Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 45 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1019
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-1410-MN
`
`
`
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.1.2(b) CITATION OF SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6)
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2(b), defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC,
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., A2Z Development Center, Inc. d/b/a Lab126, AMZN Mobile LLC,
`
`AMZN Mobile 2 LLC, Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., and
`
`Amazon Digital Services LLC (together, “Amazon”) respectfully submit this citation of
`
`subsequent authority in support of their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the above
`
`action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (D.I. 25).
`
`On June 19, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss
`
`Technologies, Inc., No. 2019-1765, 2020 WL 3400682 (Fed. Cir. June 19, 2020), affirming a
`
`district court order granting a motion to dismiss and holding three patents invalid for failure to
`
`claim eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A copy of the opinion is attached hereto as
`
`{01581965;v1 }
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 45 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1020
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1. In Dropbox, the plaintiff asserted three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,178,505 (the “’505
`
`patent”), 6,058,399 (the “’399 patent”), and 7,567,541 (the “’541 patent”).
`
`The ’505 patent generally disclosed a “device providing data security associated with a
`
`user in response to a request for data from the user.” Id. at *3. The Federal Circuit concluded that
`
`the representative claims of the ’505 patent were directed to an abstract idea because the only
`
`claimed advance over the prior art—an “access checker”—was “nothing but a functional
`
`abstraction,” and was treated in the specification as a “black box.” Id. Even though the patent
`
`purported to solve a technological problem related to data security, the patent did not “describe
`
`how to solve the problem.” Id. at *4 (emphasis in original). The claims were non-inventive
`
`because they simply recited “the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-
`
`understood techniques specified in broad, functional language.” Id.
`
`The ’399 patent generally disclosed “combin[ing] the user interface of an interactive
`
`connection, like a website, with a file upload connection, such as an FTP ([a] file transfer
`
`protocol).” See id. at *5. The Federal Circuit concluded that the representative claims of the ’399
`
`patent were directed to an abstract idea, noting that “[t]o claim a technological solution to a
`
`technological problem, the patent must actually claim the technological solution.” Id. at *6
`
`(emphasis in original). The panel rejected the patentee’s argument that limitations reciting “a
`single session ID associating between . . . two connections” and a “synchronizer” rendered the
`
`claims non-abstract, because “[w]hatever result the patent attributes” to these elements, neither
`
`“amount[s] to a non-abstract improvement—that is, a technological solution.” Id. The claims did
`
`not disclose an inventive concept because they merely recited “the application of the abstract
`
`‘synchronizer’ and ‘session ID’ [limitations] to otherwise routine and conventional technology.”
`
`Id.
`
`{01581965;v1 }
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 45 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1021
`
`
`
`The ’541 patent generally disclosed a method of backing up data from a mobile device to
`
`a server over a mobile network. See id. at *7. According to the patentee, “the ‘claimed advance’
`
`of the patent” was “‘a unified tag and data structure,’ including transmitting data with an
`
`accompanying user ID and ‘remote server synchronization for wirelessly backing up data.’” Id.
`
`The Federal Circuit concluded that the representative claim was directed to an abstract idea
`
`because it recited “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer
`
`activity.” Id. The claims recited no inventive concept, because “the ’541 patent itself teaches that
`
`the two allegedly inventive concepts were routine and conventional.” Id. at *8. The panel rejected
`
`the patentee’s argument that the patent disclosed inventive “data structures” because “no data
`
`structures—much less any inventive data structures—are evident in the claims.” Id.
`
`The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the complaint’s
`
`“conclusory allegations [were] insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.” Id. The allegations in
`
`the complaint merely “restate[d] the claim elements and append[ed] a conclusory statement that
`
`‘nothing in the specification describes these concepts as well-understood, routine, or
`
`conventional.’” Id. The allegations also “claim[ed] that each of the patents solve[d] given
`
`technological problems, but never provide[d] more support than a conclusory statement” that the
`
`claims “represented a significant advance over existing approaches.” Id. Such allegations
`
`amounted to a “legal conclusion about the § 101 analysis” that courts need not consider in resolving
`
`patent eligibility. See id.
`
`
`
`{01581965;v1 }
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 45 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1022
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 1, 2020
`
`
`Of counsel:
`
`J. David Hadden, CSB No. 176148
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov, CSB No. 215636
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ravi R. Ranganath, CSB No. 272981
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`Vigen Salmastlian, CSB No. 276846
`vsalmastlian@fenwick.com
`Sapna Mehta, CSB No. 288238
`smehta@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`650.988.8500
`
`Melanie L. Mayer, WSBA No. 36971
`mmayer@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`206.389.4510
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Steven J. Balick
`
`
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A.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, AMZN Mobile LLC, AMZN
`Mobile 2 LLC, Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a
`Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., and
`Amazon Digital Services LLC
`
`{01581965;v1 }
`
`4
`
`