Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 532
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF
`
`PLAINTIFF REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`
`March 8, 2018
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`Brian D. Ledahl
`Reza Mirzaie
`C. Jay Chung
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`(310) 826-7474
`Los Angeles, CA 90025-1031
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
`Sara E. Bussiere (No. 5725)
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive
`Streaming LLC
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 533
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................... 2
`
`A. The Fallon Patents Claim Digital Compression Inventions Aimed At Solving
`Problems Unique to Digital Computer Data............................................................2
`
`B. Other Courts Have Repeatedly Held That The Subject Matter Of The
`Asserted Patents Is Patent Eligible. .........................................................................3
`
`II.
`
`SONY FAILS TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE 143 CLAIMS OF THE FIVE FALLON
`PATENTS ARE INVALID UNDER §101. .......................................................................... 4
`
`A. Sony Cannot Establish That The Patent Claims Are Directed To An Abstract
`Idea Under Alice Step 1. ..........................................................................................5
`
`1. Examining the patents confirms that they claim technological solutions
`to technological problems, not abstract subject matter................................5
`
`2. Other courts have repeatedly held that the subject matter of the asserted
`patents is patent-eligible despite several prior challenges. ........................10
`
`3. Sony’s flawed arguments mischaracterize the law and claims. ........................11
`
`a.Sony mischaracterizes the applicable law...............................................12
`
`b.
`
`Sony mischaracterizes the claims. .................................................14
`
`B. Sony Also Cannot Establish That the Claims Are Patent Ineligible Under
`Alice Step 2. ...........................................................................................................15
`
`1. Section 101 analysis under Alice step 2 involves questions of fact. .................15
`
`2. The intrinsic record confirms that the claimed inventions involve
`unconventional technological solutions under step 2. ...............................17
`
`C. Sony Fails To Analyze Every Single Claim Separately. ............................................20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 534
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`-- F.3d --, 2018 WL 843288 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2018)....................................................... 16, 20
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`-- F.3d --, 2018 WL 774096 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018)......................................................... 15, 20
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 13
`
`C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc.,
`156 F. Supp. 3d 540 (D. Del. 2016).......................................................................................... 20
`
`Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`--- F.3d ---, 2018 WL 542672 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)............................................................. 7
`
`DDR v. Hotels.com LP,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 7
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 6
`
`Estee Lauder v. L’Oreal,
`129 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................... 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`--- F.3d ---, 2018 WL 341882 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2018)....................................................... 5, 12
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 13
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 535
`
`MAZ Encryption Techs. LLC v. Blackberry Corp.,
`No. 13-304-LPS, 2016 WL 5661981 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016) ................................................ 15
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 15
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................. 1, 11
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp.,
`2016 WL 259581 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2016)............................................................................... 4
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Carbonite,
`2017 WL 4693969 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2017)........................................................................... 4
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2590195 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2017)............................................................................ 9
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 12
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................... 7, 11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 536
`
`Under Alice step 1, the Fallon patents1 here are not abstract, but rather are limited to
`
`particularized technological solutions that improve computer capabilities—e.g., particularized
`
`digital data compression systems to increase the capacity of a computer system to store or
`
`transfer data more efficiently in flexible ways. The claims describe specific ways (using multiple
`
`compressors, asymmetric compressors, parameter of data block and/or throughput) to make this
`
`happen. Even if it could satisfy step 1, Sony also cannot satisfy its burden under Alice step 2.
`
`When properly examined as an ordered combination, the claim elements require much more than
`
`well-understood, routine, conventional activities for solving the then-existing problems in the
`
`field of digital data compression. Sony’s contrary arguments, focusing merely on individual
`
`elements separately, are factually and legally incorrect. Indeed, “a court must look to the claims
`
`as an ordered combination.”2 Moreover, the intrinsic record, including the patents’ specification
`
`and file histories, demonstrate that the ordered combinations of the elements are unconventional.
`
`In the least, the intrinsic record raises factual issues that preclude dismissal.
`
`The arguments similar to those advanced by Sony have been rejected multiple times. On
`
`March 7, 2018, a court in Colorado denied §101 motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on
`
`the pleadings involving the ‘535 patent asserted against Sony, as well as another related patent.
`
`(Ex. 6.) The asserted ‘535 patent is related to, and shares the same specification as, the other four
`
`Fallon Patents at issue here. Moreover, two other courts, in Texas and Massachusetts, also ruled
`
`on §101 motions involving other Realtime patents that are incorporated by reference into the
`
`1 The ’535, ’477, ‘442, ’907, and ’046 patents asserted in this case (“Fallon Patents”) are related
`to each other and share substantially the same specification. Sony has not argued that the
`remaining two asserted patents (the ’462 and ’298 patents) are patent ineligible under §101.
`2 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Bascom
`Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“an
`inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
`conventional pieces.”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 537
`
`Fallon patents asserted in this case, repeatedly finding that patents of the same inventor (James
`
`Fallon) involving the same field (compression) (and incorporated by reference into the Fallon
`
`patents asserted here) are patent eligible under §101. (Ex. 1-4.) Sony’s motion fails, just as
`
`similar motions have failed in three different districts.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Fallon Patents Claim Digital Compression Inventions Aimed At Solving
`Problems Unique to Digital Computer Data
`
`The asserted Fallon Patents teach improved, particularized digital data compression
`
`systems and methods to address problems specific to digital data. Indeed, the patents themselves
`
`state that they deal with limitations and problems arising in the realm of compressing “[d]iffuse
`
`digital data” which is “a representation of data that … is typically not easily recognizable to
`
`humans in its native form.” (E.g., ‘535 patent at 2:28-30.)3
`
`The Fallon Patents are directed to systems and methods of digital data compression
`
`utilizing multiple compressors (e.g., asymmetric compressors) to compress data based on a
`
`parameter relating to, e.g., throughput (bandwidth) of a communication channel. E.g., (‘535
`
`patent at Abstract, 1:21-29.) The Fallon patents address specific problems in the field of
`
`compressing, storing, and transmitting digital data, including: “compromise between efficient
`
`data storage, access speed, and addressable data space”; “file systems [that] are not able to
`
`randomly access compressed data in an efficient manner”; “substantial disk fragmentation and
`
`slower access times”;
`
`issues regarding “knowledge of … algorithmic efficiency”; and
`
`“[c]ompeting requirements of data access bandwidth, data reliability/redundancy, and efficiency
`
`of storage space.” (See ‘535 patent at 5:5-10; 6:31-7:45.) The patents expressly confirm that
`
`“[t]hese and other limitations within the current art are solved with the present invention.” (Id. at
`
`3 All emphasis in quotes are added, unless otherwise stated.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 538
`
`7:46-47.)
`
`The Fallon Patents solved these technological problems and others with a novel
`
`technological solution in digital data compression utilizing combination of (1) asymmetric
`
`compressors, (2) two or more compressors, (3) selecting compressor based on parameter such as
`
`throughput of a communication channel, and/or (4) access profile.4 The patents describe that “the
`
`overall throughput (bandwidth) … is one factor considered by the controller 11 in deciding
`
`whether to use an asymmetrical or symmetrical compression” (id. at 11:25-29), and recognized
`
`that “utiliz[ing] an asymmetrical algorithm … [may] provide an increase in the overall system
`
`performance” (id. at 12:14-20). There are 143 claims across the five asserted Fallon Patents.5
`
`B.
`
`Other Courts Have Repeatedly Held That The Subject Matter Of The
`Asserted Patents Is Patent Eligible.
`
`On March 7, 2018, a court in Colorado denied a motion to dismiss and a motion for
`
`judgment on the pleadings under §101 of the asserted and related Fallon Patents. (Ex. 6.) That
`
`Colorado case involved the ‘535 patent asserted against Sony here, as well as U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,867,610 (“’610 patent”), which is related to the ‘535 patent. The ‘535 patent (asserted against
`
`Sony) is related to the other four Fallon Patents asserted against Sony, and they all share the
`
`same specification. The sole basis for defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on
`
`the pleadings in Colorado was their argument that the ‘535 and the ‘610 patents were patent
`
`ineligible under §101. The Colorado court denied both motions. (Ex. 6.)
`
`In addition, other courts across the country have also ruled on §101 involving other
`
`Realtime patents. The asserted Fallon Patents incorporate other patents of a related Realtime
`
`entity, all invented by the same inventor and covering the same field (compression), including
`
`4 E.g., ’535 cl. 1 & cl. 15; ‘477 cl. 1; ‘442 claim 8; ‘907 cl. 1; ‘046 cl. 1 & cl. 34.
`5 There are 30 claims in the ‘535 patent, 29 claims in the ‘477 patent, 14 claims in the ‘907
`patent, 29 claims in the ‘442 patent, and 41 claims in the ‘046 patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 539
`
`U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,195,024 and 6,309,424 (see ’535 patent at 5:33-38); and 6,601,104 (’535 patent
`
`at 9:19-28). These Realtime patents incorporated by reference in the asserted Fallon Patents are
`
`in the same patent family as other Realtime compression patents that other courts have
`
`repeatedly held to be patent eligible.
`
`In Realtime Data LLC v. Carbonite Inc., a Texas court found U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,054,728,
`
`8,717,204, 7,415,530; and 9,116,908 to be patent eligible,6 in a Report and Recommendation by
`
`Magistrate Judge Love. Realtime Data LLC v. Carbonite, 2017 WL 4693969 (E.D. Tex. Sept.
`
`20, 2017) (Ex. 1). Defendant Carbonite filed objections to Judge Love’s rulings. The case was
`
`transferred to Massachusetts, and the Massachusetts court adopted Judge Love’s Report and
`
`Recommendations “[a]fter careful consideration.” (Ex. 4.)
`
`In addition, Judge Schroeder and Judge Love in Texas also denied two other §101
`
`motions in Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp. involving U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,378,992; 8,643,513;
`
`6,597,812; 7,415,530; and 9,116,908.7 Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., 2016 WL 259581
`
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2016) (Ex. 2); Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., Case No. 15-cv-463-
`
`RWS-JDL, Dkt. No. 184 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015) (Ex. 3).
`
`Arguments asserted by Sony should be rejected, as they have been by multiple other
`
`courts ruling on §101 regarding the asserted Fallon Patents and other Realtime patents.
`
`II.
`
`SONY FAILS TO SHOW THAT ANY OF THE 143 CLAIMS OF THE FIVE
`FALLON PATENTS ARE INVALID UNDER §101.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101, patent eligibility is to be construed broadly, and the exceptions
`
`are narrow. One exception is the “abstract idea” exception. The Supreme Court has warned
`
`6 The ‘728 patent is related to the ‘024 and ‘424 patents incorporated by reference in the asserted
`Fallon patents (‘535 patent at 5:33-38); and the ‘530 and ‘908 patents are related to the ‘104
`patent incorporated by reference in the asserted Fallon Patents (id. at 9:19-28).
`7 The ‘513 and ‘992 patents are related to the ‘024 and ‘424 patents incorporated by reference in
`the asserted Fallon Patents (‘535 patent at 5:33-38); and the ‘530 and ‘908 patents are related to
`the ‘104 patent incorporated by reference in the asserted Fallon Patents (id. at 9:19-28).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 540
`
`against interpreting the exception too broadly, as that could could “swallow all of patent law”
`
`because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
`
`2354 (2014).
`
`A.
`
`Sony Cannot Establish That The Patent Claims Are Directed To An Abstract
`Idea Under Alice Step 1.
`
`The threshold inquiry of the §101 analysis requires Sony to demonstrate that the patent
`
`claims are directed to an “abstract idea,” i.e., an “idea of itself” or “fundamental truths or
`
`fundamental principles the patenting of which would pre-empt
`
`the use of basic tools of
`
`scientific and technological work.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Sony fails to do so here. Under any
`
`fair characterization, the claims here are patent-eligible because they provide particular, technical
`
`solutions to technical problems specific to compression of digital computer data.
`
`1.
`
`Examining the patents confirms that they claim technological
`solutions to technological problems, not abstract subject matter.
`
`Under the Supreme Court’s Alice framework, claims that “improve[] an existing
`
`technological process” or “solve a technological problem in ‘conventional industry practice’” are
`
`patent eligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The Federal Circuit has applied these standards in
`
`several controlling cases to uphold the patentability of claims challenged as abstract.
`
`In Finjan, the Federal Circuit held eligible a patent for identifying suspicious computer
`
`virus. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2018 WL 341882, at *2-4 (Fed. Cir. Jan.
`
`10, 2018). Finjan’s claim recited only three steps: (a) “receiving” computer program; (2)
`
`“generating … security profile that identifies suspicious code;” and (3) “linking” the security
`
`profile to the computer program. Id. The claim did not specify how to “identif[y] suspicious
`
`code.” Id. at *2. While acknowledging that prior Federal Circuit precedent has held that “virus
`
`screening,” by itself, is an abstract idea, the court nevertheless held that Finjan’s patent claim
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 541
`
`was not abstract because it was not directed to just any “virus screening,” but instead limited to a
`
`particular type of virus screening, which constituted improvement in computer functionality. In
`
`so holding, the court rejected the same argument advanced by Sony here (see, e.g., Mot. at 10),
`
`namely, that the claims “do not sufficiently describe how to implement” any idea. Id. at *3-4. On
`
`this point, the court held that the three recited claimed steps were all that was needed to render
`
`the claim patent-eligible. Id.
`
`The Realtime claims here present an even clearer case for patent-eligibility than those at
`
`issue in Finjan. In contrast to Finjan’s patent, which was about “virus screening” that previously
`
`was held to be abstract, Realtime’s claims are directed to digital data compression, which plainly
`
`is not abstract. See DDR, 733 F.3d at 1259. And the asserted claims are not just directed to
`
`digital data compression in general, but a particularized subset of novel digital data
`
`compression, which is directed to improving the capacity of a computer system to store more
`
`data or to transfer data more efficiently across computer systems. Moreover, the asserted claims
`
`require even more specific steps and components than those held eligible in Finjan. These
`
`include: (i) the use of “a plurality of different” compression algorithms or techniques; (ii)
`
`determining “data parameters” or “attributes” of a digital data block; (iii) “select[ing]” specific
`
`techniques based upon that determination relating to “a throughput of a communication
`
`channel,” or a digital data “access profile,” (iv) requiring the selected techniques to be
`
`“asymmetric,” and other novel elements. (E.g., ‘535 patent claims 1 & 15; ‘477 claim 1; ‘442
`
`claim 8; ‘907 claim 1; ‘046 patent claims 1 & 34.)
`
`In Enfish, the Federal Circuit reversed an ineligibility ruling on a database patent, which
`
`the district court described as being directed to “storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a
`
`logical table.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp, 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 542
`
`Circuit held that “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from
`
`the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to §101 swallow the rule.” Id. It
`
`further criticized the district court’s analysis for “downplay[ing] the invention’s benefits”
`
`disclosed in the specification. Id. at 1337–38. Because the claims were “designed to improve
`
`the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory,” they were “directed to a specific
`
`implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” and, thus, “not directed to an
`
`abstract idea.” Id. at 1339.8
`
`In Visual Memory, the claims recited a system with “operational characteristics” which
`
`“determines a type of data.” Visual Memory LLC v. NVidia, 867 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017). The court rejected defendant’s argument that the claims “are directed to no more than a
`
`desired result” or that the patent claim “nothing more than a black box.” Id. at 1260-61. The
`
`court cautioned against over-simplifying the claims, and held that
`
`they were directed to
`
`“improvements to computer functionality” as opposed to “economic or other tasks for which a
`
`computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1258-1261.
`
`In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit affirmed eligibility of a patent about summarizing
`
`and presenting information in electronic devices. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., Inc., ---
`
`F.3d ---, 2018 WL 542672, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). In so doing, the court rejected
`
`defendants’ failure to acknowledge key claim elements and cautioned that courts “must be
`
`mindful that all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature,
`
`8 Similarly, in DDR, the claims addressed “the problem of retaining website visitors.” DDR v.
`Hotels.com LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Despite being directed to e-commerce, the
`court held that these claims “stand apart” from abstract claims “because they do not merely recite
`the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the
`requirement to perform it on the Internet.” Id. Instead, “the claims recite[d] an invention that is
`not merely the routine or conventional use of the Internet.” Id. at 1259. Thus, they were eligible
`because the patented claims were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
`overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 543
`
`natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Id. at *3. It held that the patent claimed “an improvement
`
`in the functioning of computers” (id. at *3-4) because the claims were limited “to a particular
`
`manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.” Id. at *4. As in Core
`
`Wireless, the patents at issue here claim particular manners of selecting and compressing digital
`
`data to improve the capacity of a computer system to store more data or to transfer data more
`
`efficiently.
`
`As in Finjan, Enfish, DDR, Core Wireless, and Visual Memory, the claimed inventions
`
`here provide particular technological solutions to overcome technological problems, i.e., those
`
`specific to the field of digital-data compression. The patents themselves state they are directed to
`
`problems unique to the realm of digital data, a form of computer data “not easily recognizable
`
`to humans in native form.” (E.g., ’535 patent at 2:28-30.)9 In this realm, the patents describe
`
`using a combination of particular steps or structural computer components to help improve
`
`detection and exploitation of redundancies, for example, in the incoming strings of computer
`
`“1s” and “0s.”
`
`Like the inventions in Finjan, DDR, Enfish, Core Wireless, and Visual Memory, the
`
`patents teach specific improvements to the function of the computer parts themselves, such as
`
`computer memory and computer-data storage and retrieval mechanisms. For example,
`
`the
`
`patents describe problems in the conventional arts, including “limitations in the size of the data”;
`
`“file systems [that] are not able to randomly access compressed data in an efficient manner”;
`
`“slower access times”; and “a compromise between efficient data storage, access speed, and
`
`addressable data space.” (’535 patent at 6:31-53.) These are technological problems, as opposed
`
`9 “[S]ources properly considered on a motion to dismiss [include] the complaint, the patent, and
`materials subject to judicial notice.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., -- F.3d
`--, 2018 WL 843288, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2018).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 544
`
`to human problems.
`
`The Fallon patents expressly confirm that “[t]hese and other limitations within the current
`
`art are solved with the present invention.” (Id. at 7:46-47.) For instance, the claims recite novel
`
`technological systems in digital data compression utilizing two or more compressors (e.g.,
`
`“asymmetric” compressor10), and the systems configured to select a compressor based on a
`
`parameter of a data block / throughput of a communication channel. (See, e.g., id. at 7:51-8:54.)11
`
`The patents describe that “the overall throughput (bandwidth) … is one factor considered by the
`
`controller 11 in deciding whether to use an asymmetrical or symmetrical compression” (id. at
`
`11:25-29), and recognized that “utiliz[ing] an asymmetrical algorithm … [may] provide an
`
`increase in the overall system performance as compared the performance that would be obtained
`
`using a symmetrical algorithm” (id. at 12:14-20). These claimed solutions are not abstract. They
`
`are necessarily rooted in computer technology and aimed at solving limitations in then-existing
`
`digital-data compression systems,12 i.e., technological solutions to technological problems.
`
`Realtime’s claims present a clearer case of eligibility than those held eligible in other
`
`cases. In DDR, after analyzing the invention, which were about “look and feel” of websites, the
`
`court held that, although the “claims do not recite an invention as technologically complex as an
`
`improved, particularized method of digital data compression,” they were nonetheless eligible.
`
`10 “In “[a]n asymmetrical data compression algorithm[,] … the execution time for the
`compression and decompression routines differ significantly.” (’535 patent at 9:63-66.)
`11 See, e.g., ’535 claims 1 & 15; ‘477 claim 1; ‘442 claim 8; ‘907 claim 1; ‘046 claims 1 & 34.
`12 The patents are limited to compression of digital data. For example, the term “compress,”
`which is in all claims, had been construed for other Realtime patents to mean “represent data
`with fewer bits,” indicating digital data compression (“bit” is a unit of digital data). Realtime
`Data LLC v. Actian Corp., 2016 WL 4054914, at *18 (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2016); Realtime Data
`LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., 2017 WL 2590195, at *8 (E.D. Tex. June 14, 2017). Also, “data
`block” was construed for other Realtime patents to mean “a single unit of data, which may range
`in size from individual bits through complete files or collection of multiple files.” Id. at *18. Any
`construction that does not limit the terms to digital data would be contrary to the plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 545
`
`DDR, 773 F.3d at 1259. The claims here thus present precisely the type of invention the Federal
`
`Circuit
`
`recognized as unquestionably eligible: particularized methods of digital data
`
`compression.
`
`2.
`
`Other courts have repeatedly held that the subject matter of the
`asserted patents is patent-eligible despite several prior challenges.
`
`On March 7, 2018, a court in Colorado denied a motion to dismiss and a motion for
`
`judgment on the pleadings under §101 of the asserted and related Fallon Patents. Ex. 6. That
`
`Colorado case involved the ‘535 patent asserted against Sony here, as well as U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,867,610 (“’610 patent”), which is related to the ‘535 patent. The ‘535 patent (asserted against
`
`Sony) is related to the other four Fallon Patents asserted against Sony, and they all share the
`
`same specification. The sole basis for defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on
`
`the pleadings in Colorado was their argument that the ‘535 and the ‘610 patents were patent
`
`ineligible under §101. The Colorado court denied both motions. (Ex. 6.)
`
`Other courts across the country have also ruled on §101 involving other Realtime patents.
`
`The asserted Fallon patents incorporate other patents of related Realtime entity, all invented by
`
`the same inventor and covering the same field (compression), including U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,195,024
`
`and 6,309,424 (see ’535 patent at 5:33-38); and 6,601,104 (id. at 9:19-28). These Realtime
`
`patents incorporated by reference in the asserted Fallon patents are in the same patent family as
`
`other Realtime patents that a Texas court has repeatedly held to be patent eligible. For example,
`
`in Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., a Texas court found U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,378,992; 8,643,513;
`
`6,597,812; 7,415,530; and 9,116,908 to be patent eligible.13 2016 WL 259581 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21,
`
`2016) (Ex. 2; see also Ex. 3.) And, in Realtime Data LLC v. Carbonite Inc., the Texas court
`
`13 The ’513/’992 patents are related to the ’024/’424 patents incorporated by reference in the
`asserted Fallon patents; and the ‘530/‘908 patents are related to the ’104 patent incorporated by
`reference in the asserted Fallon patents.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 546
`
`found U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,054,728 and 8,717,204, as well as the ‘530 and ‘908 patents to be patent
`
`eligible,14 in a Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Love. 2017 WL 4693969 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 20, 2017) (Ex. 1). After the Carbonite case was transferred, District Judge Young in
`
`Massachusetts fully adopted Judge Love’s Report and Recommendation “[a]fter careful
`
`consideration.” (Ex. 4.)
`
`In these §101 rulings, these courts rejected some of the same arguments advanced by
`
`Sony here. For instance, the ’728 patent related to “analyz[ing] data … to identify one or more
`
`parameters or attributes” in performing compression, among other things. 2017 WL 4693969 at
`
`*1. The court held that the patents are “directed to non-abstract improvements to computerized
`
`data compression techniques” and “is a solution to a computing problem.” Id. at *5. Same
`
`reasoning applies here.
`
`Sony urges this Court to ignore these rulings from three different districts across the
`
`country (Mot. at 7), but that argument is wholly meritless. As an initial matter, Sony’s statement
`
`that these rulings “have different claims” is inaccurate, as after Sony filed its motion, the
`
`Colorado court denied §101 motions as to the ‘535 patent claims, which are asserted against
`
`Sony. And the other four Fallon patents are related to, and share the same specification as, the
`
`‘535 patent. Moreover, even as to the other rulings, in Texas and Massachusetts, they involve
`
`other Realtime patents, the specifications of which are expressly incorporated by reference in the
`
`Fallon patents asserted against Sony. Sony’s argument to put “no weight” in these §101
`
`rulings—rulings that are more applicable and analogous than any §101 cases cited by Sony—
`
`defies logic.
`
`3.
`
`Sony’s flawed arguments mischaracterize the law and claims.
`
`14 The ’728 patent is related to the ’024/’424 patents incorporated into the asserted Fallon
`patents.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 20 Filed 03/08/18 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 547
`
`a.
`
`Sony mischaracterizes the applicable law.
`
`As the Federal Circuit in Finjan, Enfish, Core Wireless, and Visual Memory explained,
`
`the law draws a line of distinction between patent claims in which “computers are invoked
`
`merely as a tool” (which may be ineligible) and patent claims that provide technological
`
`solutions to technolo