Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 848
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`OLO INC.
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-518-VAC
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 285 MOTION FOR EXCEPTIONAL CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stamatios Stamoulis #4606
`
`Richard C. Weinblatt #5080
`800 N. West Street, Third Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ameranth, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 849
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ....................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT....................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................3
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................4
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`This Case Was Filed In Good Faith. ........................................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Patent-Eligibility Test Is a Subjective Test, the Federal Government
`and the Federal Circuit Are Unable to Consistently Apply and Predict Its
`Outcome, and Thus It Is Unreasonable to Expect Ameranth to Do That Which
`the Federal Government Cannot Do ................................................................ 7
`
`Ameranth's Arguments of Patent-Eligibility Were Not Baseless .................... 9
`
`The Patent Office Issued the Asserted Claims in 2017 After the Supreme
`Court Established the Current Two-Step Patent-Eligibility Test in Alice in
`2014. ............................................................................................................... 11
`
`Deterrence Is Neither Justified Nor Necessary ......................................................15
`
`Appellate Fees Should Not Be Awarded ................................................................... 17
`
`The Totality Of The Circumstances Does Not Warrant A Finding That This Case
`Is Exceptional.........................................................................................................18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Olo Proposed No Procedure to Substantiate Its Unjustified Fee Request .............20
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 850
`
`TABLE OF CITATIONS
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................. passim
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Case No.: 12cv0733 DMS (WVG) , 2021 WL 409725 (S.D.
`Cal. Feb. 5, 2021) ............................................................................................................................ 16
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 792 Fed. Appx. 780 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................... 12, 16
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Olo Inc., No. 21-1228, 2022 WL 2111376 (U.S. June 13, 2022) ............................ 1
`
`American Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 966 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................... 9
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................... 12
`
`Asghari-Kamrani v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, Civil No. 2:15cv478, 2017 WL 4418424
`(E.D. Va. July 27, 2017) .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd, 232 F. Supp. 3d 636 (D. Del. 2017) ............................... 7
`
`Aten Int’l Co. v. Uniclass Tech., No. CV 15-04424-AG (AJWx), slip op. (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2018)
` ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Auto–Kaps, LLC v. Clorox Co., No. 15 Civ. 1737 (BMC) , 2017 WL 6210846 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27,
`2017) ................................................................................................................................................ 11
`
`Baggage Airline Guest Servs. v. Roadie, Inc., C.A. No. 18-707-RGA, 2020 WL 757891 (D. Del. Feb.
`14, 2020) ............................................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Bates v. Board of Education of the Capital School District, C.A. No. 97-394, 2000 WL 1292677 (D.
`Del. Aug. 29, 2000) ......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`Belcher Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. No. 17-775-LPS, 2022 WL 606075 (D. Del.
`2022) ................................................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 858 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................... 7
`
`Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen, 2014 WL 2069653 (D. Md. May 14, 2014) ..................... 6
`
`Cognex Corp. v. Microscan Systems, Inc., No. 13-cv-2027 (JSR), 2014 WL 2989975 (S.D.N.Y. June
`30, 2014) ............................................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................ 8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 851
`
`Credit Card Fraud Control Corp. v. Maxmind, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-3262, 2016 WL 3355163 (N.D. Tex.
`Apr. 7, 2016) .................................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................ 9
`
`EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 830 Fed. Appx. 634 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............ 9
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................... 8
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01011-JST, 2014 WL 3726170
`(N.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) ................................................................................................................ 18
`
`Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................ 7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................. 8
`
`Gametek LLC v. Zynga, Inc., CV 13-2546 RS, 2014 WL 4351414 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014)...... 5, 19
`
`Garfum.com Corp. v. Reflections by Ruth, No. 14-5919, 2016 WL 7325467 (D. N.J. Dec. 16, 2016)
` ................................................................................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc., 790 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..... 18, 19
`
`Global Cash Access, Inc. v. NRT Technology Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00822-MMD-GWF, 2018 WL
`4566678 (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2018) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................... 11
`
`In re Kerydin (Tavaborole) Topical Solution 5% Patent Litig., MDL No. 18-cv-1606-RGA, 2021 WL
`5168580 (D. Del. June 23, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 4398356 (D.
`Del. Sept. 27, 2021) ......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................ 8
`
`Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indemnity, 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................ 8
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................. 8
`
`Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............... 12, 13
`
`Kindred Studio Illustration & Design, LLC v. Elec. Commc’n Tech., LLC, No. 2:18-CV-07661 (GJS),
`2019 WL 3064112 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2019) ................................................................................ 15
`
`Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166 (2013) ..................................................................... 6
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ................. 12
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................ 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 852
`
`Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, No. 2:21-cv-00445-JRG, 2022 WL 2704790 (E.D. Tex. June 13,
`2022) ................................................................................................................................................ 12
`
`Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen Grp., Inc., 917 F.2d 538 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................. 20
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1753 (2014) ........... 2, 5, 7, 19
`
`Printeron, Inc. v. BreezyPrint Corp., Civil Action No. H-13-3025, 2015 WL 7149442 (S.D. Tex. Nov.
`10, 2015) .......................................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corp., No. 3:10-cv-02140-CMC, 2014 WL223096 (D.S.C. Jan. 21,
`2014) .................................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Quad Envtl. Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist., 946 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................... 11
`
`Quest Licensing Corp. v. Bloomberg L.P., C.A. No. 14-561-LPS, 2019 WL 1376035 (D. Del. Mar.
`27, 2019) .......................................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Rates Technology, Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., 688 F.3d 742 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................... 10
`
`Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. v. Intellicentrics, Inc., No. 2021-1906, 2022 WL 794981 (Fed. Cir. Mar.
`15, 2022) ............................................................................................................................................ 9
`
`Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed Cir. 2012) ........................................... 12
`
`SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg Inc., 793 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................. 5, 16
`
`Small v. Implant Direct, No. 06 Civ. 683(NRB), 2014 WL 5463621 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2014) ...... 18
`
`Sparks v. Eastman Kodak Co., 230 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................... 17
`
`Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, 892 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................... 19
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................... 8
`
`Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs., 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................ 6
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................... 6
`
`Trading Technologies Int'l Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................ 8
`
`Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................. 8, 9
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 Fed. Appx. 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................... 13
`
`YYZ, LLC v. Pegasystems, Inc., No. 13-581-SLR, 2016 WL 1761955 (D. Del. May 2, 2016) ......... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 853
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ............................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`at
`(available
`21-1211
`Inc., No.
`v. Olo
`Inc.
`Oral. Arg., Ameranth,
`https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=21-1211_10062021.mp3) ..................... 11
`
`Rules
`
`FED. CIR. R. 36 ................................................................................................................... 10, 11, 17, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 854
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`On April 16, 2020, Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc. ("Ameranth") filed its complaint against
`
`Defendant Olo Inc. ("Olo") alleging infringement of four claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,747,651 (the
`
`"'651 patent"), entitled "Application Software Based Information Management and Real Time
`
`Communications System Including Intelligent Automated Assistants (Bots) in a Computing
`
`Ecosystem Including Different Types of Remote Computing Devices with Different User
`
`Interfaces and with a Master Database that is Accessible from and Stored at a Central Location,"
`
`and included an expert declaration regarding the asserted claims (D.I. 1.) Olo filed a motion to
`
`dismiss seeking to invalidate the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, (D.I. 8), the parties briefed the
`
`motion (D.I. 9, 10, 12). On September 25, 2020, a joint Stipulation for Leave to Amend Complaint
`
`was filed, wherein Ameranth sought to assert additional claims – claims 9 and 10 – of the '651
`
`patent as well as include additional allegations regarding Olo's alleged infringement, and the
`
`parties agreed to and did submit supplemental letter briefs regarding these two claims.1 (D.I. 23-
`
`25). The District Court did not grant the stipulation for leave to amend the complaint until hours
`
`after the oral argument on Olo's motion. See Order (Sept. 30, 2020). The District Court granted
`
`Olo's motion (D.I. 29 at 12-17.), the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's opinion under
`
`Rule 36 (D.I. 35.), and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Ameranth, Inc. v. Olo Inc., No. 21-
`
`1228, 2022 WL 2111376, at *1 (U.S. June 13, 2022). Olo has now filed a motion seeking attorney's
`
`fees (the "Motion"), (D.I. 37), to which Ameranth submits this opposition.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`The exceptional case doctrine is for the "rare" case that "stands out" from other
`
`suits due to the weakness of one party's litigation position or the unreasonableness of its litigation
`
`
`1 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11 of the '651 patent are referred to herein as the "Asserted Claims."
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 855
`
`conduct. Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1753 (2014).
`
`Neither the merits of Ameranth's patent eligibility positions, nor its litigation strategy, motivation,
`
`or conduct stands out, so this case is not exceptional.
`
`2.
`
`In support of patent-eligibility, Ameranth argued and the examiner agreed during
`
`patent prosecution, that the Asserted Claims are directed to rule capable IAA systems that improve
`
`upon existing back office hospitality applications and remote computer systems using handheld
`
`devices because they provide the framework to be able to automatically understand, convert, and
`
`execute both structured (i.e., fixed format) and unstructured (i.e., free format) data, execute both
`
`free and fixed format messaging through a variety of communication conversions, and make
`
`intelligent decisions by accessing and applying the IAA technology described and claimed. The
`
`Federal Circuit has held claims that improve computers are patent-eligible subject matter. That
`
`the Court did not agree with Ameranth does not mean its argument was unreasonable or that this
`
`case stands out from others, making it "exceptional."
`
`3.
`
`The '651 patent is a continuation-in-part patent, containing new material and claims
`
`based on that new material, and was issued by the Patent Office after the Supreme Court's Alice
`
`decision and after review of prior judicial and PTAB decisions findings involving a related patent
`
`having a different specification and claims. In such circumstances, it was not unreasonable for
`
`Ameranth to conclude that the Asserted Claims claimed patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`4.
`
`Ameranth's advocacy in support of the eligibility of its patent was further warranted
`
`by the admittedly unsettled and developing legal landscape regarding eligibility, as confirmed by
`
`the lack of its understanding by the United States Government and twelve justices of the Federal
`
`Circuit. Indeed, Ameranth relied on a declaration of one of ordinary skill that analyzed to the best
`
`of his understanding of the chaotic law the Asserted Claims. That the Court disregarded the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 856
`
`declaration does not mean it was baseless for Ameranth to rely on it.
`
`5.
`
`When evaluating the totality of the circumstances, including the lack of any
`
`improper motive and Ameranth's litigation behavior, it is evident that none of the egregious
`
`behavior that other courts have cited to support a fee award—such as obfuscation, bad faith, or
`
`conspiracy—exists in this case, and thus this case is not "exceptional." Indeed, the Court did not
`
`even schedule a scheduling conference, no scheduling order issued, and no discovery occurred.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The below statement of facts sets forth Ameranth's state of mind while pursuing this action
`
`– the only action that asserted any claims of the '651 patent and the only new infringement suit
`
`Ameranth filed since Alice issued in 2014 – and neither is a re-argument of patent-eligibility nor
`
`an argument as to the correctness of its state of mind.
`
`The '651 patent issued August 29, 2017 and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,146,077. (D.I. 1-1; D.I. 23-1 at Ex. A.) The subject matter sought to be claimed in the Asserted
`
`Claims is based on the new material and differs from the claims of the '077 patent. Specifically,
`
`using claim 1 of each patent as an example, the '651 patent claimed a computerized intelligent
`
`automated assistant ("IAA") technology system that learns, assists and applies that learning to
`
`improve and enhance existing computerized systems used in the hospitality industry, while the
`
`'077 patent claimed a system for transmitting menus to remote handheld devices. See Ex. 1
`
`attached hereto. This vast difference is readily observable upon a casual glance of the claims. Id.
`
`During prosecution of what became the '651 patent, which occurred after the Supreme
`
`Court's Alice decision,
`
`the patent applicant amended
`
`the claims, removed
`
`the
`
`term
`
`"synchronization" from the claims, and remarked that the amended claims "are directed to IAA
`
`functionality, based upon rules functionality, which improve the communications and overall
`
`functionality of the claimed computer system when considered as a whole and is thus further not
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 857
`
`an abstract idea." (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 20; D.I. 1-3 at 3-17; D.I. 23-1 at ¶¶ 20-21, Ex. C, pp. 3-17.) The
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office allowed the claims and the '651 patent issued. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 21;
`
`D.I. 1-4; D.I. 23-1 at ¶ 22, Ex. D.)
`
`An expert, Dr. Ricardo Valerdi, who is a person of ordinary skill in the art, prepared a
`
`declaration that (a) included a definition of one of ordinary skill in the art, (D.I. 1-2 at 5; D.I.
`
`23-1 at Ex. B, p. 5), (b) described prior art, including evidentiary citations confirming the
`
`correctness of his statements, (D.I. 1-2 at 6-9; D.I. 23-1 at Ex. B, pp. 6-11), and (c) explained that
`
`implementation problems existed in 2005, which prevented the ordered combination inventions
`
`that improve computer operation in the Asserted Claims from being created. (D.I. 1-2 at ¶¶ 31-
`
`33; D.I. 23-1 at Ex. B, ¶¶ ¶¶ 38-40.) Based on his review of that prior art, Dr. Valerdi explained
`
`the inventions of the Asserted Claims "overcome the lack of cohesiveness between the independent
`
`parts by creating a new system whose functionality is significantly greater than the parts
`
`individually." (D.I. 1-2 at ¶ 42; D.I. 23-1 at Ex. B, ¶ 49.) He also explained that specification's
`
`new material and 45 examples in the expanded CIP specification and Asserted Claims provide how
`
`to program the system with pseudocode which could then be programmed in a particular software
`
`language. (See, e.g., D.I. 1-2 at ¶¶ 34-41, 49; D.I. 23-1 at Ex. B, ¶¶ 41-48, 56.)
`
`The District Court decided that the Asserted Claims are directed to the same subject matter
`
`as certain invalidated '077 patent claims, namely "the abstract idea of 'communicating hospitality-
`
`related information using a system that is capable of synchronous communications and
`
`messaging,'" (D.I. 29 at 12), the Asserted Claims do not improve computer functionality, (id. at
`
`14), 3) the expert declaration of Dr. Valerdi "contradicts the specification and therefore is not to
`
`be credited," (id.), and 4) the Asserted Claims are unpatentable under § 101. (Id. at 18.)
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 858
`
`The award of attorneys' fees is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Supreme Court, in
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), rejected the Federal
`
`Circuit's "objectively baseless" and "subjective bad faith" formulation as "overly rigid" and laid
`
`out a more flexible framework. Id. at 1756. The Supreme Court thus attributed to the word
`
`"exceptional" its ordinary meaning: "uncommon," "rare," "not ordinary," "unusual," or "special."
`
`Id.. The Court defined an "exceptional" case as "simply one that stands out from others with
`
`respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing
`
`law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated." Id.
`
`District Court judges are free to exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis, considering the
`
`totality of the circumstances, when determining whether attorneys' fees are appropriate. Id..
`
`Typically, § 285 sanctions are awarded where the offending party has engaged in some egregious
`
`conduct, such as, for example, failing to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation, intentionally
`
`withholding relevant documents or taking an untenable position on claim construction.2
`
`"[I]t is the 'substantive strength of the party's litigating position' that is relevant to an
`
`exceptional case determination, not the correctness or eventual success of that position." SFA
`
`Systems, LLC v. Newegg Inc., 793 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Octane Fitness, 134
`
`S. Ct. at 1756) (emphasis in original). If a prevailing party establishes by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the case is exceptional under § 285, the court determines, in its discretion, whether
`
`and to what extent to award attorney fees and expenses. The amount of fees to be awarded, if any,
`
`
`2 See, e.g., SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg Inc., 793 F.3d 1344, 1349-50, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(citing cases and providing examples of conduct warranting sanctions, such as, "destruction of
`relevant documents and lodging of incomplete and misleading extrinsic evidence," and
`"misrepresentation or misleading statements."); Gametek LLC v. Zynga, Inc., CV 13-2546 RS,
`2014 WL 4351414, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014) ("Although Octane eased the standard for fee
`shifting, . . . post-Octane decisions awarding fees have concerned egregious behavior." (citing
`cases).)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 859
`
`depends on the extent to which the case is found to be exceptional.3
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Olo failed to meet its burden to prove this case is exceptional
`
`under § 285.4 Considering the totality of the circumstances—including the volatile evolution of the
`
`law on patent eligibility—this is not the "rare" case where the Court should exercise its equitable
`
`discretion and depart from the "bedrock principle known as the 'American Rule,'" that "each litigant
`
`pays his own attorney's fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise." Marx v.
`
`General Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1175 (2013).
`
`A.
`
`This Case Was Filed In Good Faith.
`
`The Court must start with the presumption that a patentee's "assertion of infringement of a
`
`duly granted patent is made in good faith." Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 726 F.3d
`
`1306, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, as is confirmed in the attached declaration of Keith McNally
`
`("McNally Decl."), Ameranth's founder, President and lead inventor, this case, Ameranth's only
`
`new patent infringement case, since 2013, was filed in good faith and Olo has presented no facts
`
`to the contrary; the Court should not impute any lack of good faith against Ameranth. Baggage
`
`Airline Guest Servs. v. Roadie, Inc., C.A. No. 18-707-RGA, 2020 WL 757891, at *3 (D. Del. Feb.
`
`14, 2020) ("Without facts to suggest nefarious intent, I will not impute it where I do not see it.").
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Cognex Corp. v. Microscan Systems, Inc., No. 13-cv-2027 (JSR), 2014 WL 2989975,
`at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2014) (awarding only "attorneys' fees for contesting any motions
`brought by defendants that have sought to reargue what was already decided by the Court");
`Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen, 2014 WL 2069653, at *6 (D. Md. May 14, 2014)
`("Classen knew from January 26, 2005 that its claims were objectively baseless . . . Accordingly,
`Biogen is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred after that
`date."); Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Normark Corp., No. 3:10-cv-02140-CMC, 2014 WL223096, at *20
`(D.S.C. Jan. 21, 2014) (slip op.) ("Because the court has found Pure Fishing's pursuit of the
`Kelley Claim subjectively baseless only for a limited period of time, it limits its award of attorney
`fees for defense of the merits to the same period"); Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs., 549
`F.3d 1381, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that fees for an entire suit are rarely awarded).
`4 Olo has not sought an award of attorney fees pursuant to the Court's inherent authority.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 860
`
`To overcome the presumption of good faith, a defendant must demonstrate, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that the case is exceptional. Octane Fitness, 134 S. Ct. at 1758.
`
`That presumption cannot be overcome simply because the patentee lost its case, or "as a penalty
`
`for failure to win a patent infringement suit." Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A., 858 F.3d
`
`1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Rather, the Court may enter a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 only
`
`to prevent "gross injustice [which] should be bottomed upon a finding of unfairness or bad faith in
`
`the conduct of the losing party, or some other equitable consideration of similar force, which makes
`
`it grossly unjust" to not award fees. Id. "Although an exceptional case finding is no longer
`
`constrained to 'inequitable conduct before the PTO; litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified,
`
`and otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit or willful infringement,' Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the absence of such conduct also
`
`weighs against an award in this case." AstraZeneca AB v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd, 232 F. Supp.
`
`3d 636, 649 (D. Del. 2017).
`
`1.
`
`The Patent-Eligibility Test Is a Subjective Test, the Federal
`Government and the Federal Circuit Are Unable to Consistently Apply
`and Predict Its Outcome, and Thus It Is Unreasonable to Expect
`Ameranth to Do That Which the Federal Government Cannot Do
`
`The patent-eligibility test under Alice is a subjective, not objective, test. The official
`
`position of the U.S. Government is that patent-eligibility law is uncertain, inconsistent, and
`
`unpredictable. Amicus Curiae Brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. NEAPCO
`
`Holdings LLC, United States Supreme Court Case No. 20-891, attached hereto and referred to
`
`herein as "SG Brief," at 20. Olo argues that Ameranth should have known the Asserted Claims
`
`were ineligible. It belies logic that, if the U.S. Government and twelve Federal Circuit Court
`
`Judges asked for Supreme Court clarification of § 101 law, see id., that Ameranth should be tasked
`
`to have known that claims that issued after Alice were ineligible when the claims on their face are
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 861
`
`for inventions different from the ineligible claims of the '077 patent and facially improve computer
`
`functionality. See Ex. 1. In addition, the preambles of the '077 patent claims invalidated were
`
`used to determine to what those claims were directed. How was Ameranth to know the District
`
`Court would ignore the limiting preambles and focus on the wherein clause of the independent
`
`claims of the Asserted Claims when determining to what the claims are directed, making no
`
`mention of the IAA aspect of the inventions found in both the preamble and body of the claims?
`
`The inconsistency contaminates all forms of claimed inventions. For example, new
`
`database software have been found both patent-eligible and patent-ineligible. See Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures v. Erie
`
`Indemnity, 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (patent-ineligible). The same is true regarding a
`
`graphical user interface ("GUI") for trading securities, see Trading Technologies Int'l Inc. v. CQG,
`
`Inc., 675 Fed. Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (GUI that displays a plurality of bids and plurality of
`
`asks in the market found patent-eligible); Trading Technologies Int'l, Inc. v IBG LLC, 921 F.3d
`
`1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (GUI displays graphed bids and offers to assist a trader to make an order
`
`found patent-ineligible), virus scanning software, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
`
`Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patent-eligible), a new GUI, Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
`
`Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (patent-ineligible); Core Wireless Licensing
`
`S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patent-eligible). In similar vein,
`
`claimed inventions that can be performed in the human-mind or with pen and paper have been
`
`found both patent-ineligible and patent-eligible. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-eligible). Ditto for claims that automated processes. See
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00518-VAC Document 40 Filed 07/22/22 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 862
`
`EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC, 830 Fed. Appx. 634 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(patent-eligible); Repi