Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 51 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1044
`
`August 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`
`
`The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
`United States District Court
`844 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 19-01410-MN
`
`Dear Judge Noreika:
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s July 9, 2020 Order (D.I. 48), Amazon identifies Bridge and Post,
`Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which the Federal Circuit
`invalidated claims analogous to those challenged here. See Ex. A.
`
`In Bridge and Post, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision holding three
`patents invalid under § 101. The patents “describe[d] tracking a user’s computer network activity
`and using information gained about the user to deliver targeted media, such as advertisements.”
`Id. at 884. The representative claim of the challenged ’594 patent recited the steps of “receiving”
`a user request for content, “retrieving” a “persistent identifier” of the access device, “generating”
`and “analyzing” the user’s profile based on location, access device, and network identifier, and
`“placing directed media” customized for the user. Id. at 886–887. At Alice Step One, the Federal
`Circuit found that the claim was directed to the “abstract idea of implementing targeted marketing
`using a persistent identifier.” Id. at 887. The panel noted that “[t]argeted marketing is a form of
`‘tailoring information based on [provided] data,’” an idea that the Federal Circuit had previously
`held to be abstract. Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One
`Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). The claimed steps of “retrieving,”
`“analyzing,” and “placing” were “nothing more than a computer-implementation” of the idea of
`targeted marketing, and the remaining claim requirements were “generic computer functions
`performed in the service of implementing targeted marketing.” Id. The panel rejected the
`patentee’s argument that the claim recited a technological solution because it used “specific
`information” to provide customized content. Id. at 887–888. The claim also failed at Alice Step
`Two because it recited only “conventional” hardware, and the specification acknowledged that
`“tracking users in order to display advertisements was known in the pre-Internet world, and that
`[the claimed] steps for accomplishing this on the Internet were conventional.” Id. at 891.
`
`VB Assets’ claims are also ineligible: they recite a generic computer implementation of
`the abstract idea of responding to a user request rather than a specific technological solution. And
`the fact that certain claims respond to the user request by using shared information, completing a
`transaction, or presenting an advertisement does not change the abstract nature of the claims. If
`the challenged claims in Bridge and Post are ineligible under § 101, VB Assets’ claims are too.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Andrew C. Mayo
`
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 51 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1045
`
`The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
`August 13, 2020
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ACM/nlm
`
`
`cc:
`
`Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`