Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 1 of 48 PageID #: 7407
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM LLC,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., A2Z
`DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. d/b/a LAB126,
`RAWLES LLC, AMZN MOBILE LLC, AMZN
`MOBILE 2 LLC, AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.
`f/k/a AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC.,
`and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OMNIBUS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC, Amazon
`Web Services, Inc., A2Z Development Center,
`Inc. d/b/a Lab126, Rawles, LLC, AMZN
`Mobile LLC, AMZN Mobile 2 LLC,
`Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a Amazon
`Fulfillment Services, Inc., and Amazon.com
`Services LLC
`
`Of counsel:
`
`J. David Hadden, CSB No. 176148
`Saina S. Shamilov, CSB No. 215636
`Ravi R. Ranganath, CSB No. 272981
`Vigen Salmastlian, CSB No. 276846
`Allen Wang, CBS No. 278953
`Johnson Kuncheria, CSB No. 335765
`Min Wu, CSB No. 307512
`Jeffrey A. Ware, CSB No. 271603
`Rebecca A.E. Fewkes, CSB No. 209168
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Dated: February 3, 2023
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 7408
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .........................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................3
`
`The Court’s Motion to Dismiss Order .....................................................................5
`
`The Accused Alexa Technology ..............................................................................6
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`The asserted claims are patent-ineligible and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ........8
`
`1.
`
`The ’703 patent is patent ineligible. .............................................................9
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’703 patent are drawn to the
`abstract idea of responding to a spoken request by
`completing a transaction for a product or service. ...........................9
`
`The asserted claims of the ’703 patent add
`no inventive concept. .....................................................................12
`
`2.
`
`The ’097 patent is patent ineligible ............................................................16
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The claims of the ’097 patent are directed to the abstract
`idea of processing natural language responses to promotional
`content based on pronouns. ............................................................16
`
`The asserted claims of the ’097 patent recite
`no inventive concept. .....................................................................18
`
`3.
`
`The ’681 patent is patent ineligible. ...........................................................20
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’681 patent are drawn to the abstract
`idea of responding to a spoken request using shared information .20
`
`The asserted claims of the ’681 patent add
`no inventive concept. .....................................................................22
`
`B.
`
`The accused technology is fundamentally different from the technology
`claimed in the asserted patents. ..............................................................................26
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 7409
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The accused technology does not infringe the ’681 patent as a matter of law. .....28
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`VB Assets fails to identify any “utterance” in Alexa that meets each
`limitation of the ’681 patent claims. ..........................................................28
`
`VB Assets fails to show that Alexa “grammatically or syntactically
`adapts” its response to an utterance as the claims require. ........................32
`
`The accused technology does not infringe the ’536 patent as a matter of law. .....32
`
`The accused technology does not infringe the ’097 patent as a matter of law. .....35
`
`The accused technology does not infringe the ’176 patent as a matter of law. .....36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1 and 27 and its dependents 29, 35, and 36 require mapping of
`phonemes that the accused Alexa does not perform. .................................36
`
`Claims 14 and 40 and its dependent claims 43, 45 46 require
`reinterpretation of a previous utterance that Alexa does not perform. ......38
`
`G.
`
`The accused technology does not infringe the ’703 patent as a matter of law. .....39
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 7410
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................8, 10, 19
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC,
`IPR2020-01346, 2022 WL 320531 (PTAB Feb. 1, 2022) .........................................................1
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................10, 17
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9
`
`Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc.,
`778 Fed. Appx. 882 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2019) ...........................................................................17
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................17, 32
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1263 (2004) .........................................................................................................28, 38
`
`Elec. Commc’n Techs, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC,
`958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................17
`
`Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co.,
`420 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................32
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................9
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 7411
`
`
`
`Intell. Sci. & Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`589 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................31
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................16
`
`IPA Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`307 F. Supp. 3d 356 (D. Del. 2018) ...................................................................................10, 22
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Lab’y, Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google LLC,
`8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................16, 26
`
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.,
`983 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................31
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................9
`
`VOIT Techs., LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc.,
`No. 5:17-CV-259-BO, 2018 WL 385188 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2018)
`aff’d, 757 F. App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...............................................................................11
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 7412
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS1
`
`No.
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`10.
`11.
`12.
`13.
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Exhibit
` U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 (the “’681 patent”)
` U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176 (the “’176 patent”)
` U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536 (the “’536 patent”)
` U.S. Patent No. 9,269,097 (the “’097 patent”)
` U.S. Patent No. 9,626,703 (the “’703 patent”)
` Opening Expert Report of Michael T. Johnson, Ph.D. (“Johnson Op. Rpt.”)
` Rebuttal Expert Report of Michael T. Johnson, Ph.D. (“Johnson Reb. Rpt.”)
` Reply Expert Report of Michael T. Johnson, Ph.D. (“Johnson Reply Rpt.”)
` Opening Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (“Polish Op. Rpt.”)
` Rebuttal Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (“Polish Reb. Rpt.”)
` Reply Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (“Polish Reply Rpt.”)
` Opening Expert Report of John Charles Peck, Jr. (“Peck Op. Rpt.”)
` Rebuttal Expert Report of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D. (“Ugone Reb. Rpt.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Michael T. Johnson, Ph.D. (November 12, 2022)
`(“Johnson Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (December 8, 2022)
`(“Polish Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (December 16, 2022)
`(“Polish Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of John Charles Peck, Jr. (“Peck Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Björn Hoffmeister (“Hoffmeister Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Kelly Vanee (“Vanee Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Vinod Krishnan (“Krishnan Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Michael Rye Kennewick (“Kennewick Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Thomas Freeman (“Freeman Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Larry Baldwin (“Baldwin Dep.”)
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Rajiv Mehta (“Mehta Dep.”)
` Email from I. Liston to V. Salmastlian dated June 3, 2022
` Email from J. Yoon to V. Salmastlian dated August 14, 2022
` Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC, IPR2020-01367, Exhibit 2005 (May 21, 2021)
` Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC, IPR2020-01367, Paper 6 (Dec. 17, 2020)
` Exhibit 79 of Vinod Krishnan’s June 3, 2022 deposition
` AMZ_VB_PA_00012284-94, titled “Logic and Conversation” (“Grice paper”)
` AMZ_VB_00483521-28,
`
` VoiceBox-0006684-91, titled “Enhancing the VUE (Voice-User-Experience) Through
`Conversational Speech” (“VUE paper”)
`33.
` VB Assets’ February 18, 2021 Response to Amazon’s Interrogatories
`34.
` Amazon’s July 30, 2021 Response to VB Assets’ Interrogatories
`35.
` Excerpt of Deposition Transcript of Frederic Deramat (“Deramat Dep.”)
`
`1 Exhibits are attached to the accompanying Declaration of Saina S. Shamilov.
`
`17.
`18.
`19.
`20.
`21.
`22.
`23.
`24.
`25.
`26.
`27.
`28.
`29.
`30.
`31.
`
`32.
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 7413
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiff VB Assets, LLC (“VB Assets”) filed this patent infringement action against De-
`
`fendants2 on July 29, 2019. (D.I. 1.) VB Assets amended its complaint on October 9, 2019. (D.I.
`
`22.) It originally asserted six patents. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board found one patent invalid,
`
`which VB Assets then withdrew.3 Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLC, IPR2020-01346, 2022 WL
`
`320531, at *16 (PTAB Feb. 1, 2022). VB Assets now alleges literal infringement of 41 claims across
`
`five patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681 (Ex. 1, “’681 patent”), 7,818,176 (Ex. 2, “’176 patent”),
`
`8,886,536 (Ex. 3, “’536 patent”), 9,269,097 (Ex. 4, “’097 patent”), and 9,626,703 (Ex. 5, “’703
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”).4 (Ex. 26, Aug. 14, 2022 email from J. Yoon to V.
`
`Salmastlian.) It accuses aspects of Amazon’s Alexa voice AI of infringement. Fact and expert dis-
`
`covery are closed. (D.I. 143.) No pretrial conference or trial date has been set. (D.I. 172; D.I. 179.)
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
`
`1.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’703, ’097, and ’681 patents claim ineligible subject
`
`matter and are thus invalid under § 101. The patents generally relate to systems and methods for
`
`responding to spoken requests. But the patents disclose no specific, let alone new, technology to
`
`
`2 Defendants are Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com LLC; Amazon Web Services, Inc.; A2Z
`Development Center, Inc. d/b/a Lab126; Rawles LLC; AMZN Mobile LLC; AMZN Mobile 2
`LLC; Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.; and Amazon Digital
`Services LLC (collectively “Amazon”).
`3 VB Assets withdrew U.S. Patent No. 9,015,049 on June 3, 2022. (Ex. 25, June 3, 2022 email
`from I. Liston to V. Salmastlian.)
`4 VB Assets asserts claims 1, 13, 25, 26, 29-31, 33, and 36 of ’681 patent; claims 1, 14, 27, 29,
`35, 40, 43, 45, and 46 of ’176 patent; claims 1, 3, 12, 30, 38, 50, 52, and 53 of ’536 patent; claims
`1, 4, 8, 15, 20, and 23 of ’097 patent; and claims 15, 16, 20-22, 25, 26, and 30, 33 of ’703 patent.
`The ’176, ’536, and ’097 patents share the same specification and patent figures. During an IPR
`proceeding, VB Assets disclaimed claims 37-42 of ’681 patent. (Ex. 27, Amazon.com, Inc. v. VB
`Assets, LLC, IPR2020-01367, Ex. 2005.) VB Assets does not assert any doctrine of equivalents
`theory of infringement.
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 7414
`
`
`
`do so. Instead, they repackage concepts described in a 15-year-old aspirational white paper, in-
`
`cluding the idea of mimicking human conversations by using context and shared knowledge, and
`
`leave the hard work of devising speech systems implementing these high-level concepts to others.
`
`2.
`
`The ’703 patent is drawn to the idea of responding to a spoken request by complet-
`
`ing a transaction for a product or service; the ’097 patent is drawn to the idea of responding to a
`
`spoken request utterance with advertisements; and the ’681 patent is drawn to the idea of respond-
`
`ing to a spoken request using shared information. The asserted claims recite nothing more than
`
`these ideas—aspirational results—implemented using a combination of functional steps, well-un-
`
`derstood routine, and conventional computing and speech processing technology that do not pro-
`
`vide an inventive concept. The asserted claims of these patents are thus invalid under § 101.
`
`3.
`
`VB Assets also cannot meet its burden to prove infringement of any of the asserted
`
`patents because they are directed to spoken language processing methodologies that the accused
`
`technologies’ sophisticated machine learning and deep neural networks do not employ.
`
`4.
`
`VB Assets cannot prove infringement of the ’681 patent. The asserted claims of
`
`the patent require “receiving an utterance” and using accumulated shared knowledge about a user’s
`
`prior utterances from the current and past conversations to identify “a context associated with the
`
`utterance” to understand it. (Ex. 1, ’681 patent, claims 1, 13, 25.) But VB Assets’ expert admitted
`
`in deposition that he has not identified a single utterance that he consistently mapped to all require-
`
`ments of any claim. This is fatal to VB Assets’ infringement theory. The expert also did not
`
`identify any Alexa response that is “grammatically or syntactically adapt[ed] . . . based on the
`
`intended meaning [of the utterance],” which each asserted claim requires.
`
`5.
`
`VB Assets’ infringement theory for the asserted claims of the ’536 patent fails for
`
`the same reason as the ’681 patent. Each asserted claim requires two separate natural language
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 7415
`
`
`
`utterances and recites additional requirements that the second utterance must meet. Because VB
`
`Assets’ expert does not identify these separate utterances or map any second natural langue utter-
`
`ance to each claim requirement, VB Assets cannot prove infringement of the ’536 patent.
`
`6.
`
`There is no genuine dispute that the accused technology does not
`
`
`
` which all asserted claims require, and thus it
`
`cannot infringe the ’097 patent.
`
`7.
`
`The accused technology does not infringe the ’176 patent because it does not
`
`“map[] a stream of phonemes . . . to one or more syllables” and does not determine that it “incor-
`
`rectly interpreted [] words or phrases . . . [and] reinterpret[] the words or phrases in response to [a]
`
`predetermined event,” as the asserted claims require,
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The accused technology does not infringe the ’703 patent because it does not “iden-
`
`tify . . . a product or service to be purchased . . . based at least on the determined context.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`The Asserted Patents
`
`The five asserted patents relate to the same general subject matter—responding to a spoken
`
`request—and disclose only generic computer components and strictly conventional voice technol-
`
`ogy. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, ’176 patent at 3:16-19; 4:25-27; Ex. 5, ’703 patent at 10:39-42; Ex. 1, ’681
`
`patent at 7:24-30; 7:63-66.) They were all originally assigned to a company called VoiceBox.
`
`
`
` (Ex. 33, VB Assets’
`
`February 18, 2021 Resp. to Amazon’s Interrogatories at p. 10; Ex. 16, Polish Dep., 419:17-21.)
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 7416
`
`
`
`The earliest of the asserted patents, the ’681 patent, is titled “System and method for a
`
`cooperative conversational voice user interface.” It explains that, in human conversation, partici-
`
`pants interpret each statement using their knowledge of what was said earlier in the current con-
`
`versation and their knowledge about each other from prior conversations. (Ex. 1, ’681 patent,
`
`1:16-33.) In other words, the patent states that the speakers have “shared knowledge” about their
`
`current and prior conversations from which they understand the “context” of their current conver-
`
`sation. (Id. at 1:30-33.) The patent explains that for a computer to model human conversations,
`
`the computer should do the same: use shared knowledge to identify the context in which to inter-
`
`pret an utterance and resolve ambiguities in the meaning of the words that were said. (Id. at 1:15-
`
`30; 5:48-55 (identifying use of “short-term and/or long-term shared knowledge to . . . evaluate
`
`interaction with a user as a conversation progresses . . . [and] model human-to-human interac-
`
`tion”).) Accordingly, the claims require disambiguating the meaning of a user’s current utterance
`
`by identifying its context using the shared knowledge. (Id., claim 1.) As an example, the specifi-
`
`cation explains that shared knowledge can be used to recognize whether the word “traffic” means
`
`the rock band, the movie, or road conditions, depending on the context gleaned from the current
`
`and prior conversations with the user. (Id. at 11:10-20.) The ’681 patent, like the other asserted
`
`patents, emphasizes that identifying the specific “context” of a user’s utterance is necessary to
`
`interpret and understand the meaning of the user’s request. (Id. at 10:57-60; 11:4-10; Ex. 2, ’176
`
`patent, 4:61-64 (incorporating ’681 patent).) Identifying the specific context of an utterance is the
`
`only way the patents explain how to interpret the utterance. (Ex. 1, ’681 patent, 11:10-20.)
`
`The ’176 patent, ’536 patent, and ’097 patent share the same specification and describe
`
`responding to a spoken request with an advertisement. (Ex. 2, ’176 patent, 1:66-2:2.) The speci-
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 7417
`
`
`
`fication describes a conventional process for recognizing the words of the utterance called Auto-
`
`matic Speech Recognition or ASR (Id. at 3:14-19), a conversational language processor for deter-
`
`mining a context and interpreting the utterance (id. at 4:25-34), and an “[a]dvertising [s]erver 230”
`
`that selects an advertisement. (Id. at 6:19-23, 8:25-32; Fig. 2.)
`
`The ’703 patent is directed to “completing a purchase transaction . . . without further user
`
`input after receipt of” a user’s utterance. (Ex. 5, ’703 patent at 1:52-64.) To provide this func-
`
`tionality, the patent describes (1) recognizing words of the utterance; (2) determining the “context”
`
`of those words and using it to identify a product or service; (3) obtaining required payment and
`
`shipping information; and (4) completing the purchase transaction. (Id. at 3:66-4:6, 4:7-19, 7:60-
`
`8:1.) In another embodiment, the ’703 patent also discloses confirming payment and shipping
`
`information before completing the purchase transaction. (Id. at 2:39-48.)
`
`B.
`
`The Court’s Motion to Dismiss Order
`
`In December 2019, Amazon moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule
`
`12(b)(6) for failure to allege a patentable claim because the asserted patents claim ineligible subject
`
`matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On September 16, 2020, the Court denied the motion, but in doing
`
`so expressed strong reservations about the eligibility of the asserted claims. (D.I. 57 at p. 16 (“I
`
`do understand the concerns that Defendants have about some of these claims.”).)
`
`The Court agreed that claim 30 of the ’703 patent was “directed to a spoken request to buy
`
`something [and] claim[ed] organizing human activity, an abstract idea” at Alice Step 1. (Id. at
`
`p. 13.) At Alice Step 2, the Court noted that the claim “has issues . . . given the functional claim-
`
`ing,” but denied the motion based on fact disputes at the pleading stage. (Id.)
`
`The Court held that claim 1 of the ’097 patent was “directed to [an] abstract idea[]—
`
`namely, processing natural language responses to promotional content based on pronouns.” (Id. at
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 7418
`
`
`
`15.) The Court noted that the functional steps recited by the claim—“‘providing’ an advertise-
`
`ment, ‘receiving’ a user response, and ‘interpreting’ the response”—were “nothing more than the
`
`first half of targeted marketing: accumulating data about how a person interacts with an advertise-
`
`ment or product.” (Id. at p. 15.) The Court declined to hold the claim invalid at the pleading stage
`
`however, based on VB Assets’ allegation that “the use of pronouns in a natural language utterance
`
`in the context of a preceding advertisement was not conventional routine, or well-understood in
`
`the art,” which the specification did not directly “undermine.” (Id. at p. 16.)
`
`The Court did not analyze any of the currently asserted claims of the ’681 patent, but held
`
`that unasserted claim 41, despite reciting “functional” limitations, was non-abstract and directed
`
`to “an improved user interface for speech recognition.” (Id. at p. 11.)
`
`C.
`
`The Accused Alexa Technology
`
`Alexa is a voice-based artificial intelligence assistant that interacts with users through
`
`Alexa-enabled devices, such as Amazon’s Echo smart speaker, to answer questions, play music,
`
`stream real-time information about weather or news, and perform thousands of other tasks. (Ex. 7,
`
`Johnson Reb. Rpt., ¶ 49.) Stated directly, Alexa works in a fundamentally different way than the
`
`asserted patents.
`
` (Ex. 13, Ugone Reb. Rpt., p. 93 (Table 16).)
`
`Dep., 113:7-114:7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 19, Vanee
`
`
`
`; 291:11-292:8; Ex. 35, Deramat Dep., 102:20-103:1; 189:24-190:9.)
`
`While the asserted patents focus on processing a user’s multi-utterance conversations and remem-
`
`bering the user’s past requests, Alexa is designed in a fundamentally different way
`
`
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 7419
`
`
`
` (Ex. 7, Johnson Reb. Rpt., ¶ 119.)
`
` (Id. ¶ 119.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Id. ¶¶ 49, 51, 60, 96.)
`
`The basic operation of Alexa is undisputed: (1) an Alexa-enabled device such as Echo
`
`records and sends an audio signal of the user’s current utterance to Amazon’s cloud servers; (2)
`
`an Automatic Speech Recognition (“ASR”) component receives the audio and
`
` to return a set of words recognized from the utterance (e.g., “what’s,” “the,” “weather,”
`
`“in,” and “Seattle”); (3) the recognized words are provided as an input to a Natural language Un-
`
`derstanding (“NLU”) component;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 7, Johnson Reb. Rpt., ¶¶ 49-78, 133, 285; Ex. 9, Polish Op.
`
`Rpt., ¶¶ 59-135; Ex. 11, Polish Reply Rpt., ¶¶ 49-66; Ex. 15, Polish Dep. at 132:2-11.)
`
`
`5
`
` (Ex. 7, Johnson Reb. Rpt., ¶¶ 52, 67.)
`
`
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 7420
`
`
`
` (Ex. 34, Amazon’s July 30, 2021 Response to VB Assets’ Interrog-
`
`atories at p. 9; Ex. 9, Polish Op. Rpt., ¶¶ 64-66, 74, 75, 88, 90, 107, 129; Ex. 7, Johnson Reb Rpt.,
`
`¶¶ 54, 55, 58, 67, 69, 72, 77.) VB Assets’ infringement expert Dr. Polish reviewed none of them.
`
`Instead, he relies on a source code expert Mr. Peck whose review he did not direct. (Ex. 15, Polish
`
`Dep., 8:5-23.) Mr. Peck did not analyze the asserted claims or attempt to find any functionality in
`
`the code purportedly meeting the claims. (Ex. 15, Polish Dep., 7:1-10; Ex. 17, Peck Dep., 221:12-
`
`23, 25:1-11; see also Ex. 12, Peck Op. Rpt., ¶ 9.) In his source code report, on which Dr. Polish
`
`relies, Mr. Peck merely answers broad questions posed by VB Assets’ counsel such as
`
`
`
` (Ex. 12, Peck
`
`Op. Rpt., ¶ 5, pp. 10, 17; Ex. 17, Peck Dep., 28:10-23, 47:22-48:2.) As a result, Dr. Polish testified
`
`that he does not understand how components he accuses of infringement actually operate, and
`
`admitted that his infringement theory does not consistently map all the elements of the claims.6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`The asserted claims are patent-ineligible and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The Supreme Court directs courts to take a two-step approach in evaluating patent eligibil-
`
`ity. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). First, the court must
`
`determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Id. This requires identifying the
`
`“focus of the claimed advance over the prior art to determine if the claim’s character as a whole is
`
`directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). To claim eligible subject matter, the claims must disclose
`
`
`6 Ex. 15, Polish Dep. at 10:2-16; 15:5-8; 16:6-17:4; 42:11-43:14; 49:20-50:5; 79:16-80:7;
`88:25-89:3; 122:3-10; 150:6-11; 169:25-170:16; 175:19-176:11; 177:2-11; 181:11-182:3; 187:1-
`188:9; 230:15-231:13.
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 15 of 48 PageID #: 7421
`
`
`
`a specific technological solution for the problem they purport to solve. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
`
`Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Put another way, the claims must be “di-
`
`rected to a specific improvement to computer functionality,” not merely describe “the use of con-
`
`ventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment.” In re TLI Commc’ns
`
`LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The second step considers “the elements
`
`of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the addi-
`
`tional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573
`
`U.S. at 217 (citation omitted). Generic computer technology and “well-understood, routine, [and]
`
`conventional” and “purely functional” claim elements cannot supply the required inventive con-
`
`cept. Id. at 221-26 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Lab’y, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-
`
`73, 77, 82 (2012)). Because patent eligibility is an issue of law, resolving eligibility rarely involves
`
`“genuine disputes over the underlying facts material to the § 101 inquiry.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`
`881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Thus, courts routinely resolve patent eligibility at summary
`
`judgment. See, e.g., BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`1.
`
`The ’703 patent is patent ineligible.
`a.
`The asserted claims of the ’703 patent are drawn to the
`abstract idea of responding to a spoken request by completing
`a transaction for a product or service.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’703 patent generally relate to the processing of a user utterance
`
`“to determine a product or service that is to be purchased” and obtaining the required payment and
`
`shipping information to “complet[e] [the] purchase transaction.” (See Ex. 5, ’703 patent, 1:52-
`
`59.) Asserted claim 30 of the ’703 patent is representative. It requires a processor programmed
`
`to receive a voice utterance, send the utterance to an unspecified “speech recognition engine” that
`
`recognizes words and phrases in the utterance and identifies a context based on the recognized
`
`{01879439;v1 }
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 194 Filed 02/10/23 Page 16 of 48 PageID #: 7422
`
`
`
`words, determine a product or service to be purchased based on the recognized context, automati-
`
`cally obtain the user’s purchase and shipping information, and complete the purchase. (Id., cl. 30.)
`
`In other words, the claim recites the result of voice shopping. But it recites only functional limi-
`
`tations, disclosing no actual solution for the technological challenge of recognizing words in the
`
`user’s utterance, determining a context based on the recognized words, or identifying a desired
`
`product based on that context. Results-focused, functional claims such as these are abstract as a
`
`matter of law. See IPA Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d 356, 363, 368-69 (D. Del.
`
`2018) (claims reciting “receiving,” “interpreting,” and “translating” a spoken request were “aspi-
`
`rational in nature and devoid of [] implementation details or [] description . . . .”); see also Affinity,
`
`838 F.3d at 1269; Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244–45 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The Court already concluded correctly that claim 30 of the ’703 patent was directed to an
`
`abstract idea at Alice Step One. The Court held that the claim was directed to the idea of using “a
`
`spoken request to buy something,” and “claimed organizing human activity, an abstract idea.”
`
`(D.I. 57 at p. 13.) Rather t