Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 46 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1031
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`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.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
`NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY
`
`Plaintiff VB Assets, Inc. (“VoiceBox”) respectfully responds to Defendants’ (collectively,
`
`“Amazon’s”) Notice of Subsequent Authority (D.I. 45). Amazon’s Notice cites the Federal
`
`Circuit’s nonprecedential Dropbox decision in support of Amazon’s motion to dismiss
`
`VoiceBox’s first amended complaint. D.I. 45 citing Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies,
`
`Inc., No. 2019-1765, 2020 WL 3400682 (Fed Cir. June 19, 2020). Nothing in Amazon’s Notice
`
`provides any reason for the Court to grant any of the relief requested in Amazon’s motion.
`
`First, Dropbox is not a precedential decision. It is a decision “determined by the panel
`
`issuing it as not adding significantly to the body of law.” Federal Circuit Rule 32.1(b).
`
`Additionally, Amazon’s discussion of Dropbox is directed to arguments that were rejected by
`
`recent binding and on-point Federal Circuit decisions reversing grants of 12(b)(6) motions.
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2020); CardioNet,
`
`LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2020).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 46 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1032
`
`Uniloc held that the claims at issue there were “directed to a patent-eligible improvement
`
`to computer functionality, namely the reduction of latency experienced by parked secondary
`
`stations in communication systems.” 957 F.3d at 1307. The Federal Circuit rejected an argument
`
`that the claims merely recited abstract data manipulation “using results-based functional
`
`language” and generic components. Id. at 1308. The court reasoned that “[c]laims need not
`
`articulate the advantages of the claimed combinations to be eligible.” Id. at 1309. Instead, the
`
`claims simply needed to be “directed to a specific asserted improvement to the functionality of
`
`the communication system itself.” Id. at 1309. The patent in Uniloc, like the VoiceBox Patents,1
`
`claim solutions to problems specifically arising in the technological realm. Id. at 1307–1308.
`
`In CardioNet, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claims at issue there were “directed
`
`to an improved cardiac monitoring device and not to an abstract idea.” 955 F.3d at 1368 (Fed.
`
`Cir. April 17, 2020). The court looked to the written description of the patent and found that it
`
`identified “a number of advantages gained by the elements recited” in the claims—just like the
`
`VoiceBox Patents. Id. at 1369. The court held it was error for the District Court to disregard “the
`
`written description's recitation of the advantages of the claimed invention,” Id. at 1371.
`
`Amazon’s notice incorrectly suggests that the VoiceBox Patents are like the patents in
`
`DropBox in that they: (1) claim “functional abstraction[s]” treated by the specification as a
`
`“black box” (D.I. 45 at 2); (2) do not “actually claim a technological solution” (D.I. 45 at 2); and
`
`(3) recite mere “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer
`
`activity” (D.I. 45 at 3).. Instead, the VoiceBox Patents, unlike the patents in DropBox, claim
`
`specific technological solutions to problems with voice user interface systems and describe the
`
`1 “VoiceBox Patents” collectively refers to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681 (“the ’681 patent”);
`9,015,049 (“the ’049 patent”); 9,626,703 (“the ’703 patent”); 7,818,176 (“the ’176 patent”);
`8,886,536 (“the ’536 patent”); and 9,269,097 (“the ’097 patent”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 46 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1033
`
`advantages of the solutions in the patent specifications. For example, claim 41 of the ’681 patent
`
`recites “a conversational speech engine” that uses “short-term shared knowledge” and “long-
`
`term shared knowledge” to “identify a context” and “infer additional information.” D.I. 27 at 6–
`
`9, D.I. 22-4. The written description explains the advantages that the claimed “conversational
`
`speech engine” had over prior art “command and control” type voice user interface systems. D.I.
`
`27 at 6; see also D.I. 27 at 16-17. As another example, claim 30 of the ’703 patent recites
`
`detailed elements of a system for providing voice commerce that identify “a context,” determine
`
`“a first product or service to be purchased,” obtain “payment” and “shipping” information, and
`
`complete “a purchase transaction” without further user input. D.I. 27 at 9–11, D.I. 22-8. The
`
`other VoiceBox Patents are similarly specific in claiming a technological solution and describing
`
`advantages over the prior art. D.I. 27 at 4–20.
`
`Amazon’s Notice also suggests VoiceBox’s complaint is deficient in the ways that the
`
`complaint in Dropbox was. D.I. 45 at 3. In Dropbox, the patentees’ allegations merely “restate
`
`the claim elements and append a conclusory statement that ‘nothing in the specification describes
`
`these concepts as well-understood, routine, or conventional.’” Dropbox, 2020 WL 3400682, at
`
`*8 (quoting Dropbox’s allegations). Here, VoiceBox’s complaint includes detailed factual
`
`allegations based on the patent specifications’ descriptions of the prior art problems and
`
`advantages provided by the claimed technological solutions, along with snippets of the file
`
`histories confirming such advances over the prior art. D.I. 27 at 16–20.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 46 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1034
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`/s/ Ian R. Liston
`Ian R. Liston (Delaware Bar I.D. # 5507)
`222 Delaware Avenue
`Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`iliston@wsgr.com
`Telephone: (302) 304-7600
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`Attorneys for VB Assets, LLC
`
`Dated: July 6, 2020
`
`Of Counsel:
`Edward G. Poplawski, admitted pro
`hac vice
`Erik J. Carlson, admitted pro hac vice
`Ryan S. Benyamin, admitted pro hac
`vice
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI, P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`ecarlson@wsgr.com
`rbenyamin@wsgr.com
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`James C. Yoon, admitted pro hac vice
`Ryan Smith, admitted pro hac vice
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
`ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 46 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1035
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 6th day of July 2020, a copy of the foregoing document was
`
`served by CM/ECF upon the following counsel:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Steven J. Balick
`Andrew C. Mayo
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`500 Delaware Ave., 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`J. David Hadden
`Saina S. Shamilov
`Ravi R. Ranganath
`Vigen Salmastlian
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`/s/ Ian R. Liston
`Ian R. Liston (DE Bar No. 5507)
`
`1
`
`