare, D.I. 41 and D.I.
`49 in the Netflix case.) The arguments made by Netflix in response to Realtime’s Objection equally
`apply here. Haivision does not intend to unnecessarily reiterate all of those arguments and provides
`this Answer given the differing R&Rs.
`2 The five Fallon Patents asserted against Haivision 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”).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 2218
`
`presented to Magistrate Judge Fallon:
`
`• That all of the claims of the five Fallon Patents could not be analyzed by
`reference to representative claims;
`
`• That the “access profile” element is critical to each claim in the Fallon
`patents; and
`
`• That the claims must be assessed “as an ordered combination as a whole.”
`
`i. Realtime impermissibly raises the new argument that representative claims
`could not be used.
`
`Realtime alleges that the Fallon Patent claims can “not be represented by one or two
`
`claims.” (D.I. 42 at 10, n.3.) At no time prior did Realtime ever allege that the claims identified by
`
`Haivision, and analyzed in the R&R (e.g., claim 40 of the ‘046 patent and claim 15 of the ‘535
`
`patent), are not “representative” of all of the Fallon Patent claims. To the contrary, Realtime
`
`represented to Magistrate Judge Fallon that the claims should be considered such that “[t]he claims
`
`of the five asserted Fallon patents recite unconventional technological solutions, namely, the
`
`combination of (1) asymmetric compressors, (2) two or more compressors, (3) selecting
`
`compressor based on parameter / throughput, and/or (4) access profile.” (D.I. 28 at 16 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
`Realtime went ever further and expressly told Magistrate Judge Fallon that she did not need
`
`to look at every claim across all five of the Fallon Patents. (10/2/18 Hearing Trans. at 38) (“There
`
`are a pretty high number of claims across these patents. I don't want to try to ask you to look at
`
`every one of them…”) In view of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Fallon correctly found that
`
`“Realtime does not explain why the court should not consider these claims representative.” (D.I.
`
`41 at 9.)3 Realtime’s belated argument to the contrary should be ignored.
`
`
`3 Even in its Objection, Realtime continues to speak in terms of what “all the claims require.” (D.I.
`42 at 3.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 2219
`
`ii. Realtime impermissibly raises the new argument that the “access profile”
`element is a critical element for every claim.
`
`Realtime also argues for the first time that having an “access profile” is a critical “part of
`
`what improves the overall computer-system functionality.” (D.I. 42 at 6 (citing ‘535 patent at
`
`12:14-25).) However, in briefing the Motion, Realtime repeatedly took the contrary position that
`
`the claims do not require an “access profile;” instead noting it as an option. (D.I. 28 at 4 (discussing
`
`that the Fallon Patent claims select a compression algorithm based on “‘a throughput of a
`
`communication channel,’ or a digital data ‘access profile.’”); id., at 16 (the Fallon Patent claims
`
`require “the combination of (1) asymmetric compressors, (2) two or more compressors, (3)
`
`selecting compressor based on parameter / throughput, and/or (4) access profile.”) (emphasis
`
`added).)4 Ignoring whether this is a new argument, requiring an “access profile” in every claim
`
`simply can’t be correct as “access profiles” are not required by the bulk of the claims. In fact, of
`
`the 143 claims contained in the five Fallon Patents, 138 of them do not specify “access profile” as
`
`an element.5
`
`iii. Realtime impermissibly raises the new argument that the claims are an
`ordered combination.
`
`Realtime argues that Magistrate Judge Fallon failed to “assess the claims as an ordered
`
`combination as a whole.” (D.I. 42 at 1 (emphasis in original); see also, id. at 6-9.) It is unclear if
`
`Realtime is now arguing that the claims require an actual ordered sequence for performing the
`
`claim elements or something else. If this is Realtime’s argument, it should be deemed waived as
`
`Realtime never proposed that the claims require a specific order before the Magistrate. It should
`
`
`4 Originally, Realtime alleged that the asymmetric compressors alone caused the
`“unconventional effect.” (D.I. 28 at 17 (quoting the ‘535 Patent Specification at 12:14-25).)
`5 Indeed, not a single claim specifically asserted against Haivision in Realtime’s Second Amended
`Complaint contains an “access profile” element.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 2220
`
`not be able to allege so now. (See, generally, D.I. 28 (Realtime’s Resp.).)6
`
`b. Magistrate Judge Fallon did not find that the claims improved the functioning of
`the computer, and Realtime’s recitation of purported benefit of increased
`processing speed does not save the claims.
`
`Magistrate Judge Fallon correctly held that the Fallon Patents do “not improve the
`
`functioning of a computer.” (D.I. 41 at 12 (emphasis added).) In so finding, Magistrate Judge
`
`Fallon recognized that the “Fallon Patents claim to improve the speed at which a computer can
`
`perform the task of compressing data.” (Id. at 16.) Realtime seeks to turn this statement about what
`
`the Fallon Patents specification purports to do on its head, alleging that Magistrate Judge Fallon
`
`“affirmatively found” that the claims “improve the speed…” (D.I. 42 at 2 (emphasis in original).)
`
`Realtime’s argument is a mischaracterization of the R&R. The cited portion is simply the
`
`Magistrate Judge’s characterization of what the Fallon Patents purport to do from the specification.
`
`As Magistrate Judge Fallon correctly held, this purported benefit does not alter the character of the
`
`claims and does not create a factual issue. See e.g., OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims to
`
`“automatically determining an estimated outcome using each of the plurality of prices for the
`
`products” were invalid under §101, even though “the key distinguishing feature of the claims” was
`
`“the ability to automate or otherwise make more efficient” the prior art methods). Increasing the
`
`speed at which the computer can perform the task of compressing data is a result of using a general-
`
`purpose computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and does not provide a patentable
`
`distinction relevant under §101. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 711 F.
`
`App'x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming
`
`
`6 Any argument that the Fallon Patent claims must be performed in a particular order is also
`unsound and unsupported. The argument is unsound because the R&R analyzed a system claim
`(Claim 40 of the ‘046) which cannot require an ordered combination. This potential argument only
`pertains to method claims and only in specific circumstances (i.e. where the claim language
`expressly or inherently requires that the method steps be performed in a specific order). See, e.g.,
`Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 2221
`
`from the ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer ‘do[ ] not materially alter the patent
`
`eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’”) (quoting Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.
`
`of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`
`839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alleged improvements such as increased speed and
`
`efficiency in using an algorithm on a computer “comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose
`
`computer, rather than the patented method itself”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
`
`1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more
`
`accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible”)(citing cases); see also, RecogniCorp,
`
`LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(finding that claims directed to
`
`encoding and decoding were not directed an improvement in computer functionality, but simply
`
`used a computer as a tool to practice the encoding/decoding algorithm the patent purported to
`
`invent).
`
`Further, the fact that the claims relate to “digital data compression” does not prevent the
`
`claims from being abstract. Using a computer to apply an abstract idea has long been considered
`
`patent ineligible under §101. See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972) (where an
`
`algorithm “has no practical application except in connection with a digital computer…the patent
`
`would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the
`
`algorithm itself,” the claim is impermissible); see also, CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. Pty., 717
`
`F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013), aff'd, 573 U.S. 208 (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”).7
`
`
`7 As Magistrate Judge Fallon found, the dicta in DDR Holdings does not change this finding. (D.I.
`41 at 17-18.) The DDR Court did not consider claims directed to the digital compression of data.
`Id. at 1248. However, in dicta, it stated that “an improved, particularized method of digital data
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 2222
`
`c. Magistrate Judge Fallon correctly and fully analyzed the claims “as a whole.”
`
`Further, contrary to Realtime’s argument, Magistrate Judge Fallon analyzed the claim
`
`language of the representative Fallon Patent as an “ordered combination as a whole” and followed
`
`the analytical framework applied by well-established Federal Circuit precedent. (D.I. 42 at 1.)
`
`According to the Federal Circuit, courts should evaluate the character of claims “as a whole” and
`
`determine whether the focus “is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities…”
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Then, “[i]f this threshold
`
`determination is met, [the court] move[s] to the second step of the inquiry and ‘consider the
`
`elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether
`
`the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.’” Id.
`
`at 1334 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)). Magistrate Judge Fallon followed this
`
`framework repeatedly and expressly considered the patent claims “as a whole.” (See Id. at 3-4
`
`(addressing the complete claim language of the ‘535 patent claim 15 and the ‘046 patent claim
`
`40); at 12 (Magistrate Judge Fallon’s findings regarding the abstract idea of claim 15 of the ’535
`
`patent includes all four clauses of the claim (i.e. it focuses on the character of the claim as a
`
`whole)); at 20 (rejecting Realtime’s argument that the “combination of claim elements
`
`(‘asymmetric compressors, multiple compressors, selecting compressor based throughput of a
`
`
`compression” may be patent-eligible. Id. at 1259 (emphasis added). Realtime’s claims comprise
`existing compression techniques with existing hardware and software components, the opposite of
`an improved, particularized invention. Moreover, since DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit has
`found similar claims directed to encoding and decoding data were abstract. See, e.g.,
`RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326 (invalidating claims directed to the idea of “encoding and
`decoding image data”); see also, Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874
`F.3d 1329, 1332, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(invalidating claims related to “a system for streaming
`audio/visual data over a communications system like the internet” that were not focused “on a
`specific means or method”); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269,
`1272 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (invalidating claims directed to “streaming user-selected content to a
`portable device” that provided no “limiting detail that confine[d] the claim to a particular solution
`to an identified problem”).”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 2223
`
`communications channel’) in the patent are unconventional technical solutions that transform” the
`
`abstract idea); at 22 (After considering claim 40 in its entirety, noting that it has “even fewer details
`
`regarding the encoding process and the algorithms involved than those provided in the patent at
`
`issue in RecogniCorp”).) Moreover, Magistrate Judge Fallon noted it was “Realtime [that] fail[ed]
`
`to focus on the subject matter of the claims as a whole.” (D.I. 41 at 12.)
`
`In a related argument, Realtime alleges Magistrate Judge Fallon “incorrectly stated that
`
`each element alone had been rendered “abstract” in a prior Federal Circuit case and, therefore, the
`
`entire claim was.” (D.I. 42 at 6.) This is not what Magistrate Judge Fallon found. As noted above,
`
`Magistrate Judge Fallon repeatedly analyzes the character of the claims as whole according to the
`
`proper patent eligibility framework. Moreover, it was entirely proper to consider the abstract
`
`limitations of the claims by reference to prior case law addressing similar claim limitations. Indeed,
`
`the Federal Circuit repeatedly employs this framework when analyzing patent eligibility. See, e.g.,
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that (1)
`
`“collecting information” was an abstract process based on prior case law, (2) “analyzing
`
`information” was an abstract process based on other prior case law and (3) “presenting” this
`
`collected information was an abstract process based on yet other prior case and that therefore,
`
`claims “focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes” were unpatentable);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(finding that “concept related to the collection, display, and manipulation of data is similarly
`
`abstract” based on prior Federal Circuit precedent); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363 (claim limitation
`
`to “offer based pricing” was abstract based on prior Federal Circuit precedent and that claim
`
`limitations to “conventional computer activities,” including sending and storing information, were
`
`similarly abstract based on other case law, and that therefore the claimed combination was invalid).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 2224
`
`d. The generic computer elements do not transform the claims under Alice Step 2.
`
`Finally, Magistrate Judge Fallon properly found that nothing in the claim language
`
`transforms the claims into an inventive concept. (D.I. at 18-22.) The Fallon Patents purport to
`
`select amongst admittedly known compression techniques based on a tracked parameter (or
`
`throughput) of data. (See, e.g., D.I. at 13 (characterizing the abstract idea of representative claim
`
`40 of the ‘046 patent).) But the compression algorithms, including the asymmetric compression
`
`algorithms, used by the Fallon Patents were all admittedly known in the prior art. (D.I. 10-5 (‘046
`
`patent) 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”); 10:4-5 (“Examples of
`
`asymmetrical compression algorithms include dictionary-based compression schemes such as
`
`Lempel-Ziv.”). The Fallon Patent claims say nothing more than apply the abstract idea “using
`
`existing compression algorithms with existing ‘hardware, software, firmware, special purpose
`
`processors or a combination thereof.’” (D.I. 41 at 20 (citing the ‘535 patent at 20:1-4).)8 This is
`
`textbook claiming of patent ineligible subject matter. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (claims were
`
`invalid under §101 where they “do not even require a new source or type of information, or new
`
`techniques for analyzing it”); See, e.g., In re TLI, 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (recitation
`
`of wholly “generic computer function[]” cannot confer patent eligibility as a matter of law);
`
`buySAFE v. Google Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Circ. 2014) (“That a computer receives and
`
`sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably
`
`
`8 Realtime alleges that this portion of the specification does not rely on well-known hardware and
`software capabilities, but this is incorrect. The specification expressly notes that “hardware,
`software, firmware” etc. are those known to one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. known techniques).
`(See, e.g., D.I. 10-5 (‘046 patent) at 20:15-17 (Referring to the techniques expressly cited in the
`Report, the patent states: “one of ordinary skill in the related art will be able to contemplate these
`and similar implementations or configurations of the present invention.”).)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 2225
`
`inventive.”).
`
` Magistrate Judge Fallon also properly rejected Realtime’s unsupported assertion that the
`
`“Fallon patents solve several problems, including data storage and retrieval bandwidth limitations,
`
`access delays, data rate limitations, and compression ratios.” (D.I. at 41 at 20.)9 Realtime reiterates
`
`the same unsupported argument in its Objection. (D.I. 42 at 10 (citing the ‘535 patent at 7:41-45).)
`
`These purported benefits, recited in general terms in the Background of the specification, do not
`
`transform the abstract idea, because the claims rely on “existing compression algorithms with
`
`existing hardware, software” for implementation of the idea. As the Magistrate Judge correctly
`
`found, “[a] computer in a computer implemented invention “must involve more than performance
`
`of 'well-understood, routine, [ and] conventional activities previously known to the industry” to be
`
`meaningful.” (D.I. 41 at 20-21 (quoting Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
`
`Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`
`573 U.S. 208 (2014)).) The Fallon Patents’ admission that they rely on known compression
`
`algorithms using known hardware and software elements dooms the claims, and Realtime cannot
`
`manufacture a factual dispute in the face of such admissions. See, e.g., Glasswall Sols. Ltd. v.
`
`Clearswift Ltd., No. 2018-1407, 2018 WL 6720014, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2018) (affirming
`
`ineligibility on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to avoid dismissal with
`
`conclusory assertions “that its methods are ‘novel’ and “improve the technology used in electronic
`
`communications”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Thus, the Court should overrule Realtime’s objections and adopt Judge Fallon’s Report
`
`
`9 All of these purported benefits are simply other ways of saying the invention purportedly
`increases the speed and efficiency of encoding/decoding. Increasing speed and efficiency by
`applying an abstract idea on a computer is not patent eligible because it is the use of the general-
`purpose computer as a tool that causes the benefits.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 2226
`
`and Recommendation granting Haivision’s motion to dismiss the ’535 patent, the ’477 patent, the
`
`’907 patent, the ’442 patent, and the ’046 patent, with prejudice, because they are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Herbert H. Finn
`Howard E. Silverman
`Sara Skulman
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`(312) 456-8400
`finnh@gtlaw.com
`silvermanh@gtlaw.com
`skulmans@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
` /s/ Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`Steven T. Margolin (#3110)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`Samuel L. Moultrie (#5979)
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 661-7000
`margolins@gtlaw.com
`schladweilerb@ramllp.com
`moultries@gtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Haivision Network
`Video Inc.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01520-CFC-SRF Document 43 Filed 01/09/19 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 2227
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Benjamin J. Schladweiler, hereby certify that on January 9, 2019, a true copy of the
`
`
`
`foregoing Defendant Haivision’s Response
`
`to Plaintiff’s Objection
`
`to Report and
`
`Recommendation Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 42) was served via electronic
`
`mail upon the following counsel of record:
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman
`Sara E. Bussiere
`BAYARD, P.A.
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`Brian D. Ledahl
`Reza Mirzaie
`Paul A. Kroeger
`C. Jay Chung
`Philip X. Wang
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`pkroeger@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`pwang@raklaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC
`
`
`
` /s/ Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`
`
`
`
`
`