Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 2184
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES, LLC, AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-1236 (GBW)
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc.,
`Amazon.com Services, LLC, and
`Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`J. David Hadden
`Saina S. Shamilov
`Ravi R. Ranganath
`Allen Wang
`Vigen Salmastlian
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Todd R. Gregorian
`Ethan M. Thomas
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 875-2300
`
`January 19, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2185
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................1
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................2
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`The Pixel Averages Patents ......................................................................................3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Sequence Indicator Patents ...............................................................................5
`
`The Parameter Set Patent .........................................................................................8
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`The Pixel Averages Patents are patent-ineligible. ..................................................11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Sequence Indicator Patents are patent-ineligible. ...........................................14
`
`The Parameter Set Patent is patent-ineligible. .......................................................17
`
`The Court should hold all claims of the Pixel Averages Patents, Sequence
`Indicator Patents, and Parameter Set Patent ineligible under § 101. .....................19
`
`E.
`
`The Court should deny leave to amend. .................................................................20
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 2186
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................19
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360,1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).......................................................................................20
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. Advanced Discovery Inc.,
`No. 16-413-GMS, 2017 WL 2734725 (D. Del. June 26, 2017) ..............................................16
`
`Coffelt v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`680 F. App’x 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................2, 12
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................16, 18
`
`Digitech Image Tech’s v. Elecs. for Imaging,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................13
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
`818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................10
`
`In re Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
`991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................12
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................11, 17, 18
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,
`No. 2022-1861, 2024 WL 89642 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2024) .......................................................14
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................2, 15, 16, 18
`
`Nokia Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 23-1232-GBW ............................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 2187
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Plotagraph, Inc. v. Lightricks, Ltd.,
`620 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2022) .....................................................................................10
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF, 2018 WL 6521978 (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2018) .........................10, 17, 19
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc,
`537 F. Supp. 3d 591 (D. Del. 2021) ...................................................................................10, 14
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prod., Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................14
`
`Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................16, 18
`
`Universal Secure Reg. LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................13, 19
`
`Voit Techs., LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc.,
`757 F. App’x 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................14
`
`Wireless Discovery LLC v. Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc.,
`654 F.Supp.3d 347 (D. Del. 2023) ...........................................................................................20
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)........................................................................................................2, 10, 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ........................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 2188
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is a patent case—one of many filed by Nokia Technologies Oy (“Nokia”) in
`
`jurisdictions around the world in its ongoing and well-publicized licensing dispute with Amazon.1
`
`To maximize the burden and cost to Amazon of defending against these meritless cases, Nokia has
`
`opted for quantity over quality, asserting twenty-one patents in two cases before this Court, seven
`
`patents in two cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and numerous additional
`
`patents across at least eight other cases outside the U.S. But the patents Nokia asserts are invalid
`
`on their face: the six at issue here claim abstract ideas—including mathematical formulas and the
`
`use of sequential numbering or labeling of parameters in video coding—while reciting no new, let
`
`alone inventive, technology for implementing these ideas. The Court should hold these patents
`
`invalid and dismiss Nokia’s claims with prejudice for failure to claim eligible subject matter under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Nokia filed its complaint in this case on October 31, 2023, asserting fifteen U.S. patents.
`
`(D.I. 1 (“Compl.”).) This motion concerns six of them, spanning three separate patent families:
`
`(1) the Pixel Averages Patents (U.S Patent Nos. 6,950,469 (“the ’469 Patent”); 7,280,599 (“the
`
`’599 Patent”); 8,036,273 (“the ’273 Patent”)); (2) the Sequence Indicator Patents (U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,968,005 (“the ’005 Patent”); 8,144,764 (“the ’764 Patent”); and (3) the Parameter Set Patent
`
`(U.S. Patent No. 7,724,818 (“the ’818 Patent”)).2 But as discussed below, the patents claim
`
`
`1 This is one of two lawsuits Nokia filed against Amazon in this District. See Nokia Corp. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1232-GBW (the “1232 Matter”). In the 1232 Matter, Nokia asserts
`eleven patents, five of which Amazon has challenged in its concurrently-filed motion to dismiss
`under § 101. In the 1232 Matter, Amazon seeks an invalidity determination as to the ’818 patent,
`of which Nokia asserts a different asserted claim in this case.
`2 Amazon focuses this motion on six of the fifteen asserted patents in light of page limitations
`set by the Court’s rules. But nothing in this motion should be construed as an admission that any
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 2189
`
`ineligible subject matter under § 101. Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC
`
`and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) thus move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to
`
`dismiss for failure to allege a patentable claim.
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1. The challenged patents claim nothing more than the abstract idea of encoding and
`
`decoding video data, by using mathematical algorithms (the Sub-Pixel Averages Patents) and by
`
`classifying information (the Sequence Indicator Patents and the Parameter Set Patent). Under
`
`controlling Federal Circuit case law, such patents are ineligible under § 101. See, e.g.,
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“standard encoding
`
`and decoding” is an “an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information”); Coffelt v. NVIDIA
`
`Corp., 680 F. App’x 1010, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims that “recite nothing more than a
`
`mathematical algorithm that could be implemented using a pen and paper” are abstract); Intell.
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“organizing and
`
`accessing records through the creation of an index-searchable database” is abstract). Because
`
`Nokia’s patents fail to recite a specific technological solution for achieving the claimed results,
`
`they fail at Step One of the Supreme Court’s Alice test. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`
`2. The challenged patents do not recite any inventive concept that transforms the claimed
`
`abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter. Instead, the claims recite functional steps,
`
`without “any requirement for performing the claimed functions . . . by use of anything but entirely
`
`
`of the remaining nine asserted patents claims eligible subject matter; to the contrary, the remaining
`patents have similar flaws and Amazon reserves its right to seek a judgment on the pleadings of
`§ 101 invalidity under Rule 12(c) as the case proceeds.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 2190
`
`conventional, generic technology.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims therefore lack an inventive concept and fail at Alice Step Two. Id.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Pixel Averages Patents
`
`The Pixel Averages Patents (the ’469, ’599, and ’273 patents) are related, share an identical
`
`specification, and are identically titled “Method for Sub-pixel Value Interpolation.” They
`
`generally relate to video compression, and specifically calculating “sub-pixel values” of video
`
`images using mathematical formulas.
`
`As the patents explain, digital videos are sequences of still images that, when displayed at
`
`a high frame rate, create an illusion of motion. (’469 pat. at 1:10-31.) Each frame of an
`
`uncompressed digital video includes a large array of pixels, and each pixel corresponds to a value.
`
`(See id. at 1:31-48.) To efficiently transmit video signals, video encoding and compression
`
`algorithms seek to reduce the amount of information transmitted. The patents describe one such
`
`prior art encoding method: using mathematical interpolation methods to calculate sub-pixel values
`
`of video images. (’469 pat. at 6:65-7:3, 7:24-26, 7:55-67, 8:14-18, 8:43-53.) Instead of having to
`
`transmit all original pixel values, a video encoder can transmit a subset of the original pixel values;
`
`later, a video decoder calculates the values of the non-transmitted pixels (referred to as “sub-
`
`pixels”) based on the received pixel values. According to the patents, such methods “reduce the
`
`amount of information transmitted while retaining an acceptable video quality.” (Id. at 2:32-36.)
`
`The Pixel Averages Patents claim interpolation methods using mathematical formulas, like
`
`prior art interpolation schemes described in the specification.3 Specifically, the claims require
`
`
`3 The patents describe several prior art interpolation algorithms. (’469 pat. at 7:26-34
`(mathematical formula representing a “two-dimensional operation”), 8:43-53; 10:4-11:13; 11:39-
`12:49; 13:20-24 (describing existing “interpolation” schemes called Test Model 5 (TML 5) and
`Test Model 6 (TML6) that use “arithmetic” to calculate sub-pixel values).)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 2191
`
`calculating sub-pixel values by determining the “weighted sums” and
`
`“weighted averages” of nearby pairs of pixels and sub-pixels. Figure
`
`14(a), reproduced and annotated here, demonstrates this idea. In the
`
`figure, the “letter A is used to denote original image pixels,” whereas
`
`“[a]ll other letters represent sub-pixel locations, the values of the
`
`subpixels . . . being obtained by interpolation.” (Id. at 8:66-9:9.)
`
`Taking the weighted average of the pair of “A” pixel values in the top row, results in the value of
`
`the sub-pixel labeled “b” circled in blue, between them. (’469 pat. at 35:34-38.) Then, taking the
`
`weighted average of the “A” pixel and “b” sub-pixel values results in the value of the sub-pixel
`
`labeled “d” circled in red, between them. The calculation of averages can be performed diagonally
`
`(see, id. at 36:39-61), or across a larger matrix (see id. at 42:8-43-12). The specification explains
`
`that “the average may be formed in any appropriate manner.” (Id. at 37:21-22; 43:15-16.)
`
`Nokia asserts claim 1 of the ’469 patent, claim 1 of the ’599 patent, and claim 1 of the ’273
`
`patent. Though lengthy, the claims are directed to nothing more than the idea of calculating sub-
`
`pixel values using weighted sums and averages of other pixel and sub-pixel values. For example,
`
`claim 1 of the ’469 patent requires a “method of interpolation in video coding,” comprising step
`
`(a) interpolating subpixel values “directly using weighted sums of pixels” in the image; step
`
`(b) interpolating additional sub-pixel values directly using “weighted sums of values being
`
`calculated according to step (a),” and step (c) interpolating additional subpixel values, again, “by
`
`taking a weighted average of the value[s]” of sub-pixels calculated in the earlier steps. (See Appx
`
`A (full text of asserted claims).) Claim 1 of the ’599 patent and claim 1 of the ’273 patent are
`
`directed to the same basic idea. They require the use of either a “weighted average” or “weighted
`
`sum” of the values of other pixels and sub-pixels in an image, adding only that the pixels and sub-
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 2192
`
`pixels can be described in terms of “co-ordinates” with “K” and “L” values, where those coordinate
`
`values can be zero, odd, and even values. (See Appx A.) Claim 1 of the ’273 patent requires the
`
`use of a generic “apparatus” to carry out the same claimed method. (’273 pat. at cl. 1 (reciting
`
`“the method comprising causing an apparatus to . . .”).)
`
`The claims do not recite any new device or hardware (only a reference to an unspecified
`
`“apparatus”). They do not recite any new computing or video streaming technology. Instead, the
`
`claims recite mathematical formulas—weighted averages or weighted sums—used to interpolate
`
`the location of pixels and sub-pixels. The specification likewise focuses on these math formulas,
`
`and Nokia itself describes the patents as using “lower precision arithmetic.” (Compl. ¶¶ 79, 94,
`
`105 (emphasis added).) The specification describes no technical improvement to computing or
`
`video streaming technology; instead it refers to generic hardware components (i.e., “a multimedia
`
`terminal, encoder, decoder, and video codec.”) (’469 pat. at 24:55-67, 25:1-21.) The patents are
`
`silent as to how the claimed invention should be implemented; indeed, the specification notes that
`
`the method can be implemented—in some unspecified manner—as “software,” “dedicated
`
`hardware,” or a “combination of the two.” (Id. at 24:55-67, 34:47-49.)
`
`B.
`
`The Sequence Indicator Patents
`
`The Sequence Indicator Patents (the ’005 and ’764 patents) are related, share an identical
`
`specification, and are identically titled “Video Coding.” Video signals comprise a series of frames
`
`(referred to in the patents as “pictures”) that must be first encoded or compressed and then decoded.
`
`The Sequence Indicator Patents relate to the use of “reference” pictures in a video.
`
`The idea of using reference pictures—i.e., pictures on which other pictures may depend for
`
`decoding purposes—long predates the Sequence Indicator Patents. (’005 pat. at 1:30-46.)
`
`Conventional video coding standards included two types of reference pictures: independently
`
`decodable “I-pictures,” and “P-pictures” which can be decoded using previous pictures. (Id.; see
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 2193
`
`also id. at 3:33-35.) Non-reference pictures such as “B-pictures” may rely on I- or P- pictures for
`
`decoding. (Id. at 1:42-46.) But according to the specification, existing video coding standards had
`
`“no means to detect if a reference picture is lost” because standard video bitstreams lacked
`
`“information identifying the reference picture[s].” (Id. at 3:35-39.)
`
`The Sequence Indicator Patents purport to address that problem by “indicating the temporal
`
`order of the reference picture in the encoded video signal” using one number per reference picture.
`
`(Id. at 4:8-12.) In other words, the claimed advance of the Sequence Indicator Patents is simply
`
`to assign sequential numbers—e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.—to pictures in a stream. These sequential
`
`numbers—referred to as “Reference Picture Order Numbers” or “RPONs”—are “incremented
`
`each time a successive reference picture is encoded, preferably by 1,” thus allowing the system to
`
`know “whether a reference picture has been lost.” (Id. at 4:13-14; 4:23-25; 7:30-35; 11:60-61.)
`
`According to the patents, in the claimed invention, a video signal, or bitstream, would include the
`
`RPON, and, after transmission, a decoder could compare the RPON values of two sequential
`
`reference pictures; if the difference between the RPON values is greater than the expected value,
`
`this indicates that a reference frame has been lost. (Id. at 4:51-60.) Figure 5, reproduced and
`
`annotated below, demonstrates the use of these so-called RPON numbers, showing sequential
`
`reference pictures (i.e., I- or P-pictures) numbered 1 through 6.4
`
`
`
`
`4 Figure 5 shows other types of sequence numbers, including the “TR” (Temporal Reference),
`that were admittedly known and used in video coding at the time of the patents. (Id. at 3:39-52
`(prior art use of “sequence numbers”), 9:44-11:9 (TR and other codewords used in a prior art bit
`stream).)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 2194
`
`Nokia asserts three method claims of the Sequence Indicator Patents—claims 1 and 5 of
`
`the ’005 patent and claim 1 of the ’764 patent—each directed to the same concept of sequential
`
`numbering. Claim 1 of the ’005 patent requires a “method of encoding a video signal” that
`
`comprises “indicating an encoding order” of reference pictures using “a sequence indicator,”
`
`where the sequence indicator has a “numbering scheme” in which the values “differ . . . by a
`
`predetermined amount” (e.g., differing by one). (See Appx A at 4.) Claim 5 of the ’005 patent
`
`recites the same “sequence indicator,” but claims a method of decoding a video signal in which
`
`the decoder “identif[ies] the sequence indicator value assigned to the reference picture” and
`
`compares values in order to detect any loss of a reference picture. (Id. at 4.) Claim 1 of the ’764
`
`patent requires a “method of encoding a video signal” comprising “assign[ing] consecutive
`
`reference pictures in encoding order” with “sequence indicator values that differ . . . by a
`
`predetermined amount,” adding only that the assigning of numbers is carried out by an unspecified
`
`“encode[r],” which the claim defines only by its function. (Id. at 5.)
`
`The claims are directed to the idea of encoding and decoding video signals using sequence
`
`indicators to detect if a picture has been lost, and identify no specific technological solution—or
`
`any technology at all—for implementing this idea. Indeed, the only remotely technological
`
`component of the asserted claims is a generic “encoder[]” that the specification admits predates
`
`the patents. (’005 pat. at 1:24-26.) The specification provides no implementation detail for the
`
`claimed encoder, and describes it solely by reference to its functions—receiving feedback from a
`
`decoder (e.g., information about errors in a frame), deciding whether to apply coding, associating
`
`an RPON to a frame, and outputting an RPON code. (Id. at 7:28-32 (identifying “encoding control
`
`manager 105” as the software module that carries out the claimed numbering), 6:34-36, 6:50-67,
`
`7:30-32, 7:35-37 (describing functions of claimed encoder).)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 2195
`
`According to the specification, the use of sequence numbering in video coding, and
`
`incorporation of these sequential numbers into a bit stream, was conventional. (Id. at 8:1-8
`
`(describing H.263 standard and its use of numeric coding for a picture using Temporal Reference
`
`(TR) codes); 2:65-3:12, 10:44-45 (describing prior art H.263 standard).) Thus, the specification
`
`acknowledges that the claimed invention is nothing more than a minor variation of encoding and
`
`decoding methods that long predated the patents.
`
`C.
`
`The Parameter Set Patent
`
`The Parameter Set Patent (the ’818 patent) is titled “Method for Coding Sequences of
`
`Pictures,” and generally relates to the use of “parameters” in video coding. (’818 pat. at cover.)
`
`Video encoders typically output parameters, each of which have corresponding values, for the
`
`video. (See ’818 pat. at 2:6-13, 2:49-3:10).) A decoder typically uses the parameters when
`
`decoding an encoded video signal, and the parameter values are contained in a header at the slice
`
`layer of a picture, also known as a “slice header.” (Id. at 2:48-59 (describing the use of parameter
`
`values in the “slice header” in prior art coding standard).) Video encoders typically assign
`
`parameter values that apply across groups of data, e.g., a “sequence” or “group of pictures,” or
`
`“slices” of each individual picture. (Id. at 1:52-53; 2:2-5, 10:56-57; see also id. at 2:48-59
`
`(describing the use of parameter sets in prior art).)
`
`The Parameter Set Patent proposes to take existing coding schemes that use parameter sets,
`
`and “splits the parameter set structure” into two parameter sets (i.e., a “sequence parameter set”
`
`and a “picture parameter set”) such that “all picture parameter sets that are referred to within a
`
`sequence must refer to the same sequence parameter set” and “all slices of a picture must refer to
`
`the same picture parameter set.” (Id. at 4:5, 4:15-16, 4:18-19, 7:3-4.) It does this because some
`
`parameter values are common across the pictures in a sequence, and other parameter values are
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 2196
`
`common across the slices in a picture. (Id. at 7:25-26.) The patent proposes to group these
`
`common values either at the sequence level or the picture level. (Id. at 4:19-21.)
`
`Nokia asserts in this case claim 1 of the Parameter Set Patent, which is directed to this
`
`abstract idea. It requires a “method for encoding sequences of pictures,” by defining values in
`
`each of a “sequence parameter set for a sequence of pictures” and a “picture parameter set for a
`
`picture,” and defining at least one picture parameter value that “remain[s] unchanged at least in all
`
`slice headers of one picture.” (Id. at cl. 1.) Stripped of its excess verbiage, the claim requires
`
`classifying or grouping parameter values into two sets: (1) a “sequence parameter set” when those
`
`values are the same across pictures, and (2) a “picture parameter set” when those values are the
`
`same across slices of a picture. (Id.)
`
`The only computing component referenced in claim 1 is a generic “encoder” that performs
`
`the claimed “defining” of parameter values. But neither the claim nor the specification provides
`
`any actual technology for implementing this idea. The specification does not articulate any
`
`particular, let alone new, process for defining parameter values. Nor does it identify any new
`
`hardware or computing components. The specification describes a generic encoder—referred to
`
`as “encoder 1,” and shown in Figures 2 and 3, reproduced (and annotated in red) below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 depicts the encoder as a literal empty box. As shown in Figure 3, the encoder comprises
`
`a generic “memory” and “processor.” (Id. at 11:3-10.) The encoder includes an “encoding buffer”
`
`and “picture buffer,” but Figure 3 depicts these as nothing more than functional boxes. (Id. at
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 2197
`
`Fig. 3; see also id. at 11:2-3 (encoding buffer is component for “temporarily storing some of the
`
`pictures to be encoded”); 11:21 (picture buffer is where “encoded pictures are moved”).)
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Supreme Court in Alice directs courts to take a two-step approach when assessing
`
`patent validity under Section 101. Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18. At Step One, a court should
`
`consider whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Id. If so, the court should proceed to
`
`Step Two and decide whether the claims add an “inventive concept”—“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 [abstract idea] itself.’” Id. at 217-18 (quotation omitted). The Federal
`
`Circuit has repeatedly recognized that courts may determine patent eligibility on a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion. Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The Pixel Averages Patents, Sequence Indicator Patents, and Parameter Set Patent are all
`
`directed to methods of encoding and decoding video, an impermissibly abstract idea under a long
`
`line of Federal Circuit and District Courts opinions. See RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1326 (“standard
`
`encoding and decoding” is an “an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information”);
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., No. 17-1692-CFC-SRF, 2018 WL 6521978, at
`
`*5 (D. Del. Dec. 12, 2018) (claims directed to the “abstract idea of encoding and decoding data,
`
`and the digital compression of data”); see also Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks Inc, 537 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 591, 608 (D. Del. 2021) (finding that data compression patents are directed to abstract
`
`ideas as they do not “go[] beyond conducting data analysis and performing mathematical
`
`operations” which “could be implemented using pen and paper”); Plotagraph, Inc. v. Lightricks,
`
`Ltd., 620 F. Supp. 3d 591, 600 (S.D. Tex. 2022) (“Shifting pixels to create the illusion of movement
`
`within an image is a digital version of animation, which is an abstract idea.”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 2198
`
`The patents additionally claim methods of encoding and decoding video using simple
`
`mathematical algorithms or methods of organizing or classifying data, ideas that numerous courts
`
`have held abstract and ineligible. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327 (“[a]dding one abstract idea .
`
`. . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”). Indeed, even the
`
`algorithms and classification schemes are themselves particularly simplistic: weighted averages,
`
`counting by 1, and splitting a large set into two smaller ones. The patents seek to distract from the
`
`simplicity of the claimed ideas by reciting lengthy limitations with terms that appear at least
`
`superficially complex. But, at bottom, these claims cover nothing more than conventional coding
`
`standards with the mere addition of elementary-school-style ideas that are abstract and lack the
`
`sort of inventive concept necessary to overcome a Section 101 challenge. Just as other courts have
`
`invalidated similar claims, this Court should do the same.
`
`A.
`
`The Pixel Averages Patents are patent-ineligible.
`
`At Alice Step One, courts examine the “‘focus’ of the claims” or their “character as a
`
`whole” to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
`
`1353. To be non-abstract, computer-implemented claims must be “directed to a specific
`
`improvement to computer functionality.” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims of the Pixel Averages Patents focus on the idea of deriving sub-pixel
`
`values by taking weighted sums and averages of the other pixel values—in other words, the idea
`
`of encoding and decoding video using basic math. They are not directed to a specific technological
`
`solution, and are abstract at Step One.
`
`The idea of encoding and decoding video is abstract as a matter of law. See RecogniCorp,
`
`855 F.3d at 1326. Performing this encoding and decoding using a math formula—e.g., calculating
`
`weighted averages—does not make this idea less abstract. The Federal Circuit’s RecogniCorp
`
`opinion makes this clear. There, the challenged patent claimed “a method whereby a user displays
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01236-GBW Document 18 Filed 01/19/24 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 2199
`
`images on a first display, assigns image codes to the images through an interface using a
`
`mathematical formula, and then reproduces the image based on the codes.” RecogniCorp, 855
`
`F.3d at 1322, 1324, 1326. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was directed to an abstract idea,
`
`explaining that encoding and decoding is “an abstract concept long utilized to transmit
`
`information.” Id. Such a claim, “clearly directed to encoding and decoding image data . . . does
`
`not claim a software method that improves the functioning of a computer.” Id. at 1325, 1327. The
`
`Federal Circuit also explained that adding math to the ab