Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 329
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-1136 (JHS)
`
`
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`VIDEOLABS, INC. and
`VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ROKU, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jying@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Roku, Inc.
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul E. Torchia
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`(212) 351-4000
`
`S. Christopher Whittaker
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Dr., Suite 1200
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`(949) 451-3800
`
`Jaysen S. Chung
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
`(415) 393-8200
`
`Nathan R. Curtis
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201-2923
`(214) 698-3100
`
`February 16, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 330
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’113 Patent ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`The ’790, ’559, and ’794 Patents ............................................................................ 5
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`The ’113 Patent Is Ineligible Under Section 101 .................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Alice Step One: The ’113 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea ......... 8
`
`Alice Step Two: The ’113 Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept . 13
`
`The Other Claims of the ’113 Patent Are Similarly Ineligible ................. 15
`
`The ’790, ’559, and ’794 Patents Are Ineligible Under Section 101 .................... 17
`
`The Patents Are Ripe for a Determination on Ineligibility ................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 331
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Am. Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings,
`967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................12
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................17
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................7, 18
`
`Braemar Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp.,
`816 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................9, 10
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................7, 11, 12, 18
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................7, 15
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................10
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................14
`
`Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc.,
`424 F. Supp. 3d 385 (D. Del. 2020) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Glasswall Sols. Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.,
`754 F. App'x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................................10
`
`IBM Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,
`50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................12
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 332
`
`
`
`In re Killian,
`45 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................14
`
`In re Rosenberg,
`813 F. App’x 594 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................................11, 13
`
`In re TLI Commcn’s,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................9, 10
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................9
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`307 F. Supp. 3d 356 (D. Del. 2018) .....................................................................................2, 17
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................2
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................7, 9, 18
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................7, 18
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................10, 15
`
`Starz Ent., LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC et al.,
`No. 21-1448 (JLH), D.I. 19, 76 (D. Del.) ..................................................................................5
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................6
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................13
`
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.,
`72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................10
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Comms., LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................14, 16
`
`Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 333
`
`
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 22-229 (JHS), D.I. 16, 18, and 19 (D. Del.) ........................................................2, 6, 16, 17
`
`Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. ProofHub, LLC,
`No. 23-343 (MN), D.I. 8, 15 (D. Del.) .......................................................................................2
`
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..........................................................................................................1, 7, 18
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 334
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`No. Document
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Excerpts of ’113 Patent File History
`
`Excerpts of File History of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 14/144,433
`
`Excerpts of File History of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 14/925,912
`
`IPR2022-01086, Final Written Decision (Dec. 18, 2023)
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 335
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Meaning
`
`’113 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE43,113 (D.I. 1, Ex. 4)
`
`’559 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,440,559 (D.I. 1, Ex. 1)
`
`’790 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,233,790 (D.I. 1, Ex. 3)
`
`’794 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,605,794 (D.I. 1, Ex. 2)
`
`Compl.
`
`Complaint in VideoLabs, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01136 (D. Del)
`(D.I. 1)
`
`Defendant
`
`Roku, Inc.
`
`Netflix Litigation VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-229 (D. Del.)
`
`Starz Litigation
`
`Starz Ent., LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC et al., No. 1:21-cv-1448 (D. Del.)
`
`VideoLabs
`
`Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 336
`
`
`
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC (“VideoLabs”) sued Defendant
`
`Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) on October 11, 2023, asserting infringement of six patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`RE43,113; 7,233,790; 8,605,794; 7,440,559; 8,291,236; and 8,667,304. See D.I. 1. This case is
`
`one of over a dozen in which VideoLabs, a non-practicing entity, has sought to monetize its patent
`
`portfolio. One or more of the patents in this case have been asserted against Starz Entertainment
`
`(Case No. 1-21-cv-01448 (D. Del.)), Netflix (Case No. 1-22-cv-00229 (D. Del.)), Amazon
`
`(Case No. 6-22-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex.)), and Apple (Case No. 3-23-cv-01307 (N.D. Cal.)).1
`
`Additionally, three of the asserted patents (the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents) are currently subject
`
`to IPR invalidity challenges. IPR2023-00628 (’790 patent); IPR2023-00630 (’559 patent);
`
`IPR2023-00891 (’794 patent). Final Written Decision on the validity of these patents are expected
`
`on October 3, 2024, for the first two and January 12, 2025, for the third.
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Roku moves to dismiss with prejudice the First
`
`through Fourth Counts of the Complaint—in which VideoLabs asserts infringement of the ’113,
`
`’790, ’559, and ’794 patents—because the asserted patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`All claims of the ’113 patent are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter—the
`
`abstract idea of cataloging and presenting different content to different customers. Specifically, in
`
`the ’113 patent, “different types of digital content” (such as games, ring tones, and wallpaper) are
`
`made available to “subscribers in multiple domains” (such as different service providers) through
`
`a “centralized store.” ’113 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 4) at 1:21‒26, 1:47‒65. But the claims of the
`
`’113 patent recite nothing more than the storage, analysis, and transmission of data, which has
`
`
` 1 Less than two months before trial, the case against Starz was stayed pending the IPR
`proceedings. The case against Netflix is pending before this Court. The cases against Amazon
`and Apple settled and were dismissed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 337
`
`
`
`repeatedly been held to be unpatentable. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322,
`
`1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“A process that start[s] with data, add[s] an algorithm, and end[s] with a
`
`new form of data [i]s directed to an abstract idea.”). Worse yet, the claims are written in purely
`
`functional language, without specifying how to enact the claimed functions and without providing
`
`any specific technological improvements for doing so. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`
`830 F.3d 1350, 1353‒54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims also contain no inventive concept sufficient
`
`to transform the claim into “significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217‒18 (2014). To the contrary, as the ’113 patent
`
`specification concedes, the claimed solution uses generic components to carry out routine steps.
`
`Thus, the ’113 patent fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101.
`
`2.
`
`As explained in defendant Netflix’s briefing and argument in support of its Partial
`
`Motion to Dismiss, VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-229, D.I. 16, 19 (D. Del.)—
`
`a related patent infringement case pending before this Court and involving many of the same
`
`patents—the claims of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents are directed to the abstract ideas of
`
`transmission and manipulation of data and do not add any inventive concepts beyond those abstract
`
`ideas, and thus are not patent-eligible. To avoid burdening the Court with additional papers and
`
`in the interests of judicial efficiency, Roku hereby joins the motion to dismiss filed by Netflix with
`
`respect to the subject-matter ineligibility of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents, and respectfully
`
`requests that the Court dismiss with prejudice the counts of the Complaint against Roku alleging
`
`infringement of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents.2
`
`
` 2 In this District, a defendant can join a motion to dismiss for subject matter ineligibility filed by
`another defendant in a related case. See IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d
`356, 359 (D. Del. 2018) (granting Amazon’s motion to dismiss under Section 101 joined by several
`additional defendants); see also Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. ProofHub, LLC, C.A. No. 23-343 (MN),
`D.I. 8 at 1‒2 & D.I. 15 at 1‒2 (D. Del.).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 338
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ’113 Patent
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The ’113 patent relates to cataloging and making available content for mobile devices, with
`
`different content made available to different groups (or “domains”) of subscribers. ’113 Patent
`
`(D.I. 1, Ex. 4) at Abstract, cl. 1. More specifically, the patent describes “[a] system and method
`
`for efficiently managing the publication, purchase and delivery of digital content from multiple
`
`content suppliers to multiple wireless services subscribers.” Id. at 3:44‒46. The patent repeatedly
`
`describes its purported invention as a “store”—i.e., a digital market—explaining that it is more
`
`convenient to be able to acquire content from multiple suppliers from a single “store,” rather than
`
`“navigat[ing] to the web sites of different suppliers.” Id. at 1:52‒65, 4:16‒18, 4:40, 5:26, 9:21.
`
`To implement its “store,” the ’113 patent explains that it first divides subscribers into
`
`“domains,” where “a domain can represent a grouping of wireless services subscribers, such as a
`
`wireless carrier or a subsidiary of a wireless carrier, a business enterprise, or any other defined
`
`group of wireless services subscribers.” Id. at 4:49‒53. Next, content suppliers “provide products
`
`to the product store,” with products corresponding to one or more domains (groups of subscribers).
`
`Id. at 5:44‒49. Finally, when a wireless services subscriber accesses the store, the products
`
`displayed are limited to those in that subscriber’s domain—e.g., products supported by the client
`
`device. Id. at 11:50‒66. The subscriber is thus able to acquire and use these digital products.
`
`The ’113 patent further explains that its “store” is “implemented in a network server system
`
`that includes one or more server computer systems on a network.” Id. at 3:61‒64. Content
`
`suppliers “can publish and manage their products . . . via a computer network, such as the Internet,”
`
`and “[s]ubscribers can access the server system via wireless networks to purchase rights to
`
`download and use the digital content on their wireless communication devices.” Id. at 3:66‒4:6.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 339
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’113 patent is representative:
`
`1. A method of providing access to digital products for use in wireless
`communication devices, the method comprising:
`
`operating a server system to store domain data defining a plurality of domains,
`each domain corresponding to a different subset of a plurality of wireless
`services subscribers, each said subset of the plurality of wireless services
`subscribers including more than one wireless services subscriber, each of the
`domains further corresponding to a particular billing relationship between a
`business entity and the corresponding subset of the plurality of wireless services
`subscribers, each of the domains having assigned thereto to a particular set of
`digital products designed for use in wireless communication devices that are
`accessible to the wireless services subscribers in that domain;
`
`operating the server system to enable a plurality of digital products suppliers to
`publish on the server system digital products designed for use in wireless
`communication devices via a computer network such that the digital products
`are accessible to the plurality of wireless services subscribers; and
`
`operating the server system to enable wireless services subscribers in each of
`the plurality of domains to acquire the digital products via at least one wireless
`network and to use the acquired digital products on associated wireless
`communication devices.
`
`In short, the claimed method recites three limitations—(1) storing data on subscribers and
`
`separating subscribers into “domains” (or groups), (2) allowing “digital product suppliers” to make
`
`available products for subscribers, and (3) allowing the subscribers to acquire and use products for
`
`their wireless communication devices.
`
`The ’113 patent issued on January 17, 2012, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice.
`
`During prosecution of the ’113 patent, the proposed claims were rejected under Section 101. ’113
`
`File History (Ex. 1) at 3–4. The applicant overcame the rejection with amendments to recite
`
`generic concepts such as “memory” and “one or more processors” (the type of generic hardware
`
`recitation that was rejected in Alice). Id. at 24–26, 30. Notably, the ’113 patent has two child
`
`applications that were prosecuted after Alice. During prosecution, the claims of both applications
`
`were rejected under Section 101. Ex. 2 at 46–47; Ex. 3 at 31–33. The examiner explained, for
`
`example, that the claims—which contained similar limitations to the issued claims of the ’113
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 340
`
`
`
`patent—are “directed to the abstract idea of using categories to organize, store, and transmit
`
`information. . . . The claims(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
`
`amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Ex. 2 at 46–47. Rather than amend or
`
`defend the eligibility of the claims under post-Alice law, the applicant abandoned both
`
`applications. Id. at 64; Ex. 3 at 55.
`
`The ’113 patent previously was at issue in VideoLabs’s litigation in this District against
`
`Starz Entertainment, LLC. See Starz Ent., LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC et al., No. 1:21-cv-1448
`
`(D. Del.) (the “Starz Litigation”). After Starz filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement and invalidity of several VideoLabs patents (including the ’113 patent), VideoLabs
`
`counterclaimed for infringement. Starz Litigation, D.I. 1, 12. Starz moved to dismiss VideoLabs’s
`
`counterclaims, arguing that the patents are directed to ineligible subject matter under Section 101.
`
`See Starz Litigation, D.I. 19. The day before the hearing on the motion to dismiss, VideoLabs
`
`informed Starz that it was dismissing with prejudice its counterclaim for infringement of the ’113
`
`patent and “will no longer assert the ’113 patent against the Starz defendants in this action or in
`
`the future based on any current Starz products or offerings.” Starz Litigation, D.I. 76 at 2. The
`
`Court therefore did not hear or decide Starz’s motion with respect to the ’113 patent.
`
`B.
`
`The ’790, ’559, and ’794 Patents
`
`The ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents are directed to transmitting and manipulating data. In
`
`particular, the ’790 patent claims the idea of cataloging content for mobile devices based on device
`
`capabilities. ’790 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 3) at Abstract, 15:21‒33. The ’559 patent claims controlling
`
`content flow from a server to a terminal based on information such as user preferences, capabilities
`
`of the terminal, and/or previous content stored by the terminal. ’559 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 1) at
`
`Abstract, 15:15‒32. And the ’794 patent claims synchronizing audio and video data segments in
`
`chronological fashion. ’794 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 2) at Abstract, 7:45‒57. The patents implement
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 341
`
`
`
`these ideas on conventional devices (e.g., wireless communication devices and servers) using
`
`conventional computer hardware and software techniques. See, e.g., ’790 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 3) at
`
`6:46‒52, 14:12‒16; ’559 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 1) at 10:33‒44, 11:31‒40; ’794 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 2)
`
`at 3:67‒4:41, 6:43‒7:20.
`
`These three patents have already been the subject of eligibility challenges. In 2022,
`
`VideoLabs sued Netflix asserting infringement of four patents, including the ’790, ’559, and ’794
`
`patents. See VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-229 (D. Del.) (the “Netflix
`
`Litigation”). Netflix moved to dismiss VideoLabs’s infringement allegations with respect to the
`
`’790, ’559, and ’794 patents for lack of patentable subject matter under Section 101. See Netflix
`
`Litigation, D.I. 15. The Netflix parties fully briefed the issues (see id., D.I. 16, 18, 19), and oral
`
`argument on Netflix’s motion was held on February 9, 2023. See id., D.I. 35. In December 2023,
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidated claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of the
`
`’794 patent but rejected the challenge to claims 20 and 21. IPR2022-01086, Final Written Decision
`
`(Ex. 4) at 47‒48 (Dec. 18, 2023).
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework for determining patent eligibility.
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217‒18 (2014). At Step One, the court determines
`
`“whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept[],” such as “abstract ideas.”
`
`Id. This first step “ask[s] what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance over the
`
`prior art,” and whether that focus is on patent-ineligible subject matter. Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th
`
`1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020)). The Federal Circuit has explained that this inquiry “must focus on the language of the
`
`Asserted Claims themselves, considered in light of the specification.” Id. (quoting TecSec, Inc. v.
`
`Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 342
`
`
`
`If the claims are directed to an ineligible concept, Step Two asks whether the claims contain
`
`an “inventive concept,” or “an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that
`
`the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
`
`itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217‒18 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). This
`
`step is satisfied only when the claim limitations “involve more than performance of ‘well-
`
`understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content
`
`Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347‒48 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 224) (alterations in original).
`
`Under Alice, when multiple claims are substantially similar, it is enough to conduct this
`
`two-step analysis on a representative claim. Alice, 573 U.S. at 224‒26. Analyzing a representative
`
`claim is appropriate when the claims are directed to the “same concept” and the dependent claims
`
`“offer only minor, nontechnical variations.” Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc., 424 F. Supp. 3d
`
`385, 387–88 (D. Del. 2020), aff’d, No. 2020-1458, 2020 WL 6947911 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2020).
`
`It is the patentee’s burden to present “meaningful argument” that a claim should not be treated as
`
`representative. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Dismissal at the pleadings stage for lack of subject matter eligibility is appropriate where
`
`“there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a
`
`matter of law.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). The Federal Circuit has recognized that patent eligibility “may
`
`be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion where the undisputed facts,
`
`considered under the standards required by that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the
`
`substantive standards of law.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018). Thus, the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly affirmed § 101 rejections at the motion to dismiss
`
`stage,” “based on intrinsic evidence from the specification without need for ‘extraneous fact
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 343
`
`
`
`finding outside the record.’” See Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859
`
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905,
`
`912 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`A.
`
`The ’113 Patent Is Ineligible Under Section 101
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`Alice Step One: The ’113 Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`The claims of the ’113 patent are directed to the abstract idea of cataloging and presenting
`
`different content to different customers. This abstract idea has been practiced for generations in
`
`physical stores, with certain products offered to certain customers depending on those customers’
`
`needs. Indeed, the ʼ113 patent underscores this real-world analogy by repeatedly describing its
`
`purported invention as a “store” or “product store.” ’113 Patent (D.I. 1, Ex. 4) at 1:52‒65, 4:16‒
`
`18, 4:40, 5:26, 9:21. The claims implement this idea in a generic digital environment, reciting
`
`nothing more than storing, classifying, and transmitting data—concepts repeatedly held to be
`
`unpatentable. Moreover, the claims offer no specifics about the storage, classification, and
`
`transmission of data—the claim language is purely functional. The claims of the ’113 patent are
`
`therefore directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Cataloging and Grouping Subscribers Is Abstract. The thrust of claim 1, which is
`
`representative of all claims in the ’113 patent, is an abstract idea: cataloging and presenting
`
`different content to different customers. The patent is directed to “[a] system and method for
`
`efficiently managing the publication, purchase and delivery of digital content from multiple
`
`content suppliers to multiple wireless services subscribers in multiple domains.” ’113 Patent
`
`(D.I. 1, Ex. 4) at 3:44‒47. For example, claim 1 recites three limitations—a first directed to
`
`grouping “wireless services subscribers” into “domains,” a second directed to allowing digital
`
`product subscribers to “publish . . . digital products,” and a third directed to allowing subscribers
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 344
`
`
`
`in each domain “to acquire the digital products . . . and to use the acquired digital products.” See
`
`id., cl. 1. In other words, claim 1 of the ’113 patent recites nothing more than organizing and
`
`grouping subscribers and making content available to those groups.
`
` The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held similar claims unpatentable as directed to an
`
`abstract idea. For example, in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., the claims
`
`at issue recited a method for pricing products that arranged “customers (purchasing organizations)
`
`into a hierarchy of customer groups and products into a hierarchy of product groups.” 793 F.3d
`
`1306, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claimed method associated different pricing with the
`
`customer and product groups. Id. In affirming the PTAB, the Federal Circuit held that the claims
`
`were directed to an abstract idea, explaining that “[u]sing organizational and product group
`
`hierarchies to determine a price is an abstract idea that has no particular concrete or tangible form
`
`or application. It is a building block, a basic conceptual framework for organizing information.”
`
`Id. at 1333. Similarly, claim 1 of the ’113 patent organizes wireless services subscribers into
`
`groups (or “domains”) and allows products to be offered to each domain—a quintessentially
`
`abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1326‒27 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (finding use of “‘domain’ tags [that] describe a grouping of similar categories” to be
`
`abstract); Braemar Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 816 F. App’x 465, 470 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding
`
`ineligible claims to “filtering data into groups based on identifying characteristics . . . and
`
`transmitting the data”).
`
`The Claims Recite Nothing More Than Data Storage, Classification, and Transmission.
`
`Not only is the objective of claim 1 abstract, as the claim language confirms, achieving that
`
`objective employs only routine concepts of data storage, classification, and transmission, which
`
`the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held to be insufficient. For example, in In re TLI
`
`Communications, a claim “drawn to the concept of classifying an image and storing the image
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 10 Filed 02/16/24 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 345
`
`
`
`based on its classification” was held to be abstract. 823 F.3d 607, 611‒13 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Similarly, in Electric Power, claims regarding “performing real-time performance monitoring of
`
`an electric power grid” by “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
`
`the collection and analysis” were abstract and unpatentable. 830 F.3d at 1351, 1353; see also id.
`
`at 1353–54 (collecting cases concluding collecting, analyzing, and presenting information is
`
`abstract); SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167 (“. . . selecting certain information, analyzing it using
`
`mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis . . . is all abstract”);
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“claims directed to the collection, storage, and recognition of data are directed to an abstract
`
`idea”).
`
`As in In re TLI and Electric Power, all of the claimed elements recite abstract concepts of
`
`data storage, classification, and transmission. For example, claim 1 of the ’113 patent fi