Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 627
`
`
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-1693 (JFB) (SRF)
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`SONY’S REPLY 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 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
`
`March 15, 2018
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 628
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`THE PATENTS CLAIM ABSTRACT CONCEPTS UNDER
`ALICE STEP ONE ...............................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Patents Do Not Claim Technological Solutions To
`Technological Problems...........................................................................................1
`
`The Other Courts’ § 101 Decisions Are Not Binding Or
`Relevant ...................................................................................................................4
`
`C.
`
`Sony Has Not Mischaracterized The Law Or The Claims ......................................5
`
`III.
`
`THE CLAIMS ALSO FAIL TO ADD AN INVENTIVE
`CONCEPT UNDER ALICE STEP TWO ............................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Claims Elements, Individually And As An Ordered
`Combination, Do Not Add An Inventive Concept...................................................6
`
`No Questions Of Fact Need To Be Decided ............................................................7
`
`The Claimed Inventions Involve Conventional Solutions .......................................9
`
`IV.
`
`THE REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS USED ARE APPROPRIATE ................................10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 629
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................7, 8
`
`Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`No. 2017-1494, 2018 WL 935455 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 16, 2018) ....................................................8
`
`Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................7, 8, 10
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................10
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................4
`
`D&M Holdings Inc. v. Sonos, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 16-141-RGA, 2018 WL 934597 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2018) ..........................................8
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................4
`
`GoDaddy.com, LLC v. RPost Commc’ns. Ltd.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00126, 2016 WL 3165536 (D. Ariz. June 7, 2016), aff’d,
`No. 2016-2335, 685 F. App’x 992 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2017), cert. denied,
`138 S. Ct. 568 (2017) .................................................................................................................4
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................10
`
`IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft Labs Inc.,
`No. 16 CV 7774, 2017 WL 3581162 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2017) ................................................9
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 183 S. Ct. 672 (2018) ............................1, 2, 4, 5
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................3, 6, 9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 630
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 631
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The claims of the Fallon Patents do not meet the requirements for subject-matter
`
`eligibility. As to Alice step one, Realtime admits that its claims “are directed to systems and
`
`methods of digital data compression utilizing multiple compressors … to compress data based on
`
`a parameter …” (Opp’n Br. 2)____an abstract and unpatentable idea, and does not dispute that the
`
`use of different types of compression, including “asymmetric” compression, were well known at
`
`the time. As to Alice step two, Realtime does not point to any claim limitations, individually or
`
`as an ordered combination, providing any improvements to a computer system, and the
`
`specification confirms that all the claimed hardware and compression types were conventional,
`
`as is the order of the claimed steps.
`
`II.
`
`THE PATENTS CLAIM ABSTRACT CONCEPTS UNDER ALICE STEP ONE
`
`A. The Patents Do Not Claim Technological Solutions To Technological Problems
`
`The claims are directed to data compression, a form of “encoding and decoding” data,
`
`which the Federal Circuit has stated is “an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information”
`
`and is thus patent-ineligible. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017), cert. denied, 183 S. Ct. 672 (2018). The claims call for selecting from known types of
`
`data compression based on a parameter related to the data or communications channel. They do
`
`not “claim” any particularized technological solutions, such as new compression algorithms or
`
`data transmission methods, which could improve computer processing. Thus, the claims fail to
`
`satisfy Alice step one.
`
`Realtime argues
`
`the patent claims should survive § 101 because
`
`they claim
`
`“technological solutions to technological problems, not abstract subject matter.” (Opp’n Br. 5.)
`
`But Realtime has not shown this to be the case. First, Realtime alleges that its “claims are
`
`directed to digital data compression, which plainly is not abstract.” (Id. at 6.) But digital data
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 632
`
`compression and decompression are forms of encoding and decoding, which was held to be
`
`abstract in RecogniCorp: “We find that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of encoding and
`
`decoding image data. … This method reflects standard encoding and decoding, an abstract
`
`concept long utilized to transmit information.” RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326.
`
`Realtime next asserts the claims are directed to “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.” (Opp’n Br. 6.) Yet
`
`Realtime does not identify a single claim reciting any novel type of “digital data compression” or
`
`unconventional computer components to move data more efficiently. Instead, it points to using
`
`“asymmetrical” compression, a well-understood and conventional algorithm. (See ’535 Pat.,
`
`9:60-66; 10:2-4 (“asymmetrical compression algorithms include dictionary-based compression
`
`schemes such as Lempel-Ziv”).1
`
`Realtime also does not point to any claim limitations that relate to improvements in a
`
`computer’s storage capacity or data transfer, which in any case would necessarily be achieved
`
`simply by well-known compression of the data, as noted in the Fallon Patents:
`
`It is well known within the current art that data compression provides several
`unique benefits. First, data compression can reduce the time to transmit data by
`more efficiently utilizing low bandwidth data links. Second, data compression
`economizes on data storage and allows more information to be stored for a fixed
`memory size by representing information more efficiently.
`
`(’535 Pat., 4:20-27.) Instead, the claims call for generic computer components, such as a storage
`
`medium and a processor, employing admittedly routine compression techniques.
`
`Finally, Realtime tries to point to “specific steps and components” in the claims (Opp’n
`
`Br. 6) to show how they are directed to more than just abstract concepts. But its effort to do so
`
`1
`U.S. Patent No. 5,243,341, cited on the face of the ’535 Patent, filed in 1992, is entitled
`“Lempel-Ziv compression scheme with enhanced adaption,” confirming that asymmetrical
`compression algorithms, like Lempel-Ziv, were well known.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 633
`
`demonstrates how abstract the claims actually are. First, Realtime points to “(i) the use of ‘a
`
`plurality of different’ compression algorithms or techniques” (id.), but this is an abstract concept
`
`of using different types of known compression. Second, Realtime points to “(ii) determining
`
`‘data parameters’ or ‘attributes’ of a digital data block” (id.), but these are completely abstract
`
`concepts since there is no notion of what parameters or attributes are being determined. Third,
`
`Realtime points to “(iii) ‘select[ing]’ specific techniques based upon that determination relating
`
`to ‘a throughput of a communication channel,’ or a digital data ‘access profile.’” (Id.) But
`
`picking a type of known compression based on a parameter is still an abstract step. Finally,
`
`Realtime points to “(iv) requiring the selected techniques to be ‘asymmetric,’ and other novel
`
`elements” (id.), but asymmetric compression was well known and used at the time as explained
`
`in the specification. (’535 Pat., 1:35-38, 9:63-65, 10:2-4.)
`
`Realtime also attempts to focus on problems in the prior art identified in the specification,
`
`but fails to explain how those problems were solved by the Fallon Patents, or how that solution is
`
`captured in the claim language. It is the “claim—as opposed to something purportedly described
`
`in the specification” -- that needs to satisfy the patent eligibility test. Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Realtime irrelevantly cites to the specification’s discussion of problems related to known
`
`“file allocation tables,” and points to the statement: “Practical limitations in the size of the data
`
`required to both represent and process an individual data block address, along with the size of
`
`individual data blocks governs the type of file allocation tables currently in use.” (’535 Pat.,
`
`6:31-34, cited at Opp’n Br. 8.) But the claims of the Fallon Patents do not capture an alleged
`
`solution to those problems, or even recite the term “file allocation table.” Nor do the claims
`
`recite any new types of file allocation table or improvements to file allocation tables.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 634
`
`Unlike RecogniCorp, none of Realtime’s cases relates to encoding data, and Realtime
`
`cites to cases related to: behavior-based virus scanning, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879
`
`F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018); self-referential databases, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
`
`1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); computer memory caches, Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867
`
`F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and a user interface for unlaunched applications, Core Wireless
`
`Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). None of these
`
`technologies is analogous to encoding data based on a parameter.
`
`B.
`
`The Other Courts’ § 101 Decisions Are Not Binding Or Relevant
`
`This Court is not obligated to follow the District of Colorado, which denied a § 101
`
`motion to dismiss, without a written decision, as to (a) U.S. Patent No. 8,867,610, a patent not
`
`being asserted against Sony, and (b) the ’535 Patent, one of patents asserted against Sony. This
`
`Court can reach its own conclusion as to the patents asserted in this case. E.g., GoDaddy.com,
`
`LLC v. RPost Commc’ns Ltd., No. 2:14-cv-00126, 2016 WL 3165536, at *27 n.25 (D. Ariz.
`
`June 7, 2016) (holding three patents invalid under § 101 that were previously held valid under
`
`§ 101 four days earlier by a different court, noting: “The Court has considered Judge Casper’s
`
`order and gives it ‘weight,’ … but ‘reach[es] a contrary legal conclusion’ after exercising due
`
`‘caution,’ see Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, 5 F.3d 1557, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1993).”), aff’d, No. 2016-
`
`2335, 685 F. App’x 992 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2017) (per curium), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 568
`
`(2017).
`
`Realtime’s additional reliance on § 101 denials from the Eastern District of Texas as to
`
`other unrelated patents asserted in other cases is not relevant to the issue of the abstract nature of
`
`the patents asserted in this case. Realtime does not identify any common claim terms or
`
`inventive concepts in those other patents, which are not asserted in this case.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 635
`
`C. Sony Has Not Mischaracterized The Law Or The Claims
`
`The cases cited by Sony are on point. For example, RecogniCorp related to encoding of
`
`data, and Realtime does not dispute that compression is a form of encoding data. Realtime’s
`
`attempt to distinguish RecogniCorp as not requiring a computer (Opp’n Br. 12) is misplaced,
`
`since one claim required a computer and was held abstract. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1328
`
`(“Independent claim 36 claims the use of a computer, but it does exactly what we have warned it
`
`may not: tell a user to take an abstract idea and apply it with a computer.”).
`
`Realtime also argues that Sony mischaracterizes the claims (Opp’n Br. 14-15), but
`
`Realtime describes the patents as directed to essentially the same abstract idea identified by
`
`Sony: “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.” (Opp’n Br. 2.)
`
`But using a processor or other generic computer hardware to perform an otherwise abstract
`
`process that could be performed by a human does not make an idea patent-eligible. See
`
`RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1328. In the Fallon Patents, the claimed generic processor is merely a
`
`tool for performing the abstract steps of selecting an encoder and then applying that encoder,
`
`steps that could otherwise be performed by a human.
`
`Sony has not ignored “the actual character of claims” and has showed that the claims do
`
`not “recite specific processes, systems, and methods to improve computer capability.” (Opp’n
`
`Br. 14.) Speed of a computer is not being increased via using known compression techniques,
`
`nor is there improved storage capacity by using compression techniques already known to
`
`improve storage capacity. This is akin to asserting that a patent claim “improves” the speed of a
`
`car by utilizing a known V-6 or V-8 engine, as opposed to claiming an improved turbocharger
`
`that would affect the speed of the engine.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 636
`
`III. THE CLAIMS ALSO FAIL TO ADD
`AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT UNDER ALICE STEP TWO
`
`As to Alice step two, Realtime fails to identify how any alleged inventive concept is
`
`captured in the asserted claims. See Two-Way, 874 F.3d at 1338-39 (specification described
`
`“a technological innovation” but it was not present in claims, which were thus held
`
`patent-ineligible). To survive Alice step two, any inventive concept must be captured in the
`
`claims regardless of whether any such concept is described in the specification. See id. This is
`
`not the case with the claims of the Fallon Patents.
`
`A.
`
`The Claims Elements, Individually And As An
`Ordered Combination, Do Not Add An Inventive Concept
`
`Contrary to Realtime’s assertion, Sony has not merely alleged that individual claim
`
`elements were known in the art. Rather, Sony showed that the claim elements, individually and
`
`in combination, do not add any inventive concept under Alice step two.2
`
`First, all of the claim elements are known, such as the compression algorithms
`
`(symmetric and asymmetric), processors, storage mediums, etc. This is not disputed by
`
`Realtime. Second, there is nothing inventive about the combination or order of steps or elements
`
`in any of the claims. For example, claim 15 of the ’535 Patent, the only asserted method claim,
`
`provides a conventional order of steps of: determining a parameter of the data to be compressed;
`
`selecting a type of compressor based on the determined parameter; compressing the data with the
`
`selected compressor; and then storing the compressed data. There is nothing unconventional
`
`about this order of steps, nor does Realtime make such an allegation. See Two-Way, 874 F.3d
`
`at 1339 (“The claim uses a conventional ordering of steps—first processing the data, then routing
`
`2
`See, e.g., Sony Br. 6: “The claims also contain no … combination of elements, to ensure
`
`the patents amount to significantly more than claiming the abstract concept itself”); id. at 13:
`“The additional limitations in the claims of the ’477 Patent do nothing more than implement the
`abstract idea without … adding new elements or a new ordered combination of elements”); id.
`at 14 n.4: “The claims also add no elements or combination of elements as to how the processer
`even determines throughput of the communications channel that would add inventive step.”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 637
`
`it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception—with conventional technology to achieve its
`
`desired result”). Likewise, all of the system claims recite a processor or controller that
`
`determines a parameter, and then selects a compression technique based on the determined
`
`parameter, again a conventional order of operation. For example, a user can determine the
`
`parameter of data to be compressed, then determine which compression routine to use, then use
`
`the selected compression routine and store the compressed data. (’535 Pat., 8:44-46, 14:30-36.)
`
`This “ordered combination” does not add anything new to the known general computer nor
`
`provide any improvement to the computer’s functions. Sony showed in detail how each
`
`representative claim of each patent failed to satisfy Alice step two by adding no additional steps
`
`or elements, or unconventional ordering of steps or elements. (Sony Br. 9-11, 13-16, 18-20.)
`
`B. No Questions Of Fact Need To Be Decided
`
`Realtime argues that “any Alice step 2 analysis involves underlying factual questions”
`
`(Opp’n Br. 16 (citing Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). But
`
`Berkheimer held that “whether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law
`
`which may contain underlying facts.” Id. at 1368 (emphasis added). Berkheimer also made clear
`
`that courts may continue to decide patent eligibility on a motion to dismiss, and that questions of
`
`fact precluding a motion to dismiss may only exist “to the extent [the improvements in the
`
`specification] are captured in the claims.” Id. at 1369 (emphasis added). Thus, in Berkheimer,
`
`four claims were held to be patent ineligible because they did not include limitations that
`
`incorporated the arguably inventive concept. Id. at 1369-70.
`
`Subsequent Federal Circuit decisions have confirmed that the alleged inventive concept
`
`must be captured in the claims. In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882
`
`F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court reversed a denial of leave to file an amended complaint
`
`that alleged the claim term “data file” constituted an inventive concept. Id. at 1129-30. In
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 638
`
`Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 2017-1494, 2018 WL 935455 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Feb. 16, 2018), the court found no factual issues precluding dismissal under Rule 12(c)
`
`because there were no allegations that “the hardware components in the representative claims—
`
`either alone or in combination as a system—are anything but well-understood, routine, and
`
`conventional,” and “the specification also more pointedly indicates that the recited components
`
`of the claimed RFID system were conventional.” Id. at *5 (emphasis added).
`
`Citing to Berkheimer, this Court also recently granted summary judgment of patent
`
`ineligibility because there was no inventive concept captured in the claims, and thus no facts in
`
`dispute. D&M Holdings Inc. v. Sonos, Inc., C.A. No. 16-141-RGA, 2018 WL 934597, at *7
`
`(D. Del. Feb. 16, 2018). The Court explained that “none of the independent or dependent claim
`
`language captures the ‘sophisticated computer programming’ or the ‘user interface’ that
`
`Plaintiffs argue provide inventive concepts that were not well-understood, routine, or
`
`conventional” and thus no genuine dispute of material fact. Id. at *7 (citing Berkheimer).
`
`Here, Realtime does not dispute that (1) various types of compression routines were
`
`available, including “asymmetric” routines, (2) a user could select the compression routine based
`
`on a parameter, and (3) the individual claim elements were known. Based on these undisputed
`
`facts, the only remaining issue is one of law: whether the alleged order of combination can
`
`transform the abstract idea into patent eligible matter—which it does not.
`
`In sum, the claims describe nothing more than well-understood, conventional and routine
`
`techniques. Although Realtime suggests there is something inventive about the system’s ability
`
`to optimize the balance between compression rate and compression ratio, even if an inventive
`
`concept, it is not captured in the claims. The claims recite conventional data operations (e.g.,
`
`that compressors compress digital data) in a conventional order, incident to the underlying
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 639
`
`abstract idea. See IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft Labs Inc., No. 16 CV 7774, 2017 WL 3581162, at *5
`
`(N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2017) (finding nothing “unique” about the arrangement of a “receiver” and
`
`“verifier”); Two-Way, 874 F.3d at 1339 (“The claim uses a conventional ordering of steps—first
`
`processing the data, then routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception—with
`
`conventional technology to achieve its desired result”).
`
`C. The Claimed Inventions Involve Conventional Solutions
`
`Realtime’s listing of various claim elements, in whole or in part, in various claims across
`
`four of the Fallon Patents (Opp’n Br. 17) are presented without an explanation as to how they
`
`capture the inventive concept. For example, Realtime alleges that the claims recite
`
`“unconventional technological solutions” (id.), but never states what is unconventional except
`
`for reference to the abstract idea itself untethered to any specific claim element. Realtime also
`
`bullet lists passages from the specification as to “data storage and retrieval bandwidth
`
`limitations, “seek-time access delays,” and “compression ratio to encoding and decoding speed”
`
`(id. at 17-18), without citing to any relevant claim language.
`
`Realtime cites to the Fallon Patents’ statement that “provid[ing] an optimal balance
`
`between … compression rate … and the resulting compression ratio, is highly desirable.” (Id.
`
`at 18 (quoting ’535 Pat., 1:56-60 (emphasis added)).) But as the specification makes clear, this
`
`was already known to be desirable in the art, and is not an inventive concept sufficient to satisfy
`
`Alice step two. Even if an inventive concept, Realtime has not identified a single claim reciting
`
`optimal balancing between compression rate and resulting compression ratio.
`
`Finally, Realtime seeks to introduce evidence not in the pleadings in the form of “reasons
`
`for allowance” issued by the Patent Office during prosecution of one of the Fallon Patents.
`
`(Opp’n Br. 19.) This evidence is also irrelevant here, because novelty under § 102 and § 103 “is
`
`of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within [] § 101.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 640
`
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`
`Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the claims may not have been
`
`anticipated or obvious … that does not suggest that the idea … is not abstract, much less that its
`
`implementation is not routine and conventional.”).
`
`IV.
`
`THE REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS USED ARE APPROPRIATE
`
`Berkheimer confirmed that a court may treat a claim as representative where, as in this
`
`case, “the patentee does not present any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of
`
`any claim limitations not found in the representative claim.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365.
`
`Here, Realtime failed to present any “meaningful argument” supporting patentability of a single
`
`one of the 143 claims in the patents, let alone identified any other claim reciting an inventive
`
`concept not found in the representative claims.3 There is no requirement that a court analyze
`
`each and every claim with the same degree of precision where, as here, the claims are
`
`“substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” Content Extraction & Transmission
`
`LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Finally, claim construction is not required because (1) Realtime has failed to identify any
`
`terms whose construction that would impact the § 101 analysis, and (2) even if the claims were
`
`“limited to digital data compression” as Realtime argues (Opp’n Br. 20), and as Sony assumed
`
`for the purposes of its motion, they would still be invalid under § 101 as explained above.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should therefore find all claims of the Fallon Patents patent ineligible.
`
`
`3
`For example, while the ‘046 Patent has limitations such as tracking “pending access
`
`requests” and “predetermined throughput threshold,” Realtime’s opposition made no separate
`arguments as to the patentability of claims based on these additional features.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 641
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
`
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`March 15, 2018
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01693-JFB-SRF Document 21 Filed 03/15/18 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 642
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 15, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on March 15,
`
`2018, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire
`Sara E. Bussiere, Esquire
`BAYARD, P.A.
`600 North King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Marc A. Fenster, Esquire
`Reza Mirzaie, Esquire
`Brian D. Ledahl, Esquire
`C. Jay Chung, Esquire
`Philip X. Wang, Esquire
`Timothy T. Hsieh, Esquire
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025-1031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
`
`
`
`
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`