Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 41
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION
`INNOVATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 19-2013-MN
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`Steven J. Balick (#2114)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, Delaware 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`sbalick@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Via Transportation, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Leslie M. Spencer
`Hyun-Joong Kim
`Jon Tanaka
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`(212) 593-9000
`leslie.spencer@ropesgray.com
`daniel.kim@ropesgray.com
`jon.tanaka@ropesgray.com
`
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, Sixth Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 617-4000
`gabrielle.higgins@ropesgray.com
`
`Dated: February 5, 2020
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 42
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4 
`A. 
`The Asserted ’285 Patent ........................................................................................ 4 
`B. 
`A Virtually Identical Continuation Patent Has Been Found Patent
`Ineligible ................................................................................................................. 5 
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7 
`Under Alice Step One, the Asserted ’285 Patent Is Directed to the Abstract
`A. 
`Idea of Retrieving an Address and Obtaining Route Guidance to That
`Address ................................................................................................................... 7 
`Retrieving an Address and Obtaining Route Guidance to the
`1. 
`Address Is a Long-Practiced Concept Performed by Humans
`Manually ..................................................................................................... 8 
`Asserted Claim 13 Merely Invokes Generic Technology to
`Automate Long-Practiced Concepts ......................................................... 11 
`Functional Nature of Claim 13 Further Supports Patent Ineligibility ...... 13 
`3. 
`Under Alice Step Two, the Claims of the Asserted Patent Do Not Recite an
`Inventive Concept Sufficient to Transform the Claimed Abstract Idea Into
`Patent-Eligible Subject Matter. ............................................................................. 15 
`Virtually Identical Claims Have Already Been Found Patent Ineligible .............. 16 
`Independent Claim 1 and All Dependent Claims Are Also Patent Ineligible
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................... 17 
`The Issue of Patent Eligibility Is Appropriate to Resolve on Motion to
`Dismiss .................................................................................................................. 19 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20 
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 43
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................20
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirectTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................2
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Baggage Airline Guest Servs., Inc. v. Roadie, Inc.,
`351 F. Supp. 3d 753 (D. Del. 2019) .........................................................................................10
`
`British Telecommc’ns PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp.,
`381 F. Supp. 3d 293 (D. Del. 2019) .........................................................................................16
`
`BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................18
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................16
`
`Callwave Commc’ns, LLC v. AT&T Mobility,
`207 F. Supp. 3d 405 (D. Del. 2016) .................................................................................3, 9, 19
`
`Citrix Sys., Inc. v. Avi Networks, Inc.,
`363 F. Supp. 3d 511 (D. Del. 2019) .........................................................................................19
`
`Clear with Computers, LLC v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.,
`21 F. Supp. 3d 758 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................................................19
`
`Concaten, Inc. v. Ameritrak Fleet Sols., LLC,
`131 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (D. Colo. 2015) ...................................................................................3, 9
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10, 17
`
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed Cir. 2018).............................................................................................11, 13
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 44
`
`
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Epic IP, LLC v. Backblaze, Inc.,
`No. 1:18-cv-141WCB, 2018 WL 6107029 (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2018).......................................14
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................11
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................1, 11
`
`Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc.,
`No. 1:18-cv-00445-RGA, 2019 WL 1236358 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019) ..............................3, 10
`
`Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-00444-RGA, 2018 WL 6168618 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) .....................................10
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
`72 F. Supp. 3d 521 (D. Del. 2014) ...........................................................................................20
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Sallie Mae Bank,
`137 F. Supp. 3d 660 (D. Del. 2015) .........................................................................................19
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7
`
`Rothschild Location Technologies LLC v. Vantage Point Mapping Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-682, 2016 WL 7049401 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) ......................................3, 6, 17
`
`Rothschild Location Technologies v. Geotab USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-682, 2016 WL 2847975 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2016) ..........................................5, 6
`
`Rothschild Location Technologies v. Geotab USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-682, 2016 WL 3584195 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2016) ....................................... passim
`
`Sandbox Software, LLC v. 18Birdies, LLC,
`No. 18-1649-MN, 2019 WL 2524780 (D. Del. June 19, 2019) .....................................2, 12, 13
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 45
`
`
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................8, 10, 13
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................18, 20
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................16, 17
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................13
`
`Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 405 (D.N.J. 2015) ............................................................................................9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 46
`
`
`
`Defendant Via Transportation, Inc. (“Via”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff Geographic
`
`Location Innovations LLC’s (“GLI”) Complaint (D.I. 1) for failure to state a claim upon which
`
`relief can be granted because all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,285 (the “’285 Patent” or
`
`“Asserted Patent”) are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`To survive a 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge, GLI must show that its patent claims: (i) are not
`
`directed to an unpatentable abstract idea, or (ii) contain additional elements that “transform the
`
`nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
`
`U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014). The claims of the ’285 Patent fail both prongs.
`
`As explained in detail below, the ’285 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of retrieving
`
`an address and receiving route guidance to that address—a fundamental concept that humans have
`
`long performed. At least since the automobile was introduced, humans have been manually
`
`retrieving an address (via telephone directory or operator) and obtaining route guidance (travel
`
`directions) to that address. At best, the ’285 Patent claims “automate” this human activity using
`
`pre-existing ubiquitous technology, which is not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into
`
`patentable subject matter. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (“[A] process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as
`
`a tool” fails under Alice step one.).
`
`Furthermore, the claims do not add any inventive concept to the well-known process of
`
`looking up an address and getting directions to that address. As the specification makes plain, the
`
`claimed
`
`invention employs conventional computer and GPS
`
`technology
`
`that
`
`is
`
`“everywhere.” ’285 Patent, 1:15 (“GPS (Global Positioning System) devices are everywhere.”)
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 47
`
`
`
`(emphasis added);1 4:39-46 (“conventional computer processing power”); 5:5-13 (“conventional
`
`locational information processing technology”); 5:36-40 (“display [module] may be in any current
`
`form in the art”); 10:46-49 (“standard GPS computer processing power and systems”); 11:45-48
`
`(same); 12:7-9 (conventional address lookup database software”). As this Court recently stated,
`
`“generic GPS is not an improvement in technology.” Sandbox Software, LLC v. 18Birdies, LLC,
`
`No. 18-1649-MN, 2019 WL 2524780, *3 (D. Del. June 19, 2019). The claims of the ’285 Patent
`
`thus fit into the familiar category of claims that do not “focus . . . on [ ] an improvement in
`
`computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Elec.
`
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“instruction to
`
`apply an abstract idea on a computer” or “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with
`
`applying the abstract idea on a computer” is not an inventive concept under Alice step two).
`
`The ’285 Patent claims do not describe any technological improvement to the conventional
`
`components or system as a whole. For example, the claims recite no improvement to GPS
`
`technology or the known function of “determin[ing] route guidance.” Nor do the claims describe
`
`an improvement to computer servers, networks, displays, address lookup software or databases.
`
`Adding tangible, well-known components to the claims—individually or as an ordered
`
`combination—that simply automate a process previously performed by humans is no better than a
`
`bare recitation of function and outcome, particularly for a well-known process, such as an address
`
`lookup. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(system claim “entirely functional in nature” was abstract, despite tangible components).
`
`Indeed, it is no surprise that a court has already found the claims of a continuation of
`
`
`1 All emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`{01533664;v1 }
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 48
`
`
`
`the ’285 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,606,503 (“the ’503 Patent” or “Continuation Patent”), to be
`
`patent ineligible. The’285 Patent and its continuation share the same specification and nearly
`
`identical claims directed to retrieving an address and providing route guidance. In Rothschild
`
`Location Technologies LLC v. Vantage Point Mapping Inc., No. 6:15-cv-682, 2016 WL 7049401
`
`(E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016), the court denied the motion to reconsider its decision finding patent
`
`ineligible all claims of the ’503 Patent. The Rothschild court explained that the ’503 Patent does
`
`not “disclose any mathematical algorithm or means of applying an algorithm,” “describe a new
`
`server or any new physical component,” or “even when viewed in combination, . . . convey an
`
`inventive concept that renders the claim patentable.” Id. at *7-8. The ’285 Patent claims suffer
`
`these precise deficiencies and are patent-ineligible for the same reasons. GLI should know this
`
`and never should have filed this lawsuit. In strikingly similar circumstances to this case, this Court
`
`recently admonished GLI’s counsel that they “should not have filed suit asserting [] clearly patent
`
`ineligible claims.” Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-00445-RGA, 2019 WL
`
`1236358, *2 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2019) (“[Plaintiff’s] decision [to sue] “was unreasonable under the
`
`law and its behavior should be deterred.”) (motions for exceptional case and fees granted).
`
`Moreover, this Court and others have found claims directed to requesting and receiving
`
`location information to be patent-ineligible. See Callwave Commc’ns, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, 207
`
`F. Supp. 3d 405, 412 (D. Del. 2016) (“Requesting and receiving location information is an abstract
`
`idea.”); Concaten, Inc. v. Ameritrak Fleet Sols., LLC, 131 F. Supp. 3d 1166, 1174 (D. Colo. 2015)
`
`(abstract idea of “receiving information . . . , processing the information, and sending an
`
`[instruction] and a map”). In short, under any plausible reading, the claims of the ’285 Patent fail
`
`to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 49
`
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`The ’285 Patent relates generally to “remotely entering, storing, and sharing addresses for
`
`The Asserted ’285 Patent
`
`a positional information device, e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) device.” Id., 1:11-13. The
`
`patent has two independent claims, system claims 1 and 13. Only claim 13 is asserted. D.I. 1, ¶13.
`
`The Background section of the patent acknowledges that “GPS (Global Positioning System)
`
`devices are everywhere,” and identifies three problems with how prior art GPS devices receive,
`
`store and transmit route information: (1) “different devices recognize addresses differently” (’285
`
`Patent, 1:45–47); (2) “many users have multiple vehicles that go to the same address and require
`
`route guidance by the GPS device” (id., 1:64–66); and (3) “many times a user needs to route to an
`
`address or destination while the user is driving” (id., 2:4–6). The patentee’s purported solution
`
`does not require non-conventional computer systems, networks or GPS devices, but rather a
`
`simplistic and well-known arrangement of conventional components “to allow a user to be able to
`
`easily, quickly and safely program their GPS device(s) with address/destination information.” Id.,
`
`2:28–30.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 13 each claims a “system for remotely entering location
`
`information into a positional information device,” comprising the same conventional components:
`
`
`
` a server configured to receive a request for an address of at least one
`location . . . , and to transmit the determined address to the positional
`information device;
`the positional information device including
`o a locational information module for determining location
`information . . . ;
`o a communication module for receiving
`address . . . from the server;
`o a processing module configured to . . . determine route
`guidance . . . ; and
`
`the determined
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 50
`
`
`
`o a display module for displaying the route guidance; and
` a communications network for coupling the positional information
`device to the server.
`
`The specification confirms that these are well-known components and routine functions:
`
` “[A] global positioning system (GPS) device 100 in accordance with an embodiment
`[is] a hand-held device, [but] it is to be understood the principles of the present
`disclosure may be applied to any type of navigation or positional information
`device . . . .” Id., 4:1-8;
` “The computer processing module 120 will use . . . conventional computer processing
`power . . . It is to be understood that the present disclosure may be implemented in
`various forms of hardware, software, firmware, special purpose processors, or a
`combination thereof.” Id., 4:39–46;
` “The locational information module 122 may include a receiver and antenna ANT
`employing conventional locational information processing technology such as Global
`Positioning Satellite (GPS) Technology, Loran Technology, or any other available
`locational technology . . . .” Id., 5:5–13;
` “The date and time module 124 will use standard computer chip processing
`technology widely in use, or alternatively, input from locational information module
`122, e.g., a GPS receiver, to supply the date and time.” Id., 5:26–29;
` “[The] display [module] may be in any current form in the art, including Liquid
`Crystal Displays (LCD), Light emitting diode displays (LED), Cathode Ray Tube
`Displays (CRT) or any other type of display ….” Id., 5:36–40;
` “The communication module 112 will perform its functionality by hardwired and/or
`wireless connectivity. The hardwire connection may include . . . hard wire cabling,
`e.g., parallel or serial cables, USB cable, Firewire (1394 connectivity) cables, and the
`appropriate port. The wireless connection will operate under any of the various known
`wireless protocols … or any other type of communication protocols or systems
`currently existing or to be developed for wirelessly transmitting data.” Id., 6:46–60;
` “The server 304 may be connected to the communications network 302, e.g., the
`Internet, by any known means, for example, a hardwired or wireless connection 308,
`such as dial-up, hardwired, cable, DSL, satellite, cellular, PCS, wireless transmission
`(e.g., 802.11a/b/g, 802.16, etc.), etc.” Id., 8:30–34.
`
`A Virtually Identical Continuation Patent Has Been Found Patent Ineligible
`
`B.
`Nearly identical claims were found patent ineligible under § 101 in Rothschild Location
`
`Technologies v. Geotab USA, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-682, 2016 WL 3584195 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2016),
`
`adopted by and aff’d 2016 WL 2847975 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2016).
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 51
`
`
`
`As a system claim, claim 8 [recites] components needed to carry out
`the steps of address retrieval—specifically, a “server,” a “positional
`information device,” and a “communication network.” The
`positional information device includes four functional modules, a
`“locational information module,” a “communication module,” a
`“processing module,” and a “display module.” . . . Adding these
`generic structures [does not] transform the system claim into patent-
`eligible subject matter.
`
`Id., *8; see also Rothschild Location Techs., 2016 WL 7049401 (denying motion for
`
`reconsideration). The same analysis should prevail here. All claims of the ’503 Continuation
`
`Patent in that case, which are nearly identical claims as the ’285 Patent with the same specification,
`
`were found patent ineligible.
`
`As shown below, claim 8 of the ’503 Patent mirrors claim 13 of the ’285 Patent, and recites
`
`the same conventional components (in boldface)—a “server,” “positional information device,” and
`
`“communications network” with nearly identical functions. The insubstantial differences between
`
`the patents are abstract ideas (e.g., retrieving and transmitting addresses) and conventional
`
`components that add nothing inventive to the claims previously found patent ineligible.
`
`’503 Patent
`location
`system
`for
`entering
`8. A
`information into a positional information
`device, the system comprising:
`a server configured to receive a request for
`at least one location, determine an address
`of the least one requested location and to
`transmit the determined coordinates to a
`first positional information device;
`
`information device
`
`first positional
`the
`including
`for
`information module
`a
`locational
`determining location information of the first
`positional information device;
`a communication module for receiving the
`address of the at least one location from the
`server;
`
`’285 Patent
`13. A system for remotely entering location
`information into a positional information
`device, the system comprising:
`a server configured to receive a request for
`an address of at least one location not already
`stored in the positional information device, to
`determine the address of the least one
`location and to transmit the determined
`address
`to
`the positional
`information
`device;
`the positional information device including
`
`for
`information module
`locational
`a
`determining location information of the
`positional information device;
`a communication module for receiving the
`determined address of the at least one
`location from the server;
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 52
`
`
`
`’503 Patent
`a processing module configured to receive
`the address
`from
`the communication
`module and determine route guidance
`based on the location of the first positional
`information device and the received address;
`and
`a display module for displaying the route
`guidance; and
`a communications network for coupling the
`first positional information device to the
`server,
`wherein the server receives a request from a
`first positional information device for the at
`least one address stored in at least one second
`positional information device, the request
`including a first identifier of the first positional
`information device, determines a second
`identifier for identifying at least one second
`positional information device based on the
`received first identifier, retrieves the requested
`at least one address stored in the at least one
`second positional information device, and
`transmits the retrieved at least one address to
`the first positional information device.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`’285 Patent
`a processing module configured to receive
`the
`determined
`address
`from
`the
`communication module and determine
`route guidance based on the location of the
`positional
`information device and
`the
`determined address; and
`a display module for displaying the route
`guidance; and
`a communications network for coupling the
`positional information device to the server,
`
`wherein the server receives a time and date
`associated with the requested at least one
`location and transmits the associated time and
`date with the determined address to the
`positional
`information device and
`the
`positional information device displays the
`determined address at the associated time and
`date.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may
`
`obtain a patent therefor.” The Supreme Court has long held that these categories exclude “laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
`A.
`
`Under Alice Step One, the Asserted ’285 Patent Is Directed to the Abstract
`Idea of Retrieving an Address and Obtaining Route Guidance to That Address
`
`The first step of the Alice patent-eligibility inquiry is to “determine whether the claims at
`
`issue are directed to one of [the] patent-ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Alice, 573
`
`U.S. at 217; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. “The inquiry often is whether the claims are
`
`directed to ‘a specific means or method’ for improving technology or whether they are simply
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 53
`
`
`
`directed to an abstract end-result.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Claims that describe concepts “long-practiced in our society” have
`
`routinely been found to be abstract ideas under Alice step one. Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at
`
`1369-70. In this case, retrieving an address and obtaining directions to that address is a concept
`
`long practiced in our society. As the patent acknowledges, prior art GPS systems were
`
`“everywhere” (’285 Patent, 1:15), and the patentee merely desired to improve the speed and
`
`efficiency of this long-established technology. Id., 2:28-30.
`
`1.
`
`Retrieving an Address and Obtaining Route Guidance to the Address
`Is a Long-Practiced Concept Performed by Humans Manually
`Alice step one analysis begins by looking at the “character as a whole” or “focus” of the
`
`claim to see whether it is directed to an abstract idea. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
`
`1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The focus of the claims [is] on selecting certain information,
`
`analyzing it . . . , and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract”). As
`
`shown below, asserted claim 13 comprises abstract ideas (“receiving” an address, “determin[ing]
`
`route guidance” to an address, and “displaying” the address) and conventional components (a
`
`“server,” “positional information device” (generic GPS), and “communications network”):
`
`Claim Language
`13. A system for remotely entering location information into a
`positional information device, the system comprising:
`a server configured to receive a request for an address of at least one
`location not already stored in the positional information device,
`to determine the address of the least one location and to transmit
`the determined address to the positional information device;
`
`the positional information device including 
`a
`locational
`information module
`for determining
`information of the positional information device;
`
`location
`
`a communication module for receiving the determined address of the
`at least one location from the server;
`
`Abstract Idea
`
`
`
`server
`generic
`a
`receiving a request for an
`address and transmitting
`the address to a generic
`device
`the generic device
`determining
`location
`information
`for
`the
`generic device
`receiving
`the address
`from the server
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 54
`
`
`
`Claim Language
`a processing module configured to receive the determined address
`from the communication module and determine route guidance
`based on the location of the positional information device and
`the determined address; and
`a display module for displaying the route guidance; and
`a communications network for coupling the positional information
`device to the server,
`
`wherein the server receives a time and date associated with the
`requested at least one location and transmits the associated time
`and date with the determined address to the positional
`information device and the positional information device
`displays the determined address at the associated time and date
`
`Abstract Idea
`receiving the address and
`determining the route to
`the received address
`
`displaying the route
`connecting the generic
`device and the generic
`server
`receiving time and date
`with the address request,
`and transmitting the time
`and date for generic
`device
`to display
`the
`address
`
`This all essentially boils down to the abstract concept of retrieving an address and obtaining route
`
`guidance to that address. And it is indisputable that obtaining an address and route guidance to
`
`that address is a concept “long-practiced in our society.” Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1369-
`
`70. Nearly identical claims in the continuation ’503 Patent were found abstract on that basis:
`
`[C]laim 1 of the '503 patent, directed to address retrieval, involves a
`fundamental concept humans have long performed. As Defendants
`recognize, humans have long been able to retrieve an address from
`another location—by calling an operator or an assistant to ask for
`the address, for example.
`
`Rothschild Location Techs., 2016 WL 3584195, *6, adopted by and aff’d 2016 WL 2847975
`
`(“[C]laim 8 is [also] directed to the abstract idea of retrieving an address from another device.”).
`
`Similarly, this Court and others have found that requesting and retrieving location
`
`information—including a map to guide a user to a location (i.e., providing “route guidance”)—to
`
`be an abstract idea. See Callwave Commc’ns, 207 F. Supp. 3d at 412 (“Requesting and receiving
`
`location information is an abstract idea.”); see also Concaten, 131 F. Supp. 3d at 1172-73
`
`(“providing [a] map, over [a] wireless cellular network” found abstract); Wireless Media
`
`Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 405, 413 (D.N.J. 2015) (abstract idea
`
`{01533664;v1 }
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02013-MN Document 10 Filed 02/05/20 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 55
`
`
`
`of “monitoring locations, movement [of] containers . . . , storing, reporting and communicating
`
`this information . . . through generic computer functions.”)
`
`This is consistent with the Federal Circuit precedent that collection, analysis, and display
`
`of data, even in combination, is an abstract idea. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1343-54
`
`(collecting cases); SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167. The claims found to be patent ineligible in