Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 493
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-1693 (JFB) (SRF)
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC. and
`SONY CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`SONY’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR PATENT INELIGIBILITY
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`rsmith@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Sony Electronics Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Gregory S. Gewirtz
`Jonathan A. David
`Alexander Solo
`LERNER DAVID LITTENBERG KRUMHOLZ
`& MENTLIK LLP
`600 South Avenue West
`Westfield, NJ 07090
`(908) 654-5000
`
`February 22, 2018
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 494
`
`
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................2
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................3
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Fallon Patents Claim Abstract Concepts And Fail To
`Recite Additional Claim Elements That Add Inventive
`Concept ....................................................................................................................6
`
`The ’535 Patent Claims Are Patent-Ineligible Under § 101 ....................................7
`
`The ’477 Patent Claims Are Patent-Ineligible Under § 101 ..................................11
`
`The ’442 Patent Claims Are Patent-Ineligible Under § 101 ..................................14
`
`The ’907 Patent Claims Are Patent-Ineligible Under § 101 ..................................16
`
`The ’046 Patent Claims Are Patent-Ineligible Under § 101 ..................................18
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 495
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`No. 2017-1494, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3779 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018) ..................................4
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. Of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`No. 2017-1437, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3040 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) ....................................4
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...............................................................................................................5, 6
`
`BroadSoft, Inc. v. Callwave Commc’ns, LLC,
`No. 13-711-RGA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162931 (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2017) ...............................6
`
`buySAFE v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................12
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................6, 9, 12
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff'd, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ........................................................3
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 496
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................11
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Jedi Techs., Inc. v. Spark Networks, Inc.,
`No. 1:16-1055, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122313 (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2017) ...............................4, 7
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .............................................................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Brightcove Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-1519-JFB-SRF (D. Del.) .......................................................................................1
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`No. 6:17-cv-00591 (E.D. Tex.) ..................................................................................................1
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`No. 6:17-cv-0591-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`No. 2:17-cv-07611 (C.D. Cal.) ..................................................................................................1
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-1692-JFB-SRF (D. Del.) .......................................................................................1
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Sling TV LLC,
`No. 1:17-cv-02097 (D. Colo.) ....................................................................................................1
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................5
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 497
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`On November 21, 2017, Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime”)
`
`filed a complaint against Sony Electronics Inc. and Sony Corporation. (D.I. 1.) On
`
`December 26, 2017, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of Sony Corporation. (D.I. 9.)
`
`On February 5, 2018, Sony Electronics Inc. (“Sony”) filed a motion for a definite statement
`
`under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) as to all asserted counts (Counts I-VII) on the grounds that
`
`Realtime’s allegations were so vague and ambiguous that Sony could not reasonably understand
`
`how Realtime was asserting infringement, and of what particular products. (D.I. 13, 14.)
`
`By this motion, Sony challenges the patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of five
`
`related Realtime patents asserted in Counts I, III, IV, VI, and VII; namely, U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,386,046 (“the ’046 Patent”) (Count I); 8,929,442 (“the ’442 Patent”) (Count III);
`
`8,934,535 (“the ’535 Patent”) (Count IV); 9,762,907 (“the ’907 Patent”) (Count VI); and
`
`9,769,477 (“the ’477 Patent”) (Count VII) (collectively the “Fallon Patents”).
`
`Similar § 101 challenges to these same Fallon Patents are being simultaneously
`
`raised by other defendants both in this Court and in three other judicial districts.1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`The claims of the Fallon Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the
`
`two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2347, 2356 (2014). As to Alice step one, the claims are all directed to the same abstract
`
`
`1
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Brightcove Inc., C.A. No. 17-1519-JFB-SRF
`(D. Del.) (§ 101 motion filed 1/26/18); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., C.A.
`No. 17-1692-JFB-SRF (D. Del.) (§ 101 motion filed 2/5/18); Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
`v. Sling TV LLC, No. 1:17-cv-02097 (D. Colo.) (§ 101 motion filed 12/6/17); Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-07611 (C.D. Cal.) (§ 101 motion filed 1/12/18);
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-00591 (E.D. Tex.) (§ 101
`motion filed 1/19/18).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 498
`
`and unpatentable concept of encoding and decoding data – a concept acknowledged by the
`
`Federal Circuit as old as communication itself.
`
`2.
`
`The additional claims elements in the Fallon Patents do not transform the
`
`abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter under Alice step two. The claimed encoding and
`
`decoding steps in the Fallon Patents are at best performed by generic computers components, in
`
`known technological environments, and thus do not ensure that the patents in practice amount to
`
`significantly more than patents on the ineligible concept itself.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The Fallon Patents describe compression as a technique to encode and decode
`
`data. See ’535 Patent, 2:47-49 (“data compression techniques . . . may be utilized . . . to
`
`encode/decode data”). Encoding is a process of substituting one way of representing data with
`
`another. For example, Morse code encodes letters of the alphabet with dots and dashes that
`
`could be transmitted on a telegraph or via radio:
`
`
`
`As explained by the Federal Circuit: “Morse code, ordering food at a fast food
`
`restaurant via a numbering system, and Paul Revere’s ‘one if by land, two if by sea’ signaling
`
`system all exemplify encoding at one end and decoding at the other end.” RecogniCorp, LLC v.
`
`Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Every day, people perform encoding in
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 499
`
`their head or via pencil and paper with ease. For example, teenagers use encoding in text
`
`messages using a variety of techniques, such as acronyms (LOL, JK, OMG), homonyms (gr8,
`
`U), or emojis (e.g., ☺). Attorneys likewise use encoding to represent case citations (e.g., “F.3d,”
`
`“U.S.,” “Id.”).
`
`Compression is the process of using an encoding system to reduce the size of
`
`data. The Fallon Patents acknowledge that compression was well known at the time of the
`
`purported inventions: “There are a variety of data compression algorithms that are currently
`
`available.” (’535 Patent, 1:31-32.) They also recognize that using compression to process and
`
`transmit data was well known: “Data compression is widely used to reduce the amount of data
`
`required to process, transmit, or store a given quantity of information.” (Id. at 2:44-46.)
`
`The Fallon Patents are all related, have a common specification, and share the
`
`same two inventors. The Fallon Patents claim systems and methods for selecting an encoder or
`
`compressor (a type of encoder) based on a parameter and encoding and decoding the data.
`
`For each Fallon Patent, Realtime identifies only a single claim in the Complaint as
`
`allegedly infringed by Sony. Realtime alleges that Sony infringes other unnamed claims in each
`
`Fallon Patent “for similar reasons” with respect to the one asserted claim. (E.g., D.I. 1 ¶ 32.) It
`
`is therefore appropriate to use the alleged claims as representative claims for the § 101 analysis.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Section 101 defines the scope of patent-eligible subject matter as “any new and
`
`useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`
`improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
`
`are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012).
`
`Whether a claim recites patent-ineligible subject matter is a question of law. In re Bilski, 545
`
`F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff’d, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 500
`
`Section 101 patent eligibility may be, and regularly is, decided at the pleadings
`
`stage, without claim construction. See, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 717
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. Of Canada, 687 F.3d 1266,
`
`1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Jedi Techs., Inc. v. Spark Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 16-1055, 2017 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 122313, at *16-17 (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2017) (explaining “there is no rule requiring that
`
`courts wait until a certain stage of litigation before addressing patent-eligible subject matter”).
`
`Although the Federal Circuit has recently reversed dismissals on the pleadings for patent
`
`ineligibility under § 101 finding facts in dispute as to whether claim elements were well
`
`understood, routine, or conventional at the time, see, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., No. 2017-1437,
`
`2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3040 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018), the court has more recently affirmed that
`
`such dismissals on the pleadings are proper where there is no such genuine dispute, such as
`
`where the specification makes it clear that the recited claim elements were well understood,
`
`routine, or conventional. Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 2017-1494,
`
`2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3779, at *13-14 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018) (finding no “factual dispute
`
`regarding whether the claims recite routine and conventional RFID components” because the
`
`specification “more pointedly indicates that the recited components of the claimed RFID system
`
`were conventional”).
`
`The Supreme Court has articulated a two-step test 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 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-78). The
`
`first step of Alice requires a court to determine if the claims, “considered in light of the
`
`specification . . . [and] as a whole,” are “directed to excluded subject matter.” Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There is no bright line rule that guides
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 501
`
`this analysis, and the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have “found it sufficient to compare
`
`claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.”
`
`Id. at 1334-35. For example, where a claim is directed to standard encoding and decoding of
`
`image data, it is an abstract idea that fails Alice step one. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326.2
`
`If the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter, the court proceeds to the
`
`second step of Alice and must “search for an ‘inventive concept,’ or some element or
`
`combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to ‘significantly
`
`more’ than a patent on an ineligible concept.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
`
`1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To save a patent at Alice step two, the inventive concept “must be
`
`evident in the claims.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
`
`1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A patentee cannot circumvent the prohibition on patenting abstract
`
`ideas by limiting the idea to “a particular technological environment,” or by adding “insignificant
`
`post-solution activity,” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted), or “well-understood, routine, conventional” features. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80. In
`
`addition, “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; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`
`Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (no inventive concept where the
`
`claims recited “both a generic computer element – a processor – and a series of generic computer
`
`‘components’ that merely . . . describe the functions of the abstract idea itself, without
`
`particularity.”)
`
`
`2
`The RecogniCorp court explained: “We find that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea
`of encoding and decoding image data. It claims a method whereby a user displays images on a
`first display, assigns image codes to the images through an interface using a mathematical
`formula, and then reproduces the image based on the codes. . . . This method reflects standard
`encoding and decoding, an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information.” Id. at 1326.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 502
`
`Where claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea,” the
`
`court may analyze a representative claim. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
`
`Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612;
`
`BroadSoft, Inc. v. Callwave Commc’ns, LLC, C.A. No. 13-711-RGA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`162931, at *8 (D. Del. Oct. 1, 2017).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Fallon Patents Claim Abstract Concepts And Fail To
`Recite Additional Claim Elements That Add Inventive Concept
`
`As explained below for each patent, the claims of the Fallon Patents are all
`
`directed to a common abstract idea (Alice step one) of selecting a type of data compression based
`
`on a parameter of the data or of the communications channel (such as “throughput” or speed of
`
`the channel). Specific language from the asserted claims of each Fallon Patent, each directed to
`
`this abstract concept, is shown below:
`
`Fallon Patent
`’535 Patent,
`claim 15
`
`Claim Language
`“determining a parameter of . . . a data block” and “selecting one or more
`asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon
`the determined parameter”
`
`’477 Patent,
`claim 1
`
`’442 Patent,
`claim 8
`
`’907 Patent,
`claim 1
`
`’046 Patent,
`claim 40
`
`determine a parameter relating to “throughput of a communications channel”
`and, based on that determination, selecting an encoder from a plurality of
`encoders having different compression rates
`
`“based upon a throughput of a connection channel and a parameter” of the
`data, selecting a compression algorithms
`
`analyze a parameter relating to expected “throughput of a communications
`channel” to “select two or more different data compression routines”
`
`determine if “throughput falls below a predetermined threshold” and if so
`provide “faster rate of compression so as to increase throughput”
`
`The claims also contain no additional elements, or combination of elements, to
`
`ensure the patents amount to significantly more than claiming the abstract concept itself, under
`
`Alice step two. As shown below, the additional elements either relate to a known technological
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 503
`
`environment, or recite well-understood, routine, and conventional computer elements such as
`
`CPUs and storage mediums, which do not transform the nature of the claims into a
`
`patent-eligible applications under § 101.
`
`Claim construction is unnecessary for the Court to decide § 101. In the related
`
`case of Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-0591-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.), the parties submitted a joint letter on the issue of whether claim construction was needed
`
`to inform the Court’s analysis as to patentability. (D.I. 40-1.) Although Cisco’s position was
`
`that it was not, Realtime asserted that the claims should be “limited to digital (computer) data.”
`
`(Id. at 3.) Here, on Sony’s motion, even if the claims were constructed as Realtime argues, i.e.,
`
`as requiring operations on “digital (computer) data,” as explained below, they would still be
`
`invalid under § 101. See Jedi Techs., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122313, at *17 (noting “Jedi failed
`
`to identify any specific claims which, if scrutinized during claim construction, could impact the
`
`analysis . . . .”).
`
`Finally, Realtime may raise, as it did in other cases, that another court (E.D. Tex.)
`
`found different “Fallon” patents, asserted by a different entity (Realtime Data LLC), to be patent
`
`eligible under § 101. Such findings, however, have no weight here. Those patents were merely
`
`“related” to other patents “incorporated-by-reference” in the Fallon Patents, and have different
`
`claims. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (one must first determine whether “the claims at issue” are
`
`directed to a patent-ineligible concept, and then examine “the elements of the claim” to
`
`determine if there is an inventive concept to transform the abstract idea).
`
`B.
`
`The ’535 Patent Claims Are Patent Ineligible Under § 101
`
`Alice Step One: The claims of the ’535 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`compressing data based on a parameter of the data. Claim 15, the only specific claim asserted by
`
`Realtime, is representative for the § 101 analysis, and recites:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 504
`
`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.
`
`All other claims of the ’535 Patent provide only slight variations on the idea
`
`reflected in claim 15 and fail to disclose anything more than abstract ideas. For example, the
`
`other independent claims (claims 1, 27) simply recite using video or audio data. Other claims
`
`(e.g., claims 7, 13, 17, 19-21, 23, 29) recite transmitting the data, including “over the Internet.”
`
`Other claims (e.g., claims 7, 13-14, 23, 25-26) recite decompressing data, which is simply the
`
`reverse of compressing. Still other claims (e.g., claims 3-5, 11) recite the use of computer “files”
`
`or retrieving data using well-known processors or CPUs (e.g., claims 18, 30). But specifying the
`
`type of data to be encoded, e.g., video or audio, does not elevate the patent to claiming
`
`something more than an abstract idea. See RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326 (encoding “image
`
`data” was abstract). Transmitting data, including “over the Internet,” also does not add
`
`patentable subject matter. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716 (“[T]he use of the Internet is not
`
`sufficient to save otherwise abstract claims from ineligibility under § 101.”). Decompressing
`
`data is simply the reverse of the compressing process and is likewise abstract under
`
`RecogniCorp. Finally, the use of data files and CPUs, which are conventional, generic computer
`
`elements, does not change the abstract nature of the claims. Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d
`
`at 1341.
`
`The steps of claim 15 of determining a parameter of the data to be compressed,
`
`selecting and performing known compression based on the determined parameter, and storing
`
`that data are analogous to basic computer functionality that has been found patent ineligible. See
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 505
`
`RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327; Context Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims directed to
`
`“1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that
`
`recognized data in memory” are patent ineligible); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823
`
`F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims directed to “classifying an image and storing the image
`
`based on its classification” are patent ineligible); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
`
`1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have 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”).
`
`Although claim 15 does not recite a computer or processor to select the
`
`compressor, even if the claims were deemed to require “digital (computer) data,” they do not
`
`recite new or unconventional hardware for this step. Indeed, the claims impart no new functions
`
`or improvement to a conventional computer, where a user could use a menu on a computer to
`
`select a desired compression algorithm, as explained in the Fallon Patents:
`
`In another embodiment, a user . . . can command the system (via a software utility) to
`utilize a desired compression routine for compressing and storing the compressed
`program or files to disk. For example, for a power user, a GUI menu can be displayed
`that allows the user to directly select a given algorithm. (’535 Patent, 14:29-36.)
`
`In RecogniCorp, the claims likewise recited steps involving a selection (“selecting
`
`a facial feature image”) and performing a step using parameters (performing a multiplication
`
`operation on data “using one or more code factors as input parameters”), but were nonetheless
`
`held to be directed at an abstract idea. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1324. Such would be the case
`
`even of the recited steps were perfumed using conventional computer elements. Intellectual
`
`Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1341.
`
`Alice Step Two: The additional limitations in the claims do nothing more than
`
`implement the abstract idea without any additional inventive concept or adding nonconventional
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 506
`
`elements or combinations of elements. The first step of claim 15 of “determining a parameter”
`
`does not even specify how the parameter is determined or what the parameter is. The next step
`
`of selecting a compressor “based on the determined parameter” adds nothing more than choosing
`
`a known compression algorithm, a known step, somehow “based on” an unspecified parameter.
`
`“Based on” also provides no additional patentable elements or steps as to how the selection
`
`actually occurs or under what conditions. Rather, the step is merely “selecting one or more
`
`asymmetric compressors from among a plurality of compressors based upon the determined
`
`parameter.” The third step of compressing the data, with the selected compressor, is merely the
`
`result of the selection step and adds nothing new or inventive since it was known to compress
`
`using a selected compressor. The fourth step of “storing” the compressed data is a routine data
`
`storage step that was known and likewise adds nothing new or an inventive concept.
`
`(’535 Patent, 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.”)
`
`Lastly, the limitation that one of the selected algorithms is “asymmetric” does not
`
`add a new element or render the claims inventive. Asymmetric compression was simply a type
`
`of compression, known at the time, which takes a different amount of time to compress than to
`
`decompress.3 The specification of the Fallon Patents in fact discloses “[e]xamples of asymmetric
`
`compression algorithms include “dictionary based compression schemes such as Lempel-Ziv.”
`
`(’535 Patent, 10:2-4; see also 1:35-38.) Thus, limiting a compression algorithm to a known type
`
`of “asymmetric” compression is merely a field of use limitation to a particular environment (i.e.,
`
`environments with both known types of compression – symmetric and asymmetric) that does not
`
`
`3
`The Fallon Patents explain an asymmetric data compression algorithm is simply “one in
`which the execution time for the compression and decompression routines differ significantly.”
`(’535 Patent, 9:63-65.)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 507
`
`improve on known asymmetric encoding itself and is thus not transformative. See Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract
`
`idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or
`
`technological environment, such as the Internet.”).
`
`C.
`
`The ’477 Patent Claims Are Patent Ineligible Under § 101
`
`Alice Step One: The claims of the ’477 Patent are also directed to the abstract
`
`idea of compressing data based one or more parameters. Claim 1, the only claim asserted by
`
`Realtime, is representative for the purposes of the § 101 analysis, and recites:
`
`1. A system, comprising:
`
`a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders,
`
`wherein each asymmetric data compression encoder of the plurality of different
`asymmetric data compression encoders is configured to utilize one or more data
`compression algorithms, and
`
`wherein a first asymmetric data compression encoder of the plurality of different
`asymmetric data compression encoders is configured to compress data blocks
`containing video or image data at a higher data compression rate than a second
`asymmetric data compression encoder of the plurality of different asymmetric data
`compression encoders; and
`
`one or more processors configured to:
`
`determine one or more data parameters, at least one of the determined one or more data
`parameters relating to a throughput of a communications channel measured in bits per
`second; and
`
`select one or more asymmetric data compression encoders from among the plurality of
`different asymmetric data compression encoders based upon, at least in part, the
`determined one or more data parameters.
`
`Despite its wordiness, this claim is similar to ’535 Patent claim 15, in that is
`
`directed to a system, using “one or more processors,” for implementing the abstract idea of
`
`determining a parameter, selecting an encoder, and encoding data. The primary difference is that
`
`claim 1 of the ’477 Patent recites that at least one of the parameters is a “throughput” (such as
`
`“bandwidth” or the rate at which data can be transmitted) of the communications channel. This
`
`difference does not save it from patent ineligibility. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“the prohibition
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 18 Filed 02/22/18 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 508
`
`against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of [the
`
`idea] to a particular technological environment”); buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“narrowing to particular types of such relationships, themselves familiar, does
`
`not change the analysis”).
`
`Moreover, even though a “processor” is claimed in this claim, putting it in a realm
`
`of computer technology, the claim is not any less abstract. Where, as here, the focus of the
`
`claims is