Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Pagel of 24
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 14—cv—00570—BLF
`
`V,
`
`SERVICENQW, INC,’
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’ S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`]UDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`
`[Re: ECF 70]
`
`
`
`Defendant ServiceNow moves for summary judgment of invalidity of claims asserted against it
`
`under four U.S. patents. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.
`
`I.
`
`BAC KGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Hewlett Packard (“HP”) brought this suit against Defendant ServiceNow, alleging
`
`infringement of eight patents. At issue in the present motion are claims 12, 32, and 35 of U.S.
`
`Patent 8,224,683; claims 8-10, 13, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent 6,321,229; claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 15 of
`
`U.S. Patent 7,890,802; and claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of U.S. Patent 7,610,512.1 ServiceNow contends
`
`that these claims (collectively the “asserted claims”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C § 101 for failing to
`
`claim patentable subject matter. Specifically, ServiceNow contends that the asserted claims are
`
`directed to abstract ideas, which the Supreme Court has long held fall outside the scope of § 101,
`
`Alice Corp. 22. CLS Bom/e 1112"], 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
`
`The court held a hearing on January 29, 2015. HP argued that the parties’ positions revealed
`
`underlying disputes as to the proper construction of critical claim terms and that construction of
`
`these claim terms would be necessary in order resolve the parties’ ultimate dispute regarding
`
`patent—eligibility. See Hearing Transcript at 40:5—14, ECF 87. However, HP did not provide explicit
`
`proposed constructions of the claim terms it believed precluded summary judgment of invalidity,
`
`1 The full text of the challenged claims is reproduced in Appendix A.
`
`Exhibit 2001
`
`ServiceNow v. HP
`IPRZO1 5_00702
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`14
`
`16
`
`18
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page2 of 24
`
`explaining that it had understood the court’s prior instructions to preclude claim construction prior
`
`to this summary judgment motion. The court, recognizing a misunderstanding, granted leave for
`
`HP to file proposed constructions; the court also granted ServiceNow leave to file additional
`
`briefing to address whether the patents at issue would be invalid under HP’s proposed
`
`constructions. ECF 84. HP took the opportunity to file proposed constructions? ECF 89.
`
`ServiceNow has accepted HP’s proposed constructions for purposes of this motion and argued
`
`that the asserted claims are invalid even under the proposed constructions. ServiceNow’s
`
`Supplemental Brief, ECF 91. The court will adopt HP’s proposed constructions for purposes of
`
`this motion as well. See Bascorn Research, LLC 72. Lin/eedln, Inc., No. 12—cv—06293, 2015 WL 149480,
`
`at *12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015).
`
`A.
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,224,683
`
`The ’683 patent is directed toward optimizing the efficiency of providing IT helpdesk services.
`
`According to the patent’s specification, “many businesses choose to contract .
`
`.
`
`. information
`
`technology (IT) specialists to install and maintain appropriate computer and network hardware and
`
`software necessary for the business to achieve its business objectives. .
`
`.
`
`. Typically, the contract
`
`requires the IT provider to maintain a helpdesk to which the business’ [s] employees may call to
`
`notify the IT provider of problems with the computer system, network, or software. ‘H The
`
`helpdesk agent assigns each reported problem a service ticket.” ’683 patent at 1227-40. The claims
`
`of the ’683 patent are directed to a “system for monitoring service tickets in order to provide
`
`reminders to a help desk user of impending times for actions.” Claim 12 of the ’683 patent, which is
`
`representative for § 101 purposes,3 recites:
`
`A computer program product in a non-transitory computer readable media for
`use in a data processing system for monitorin service tickets for information
`technology service providers to ensure that evels of service required to be
`provided to a customer pursuant to a contractual agreement between the
`
`2 The constructions submitted by HP are reproduced in Appendix B.
`3 Although HP has not stipulated that Claim 12 is representative for § 101 purposes, both parties
`argued the patent’s validity in general terms, without identifying differences among the claims that
`would change the § 101 analysis. After reviewing the asserted claims, the court concludes that
`Claim 12 is representative for § 101 purposes “because all the claims are substantially similar and
`linked to the same abstract idea.” Content Extraction <2’ Transmission LLC 22. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
`2
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page3 of 24
`
`customer and a service provider, are met, the computer program product
`comprising:
`in a database to
`inspecting a service ticket
`first
`instructions for
`determine a deadline for when a problem associated with the service
`ticket must be resolved, with the deadline based upon a contractually
`determined
`severity of
`the
`problem and
`a
`corresponding
`contractually required time for resolution of the problem;
`display instructions for displaying, on a display device at the help desk, a
`graphical display populated with representations of service tickets
`that have reached a predetermined percentage of the time before
`their due date;
`second instructions for determining an deadline approaching alert time
`at which a help desk user must be notified that the deadline for
`resolving the problem must be met; and
`third instructions for alerting the help desk user that the deadline for
`resolving the problem is approaching when the deadline approaching
`alert time is reached.
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`B.
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,321,229
`
`The ’229 patent is directed toward accessing information in an information repository, such as
`
`a computer database. Recognizing the utility of displaying information hierarchically, the ’229
`
`patent claims a method and apparatus for accessing a repository’s information in a way that it may
`
`be displayed to a user in hierarchical form. Claim 8 of the ’229 patent, representative for § 101
`
`purposes,“ recites:
`
`Apparatus for accessing an information repository, comprising:
`a. a number of computer readable media; and
`b. computer readable program code stored on said number of computer
`readable media, said computer readable program code comprising:
`i. code for creating a hierarchy of derived containers, wherein a
`given derived container corresponds to:
`(1) a container definition node of an information model,
`said information model comprising a hierarchy of
`container definition nodes; and
`(2) a category of information stored in said information
`repository;
`ii. code for displaying given ones of said derived containers to a
`computer user; and
`iii. code for determining if a given one of said displayed derived
`containers has been selected by a computer user, and upon
`selection of said given one of said displayed derived
`containers, displaying contents of said given one of said
`displayed derived containers.
`
`4 Although HP has not stipulated that Claim 8 is representative for § 101 purposes, both parties
`argued the patent’s validity in general terms, without identifying differences among the claims that
`would change the § 101 analysis. After reviewing the asserted claims, the court concludes that
`Claim 8 is representative for § 101 purposes “because all the claims are substantially similar and
`linked to the same abstract idea.” Content Extraction <2’ Transmission LLC 22. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
`3
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page4 of 24
`
`C.
`
`U.S. PATENTS 7,890,802 AND 7,610,512
`
`The ’802 and ’512 patents, which share a specification, are directed toward automating
`
`workflows for resolving IT incidents. The ’802 patent’s claims focus on the creation of these
`
`automated IT workflows, while the ’512 patent’s claims focus on running the automated IT
`
`workflows. Claim 1 of the ’802 patent, representative for § 101 purposes,5 recites:
`
`A computer implemented method for facilitating a user in defining a repair
`Workflow for subsequent use in resolving information technology (IT)
`incidents, comprising:
`facilitating the user in defining a plurality of steps of the repair Workflow
`using a computing device, wherein facilitating the user in defining a
`plurality of steps comprises facilitating the user in defining a plurality
`of operations for the steps, and defining inputs and outputs of the
`operations;
`facilitating the user in defining a plurality of transitions between the
`steps, based at least in part on the outputs of the steps, using a
`computing device; and
`checking the defined repair workflow for correctness before being used
`to resolve an IT incident using a computing device, wherein
`checking the defined repair workflow for correctness includes
`verifying that each response of each step’s operation has a transition
`to another step.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’512 patent, representative for § 101 purposes,“ recites:
`
`A computer implemented method for resolving an information technology
`(IT) incident, comprising:
`loading a repair workflow having a plurality of steps and transitions
`between the steps, defined to repair the IT incident on a computing
`device, each of the steps having one or more inputs, processing logic
`for the input(s) and one or more outputs;
`creating a repair frame for the loaded repair Workflow on the computing
`device;
`creating a repair context for the repair frame on the computing device,
`and populating the repair frame with configuration data;
`binding one or more data values to the one or more inputs of one of the
`steps within the repair context;
`
`5 Although HP has not stipulated that Claim 1 is representative for § 101 purposes, both parties
`argued the patent’s validity in general terms, without identifying differences among the claims that
`would change the § 101 analysis. After reviewing the asserted claims, the court concludes that
`Claim 1 is representative for § 101 purposes “because all the claims are substantially similar and
`linked to the same abstract idea.” Content Extraction é’ Transnnssion LLC 22. I/fills Fargo Bank, Nat.
`Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
`6 Although HP has not stipulated that Claim 1 is representative for § 101 purposes, both parties
`argued the patent’s validity in general terms, without identifying differences among the claims that
`would change the § 101 analysis. After reviewing the asserted claims, the court concludes that
`Claim 1 is representative for § 101 purposes “because all the claims are substantially similar and
`linked to the same abstract idea.” Content Extraction <2’ Transnnssion LLC 22. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).
`4
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page5 of 24
`
`processing the bound data Values of the one or more inputs of the step
`within the repair context;
`executing the step’s operation;
`extracting the one or more outputs of step within the context; and
`selecting a transition to transition to another step within the context,
`based at least in part on the extracted one or more outputs.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “court shall grant summary
`
`judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
`
`movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
`
`The Supreme Court’s 1986 “trilogy” of Celotex Corp. 22. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), Anderson
`
`22. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), and Matsasbita Electric Industrial Co. 72. Zenith Radio
`
`Corp, 475 U.S. 574 (1986), requires that a party seeking summary judgment show the absence of a
`
`genuine issue of material fact. Once the moving party has done so, the nonmoving party must “go
`
`beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories,
`
`and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” See
`
`Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. “When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its
`
`opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
`
`facts.” Matsusbita, 475 U.S. at 586. “If the [opposing party’s] evidence is merely colorable, or is not
`
`significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50.
`
`“ [I]nferences to be drawn from the underlying facts,” however, “must be Viewed in the light most
`
`favorable to the party opposing the motion.” See Matsasbita, 475 U.S. at 587.
`
`B.
`
`PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act defines the classes of patentable subject matter: “Whoever
`
`invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
`
`or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions
`
`and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Despite the apparent breadth of this language, § 101 has long contained “an important implicit
`
`exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass ’n for
`
`Molecular Pathology 12. Myriad Genetics, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative
`
`5
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page6 of 24
`
`Services 22. Prometheus Laboratories, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012)). The Supreme Court recently
`
`reaffirmed this principle in Alice Corp. 2). CLS Bcm/e Inf], 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). The “concern that
`
`drives this exclusionary principle [is] one of pre—emption. .
`
`.
`
`. Monopolization of [laws of nature,
`
`natural phenomena, and abstract ideas] through the grant of a patent might tend to impede
`
`innovation more than it would tend to promote it, thereby thwarting the primary object of the
`
`patent laws.” Id. at 2354.
`
`However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed the need to “tread carefully in
`
`construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, all inventions
`
`embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.
`
`Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract
`
`concept.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
`
`The Supreme Court has set forth a “framework for distinguishing patents that claim .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`abstract ideas from those that claim patent—eligible applications of those concepts. First, we
`
`determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so,
`
`we then ask, ‘what else is there in the claims before us?’ .
`
`.
`
`. to determine whether the additional
`
`elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent—eligible application.” Id. at 2355 (internal
`
`citations omitted). Step two of the analysis is a “search for an ‘inventive concept’ —z'.e., 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.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
`
`Because patents are presumed valid, see 35 U.S.C. § 282, an alleged infringer asserting an
`
`invalidity defense bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Microsofi
`
`Corp. 22. z‘4z'L.P., 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A.
`
`U.S. PATENT 8,224,683
`
`ServiceNow argues that the ’683 patent claims the abstract idea of monitoring deadlines and
`
`providing an alert when a deadline is approaching. Opening Brief at 6, ECF 70. HP’s expert
`
`describes the ’683 patent as disclosing “a technological innovation that reduces the average time to
`
`resolve an IT incident.” Menascé Decl. at 1] 46, ECF 79-10. Dr. Menascé generally describes the
`
`6
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page? of 24
`
`benefit of the ’683 patent in terms of its ability to handle large volumes of service requests, each
`
`with its own contractual deadline. Menascé Decl. at W 125-27.7 The court agrees with
`
`ServiceNow that the claims of this patent are directed to an abstract idea. Looking to Claim 12 of
`
`the ’683 patent, the court notes that the “concept embodied by the majority of the limitations,”
`
`Ultmmerclal, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014), reduces to four conceptual
`
`elements:8
`
`1.
`
`Inspecting a service ticket to determine a deadline for when a problem must be
`
`resolved
`
`2. Displaying service tickets that have reached a predetermined percentage of the time
`
`before their due date
`
`3. Determining a deadline-approaching alert time
`
`4. Alerting the user when that alert time is reached
`
`’683 Patent at Claim 12.
`
`Taken together, limitations 1, 3, and 4 listed above do nothing more than describe What it
`
`means to monitor deadlines and provide alerts regarding those deadlines. “Although certain
`
`additional limitations, such as [limitation 2], add a degree of particularity, the concept embodied by
`
`the majority of the limitations describes only the abstract idea of” monitoring deadlines and
`
`providing alerts regarding those deadlines. Ultmmerclal, 772 F.3d at 715. The court thus concludes
`
`that Claim 12 of the ’683 patent is directed to the abstract idea of monitoring deadlines and
`
`providing an alert when the deadline is approaching.
`
`7 ServiceNow objects to HP’s submission of the declaration of Dr. Daniel A. Menascé on the basis
`that the declaration is directed to legal conclusions, which fall exclusively within the province of
`the court. The court agrees with ServiceNow that much of the declaration is directed to
`impermissible legal conclusions. However, the objection is OVERRULED on the basis that the
`court is capable of considering the declaration for its factual content while ignoring any
`impermissible legal conclusions. The court has reviewed Dr. Menascé’s declaration and has
`considered his conclusions to the extent they are properly characterized as factual rather than legal.
`See Accenture Global Serra, Gml7H v. Guidewlre Sofizmre, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`(recognizing that “ [p]atent eligibility under § 101 presents an issue of laW” that “may contain
`underlying factual issues”), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2871 (2014).
`8 The court need not reach the question of whether the preamble to this claim is limiting. Even
`assuming it is, it merely “recite[s] a handful of generic computer components,” which is
`insufficient to turn a claim for an abstract idea into a concrete implementation of that idea. See
`Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
`
`7
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page8 of 24
`
`Having found that this claim is directed to an abstract idea, the court must now search the
`
`claim limitations, individually and taken as an ordered combination, to determine whether the
`
`claim contains an “inventive concept” to ensure that the patentee is claiming a patent—eligible
`
`application of this idea, rather than attempting to patent the idea itself.
`
`It is clear under Supreme Court precedent that simply reciting the phrase “instructions for” in
`
`front of the substantive functional limitations is insufficient to turn an otherwise ineligible abstract
`
`idea into a patent-eligible application. This is no different than simply adding the words “use a
`
`computer to” before reciting an abstract idea, which the Supreme Court has unanimously held to
`
`be insuflicient. SeeAlz'ee, 134 S.Ct. at 2359 (“ [T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do
`
`more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea .
`
`.
`
`. on a generic
`
`computer. They do not.”) Claiming any and all “instructions for” implementing an abstract idea is
`
`substantively identical to instructing the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
`
`For the same reason, adopting HP’s proposed constructions does not alter the court’s
`
`conclusion that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Bascom Research,
`
`LLC 22. Lin/eedln, Inc., No. 12-cv-06293, 2015 WL 149480, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015). HP’s
`
`proposed constructions of ‘monitoring server,’ ‘database,’ and ‘help desk client’ fail to limit claim
`
`scope to a concrete implementation or application of the abstract idea discussed above. HP
`
`construes ‘monitoring server’ to mean “ [a] server specifically configured to,” followed by a
`
`functional description of the abstract idea being claimed. HP construes ‘database’ to mean “ [a]
`
`structured set of data specifically configured to,” followed by a functional description of the
`
`abstract idea being claimed. Finally, HP construes ‘help desk client’ to mean “ [a] client used by a
`
`help desk user specifically configured to,” followed by a functional description of the abstract idea
`
`being claimed. Reciting generic computer components “configured to” implement an abstract idea
`
`is no different than adding “instructions for” in front of the abstract idea; in either case, any and all
`
`implementations of the abstract idea are being claimed, which is essentially equivalent to claiming
`
`the abstract idea itself See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (holding unpatentable “system claims recit[ing]
`
`a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the [abstract] idea” because
`
`the recited computer component limitations were “purely functional and generic”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—OO570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page9 of 24
`
`Similarly, the fact that the claims are limited to applying this abstract concept in the context of
`
`IT help desks does not supply the necessary inventive concept. “Floo/e established that limiting an
`
`abstract idea to one field of use .
`
`.
`
`. did not make the concept patentable.” Bil:/ei 9). Kappos, 561 U.S.
`
`593, 612 (2010). For the same reason, the fact that the claims are limited to deadlines based on a
`
`“contractually required time for resolution of the problem,” ’683 Patent at Claim 12, does not
`
`transform the abstract idea of providing deadline alerts into a patentable implementation or
`
`application of that concept.
`
`The only potential for an inventive concept is in the second limitation listed above. In addition
`
`to providing alerts regarding upcoming deadlines, the claimed invention requires displaying service
`
`tickets that have reached a predetermined percentage of the time before their due date. Taken by
`
`itself, this claim limitation certainly cannot supply an inventive concept to render the abstract idea
`
`patent-eligible. First, this limitation is in itself an abstract idea, and so is not patentable on its own.
`
`Second, the court does not understand HP to be arguing that the idea of showing service tickets
`
`that have reached a predetermined percentage of time before their due date is innovative or non-
`
`conventional. The court also considers the limitations as an ordered combination and finds that
`
`considering them as such adds nothing to what is present when the limitations are considered
`
`separately. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359.
`
`Because the claims of the ’683 patent do nothing more than recite the abstract idea of
`
`monitoring deadlines and alerting users about upcoming deadlines, along with an instruction to
`
`implement the idea on various computing components, the claims of the ’683 patent are not
`
`directed to patentable subject matter. Accordingly, the court grants ServiceNoW’s motion for
`
`summary judgment as to the invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’683 patent.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. PATENT 6,321,229
`
`The ’229 patent is directed to an apparatus and method “for accessing an information
`
`repository.” ’229 Patent at Claim 8. Specifically, it is directed toward allowing hierarchical access to
`
`the information based on categories of information stored in the repository. See ’229 Patent at
`
`Claim 8(b)(i), 8(b)(i)(2); see also Menascé Decl. at ‘H 47, 82. ServiceNow contends that the ’229
`
`patent attempts to claim the abstract idea of categorizing and organizing information into a
`
`9
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—00570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page10 of 24
`
`hierarchy. Opening Brief at 16, ECF 70. If this characterization of the claims at issue is correct,
`
`there is little doubt that the claims are invalid as being directed to patent—ineligible subject matter.
`
`Claiming the abstract idea of organizing information into a hierarchy Would preempt any other
`
`inventor from creating a computer-based method for categorizing and organizing information by
`
`classification, no matter how the inventor achieved this result. See, e.g., C3/berfone Sys 2). CNN
`
`Interactive Grp, 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Dzgitec/1 Image Tee/mologies 22. Electronicsfor
`
`Imaging, 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`HP does not dispute that such abstract ideas are patent—ineligible, but rather disputes
`
`ServiceNow’s characterization of the ’229 patent’s claims. According to HP, the ’229 patent claims
`
`something much more specific and concrete than ServiceNow suggests. Opposition Brief at 14,
`
`ECF 79 (“The ’229 Patent is directed to an apparatus and method that uses specialized data
`
`structures .
`
`.
`
`. .”). Specifically, HP points to the fact that its claims are limited to implementations
`
`that use “derived containers” and “container definition nodes.” Opposition Brief at 15.
`
`If HP is correct that “derived containers” and “container definition nodes” really are specific,
`
`specialized data structures, rather than functionally defined generic computer components, then
`
`the ’229 patent’s claims are distinguishable from those at issue in Cyberfone and Dzgiteeh and may
`
`be patent—eligible. However, ServiceNow disputes HP’s characterization of the claimed data
`
`structures as “specialized.” ServiceNow argues that the claims of the ’229 patent simply use
`
`idiosyncratic names to identify what are actually “generic computer structures.” ServiceNow’s
`
`Supplemental Brief at 5, ECF 91; see also Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (holding unpatentable “system
`
`claims recit[ing] a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the [abstract]
`
`idea” because the recited computer component limitations were “purely functional and generic”).
`
`The court concludes, as an initial matter, that the patentability of the invention claimed by the
`
`’229 patent turns on whether “container definition nodes” and “derived containers” are
`
`idiosyncratic names for generic computer data structures. If they are indeed generic computer data
`
`structures, the meaningful limitations of Claim 8 are merely:
`
`1. Creating a hierarchy of data structures, with each data structure corresponding to:
`
`a.
`
`a definition for that data structure; and
`
`10
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—00570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Pagell of 24
`
`b.
`
`a category of information stored in the repository
`
`2. Displaying one or more of these data structures (i.e. categories of information)
`
`3. Displaying the content of one of these data structures upon selection by the user (i.e.
`
`displaying the corresponding category of information)
`
`Thus, if ServiceNow is correct and “derived containers” and “container definition nodes” are
`
`merely generic computer components, Claim 8 of the patent recites nothing more than organizing
`
`the information in a repository into a hierarchy and allowing the user to access it that way.
`
`Undoubtedly, this would be an unpatentable abstract idea. Accordingly, the court turns to HP’s
`
`constructions of “derived container” and “container definition node” to ascertain if they are truly
`
`specialized data structures, and not merely “functional” descriptions of “generic computer
`
`components configured to implement the same idea.” SeeAZz'ce, 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
`
`HP proposes to construe “container definition node” to mean a “ [d]ata structure having one
`
`or more attributes for accessing an information repository and related to creating a hierarchy of
`
`information.” Clearly, unspecified data structures are generic computing components unless
`
`defined by further details. The question then is whether HP’s proposed construction amounts to
`
`more than a “functional and generic” description of the data structure. The court concludes that
`
`HP’s proposed construction does not go beyond the kind of “functional and generic” description
`
`of “generic computer components configured to implement the [abstract] idea” that the Supreme
`
`Court rejected in Alice. Any computer-based “ [a] pparatus for accessing information in an
`
`information repository,” ’229 Patent at Claim 8, will require data structures containing information
`
`for accessing the information repository. This is merely a functional description of what the
`
`otherwise generic data structure needs to accomplish. Similarly, any apparatus for organizing
`
`information hierarchically will require data structures “related to creating a hierarchy of
`
`information.” This is again nothing more than a functional description of the data structure, rather
`
`than a substantive limitation on how the abstract idea is implemented.
`
`HP’s proposed construction of “derived container” as a “ [d]ata structure capable of executing
`
`a query based on an attribute from one or more corresponding container definition nodes” —
`
`though phrased in technical terms—is similarly functional and generic. The fact that the data
`
`11
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case5:14—cv—00570—BLF Documentlol Fi|edO3/10/15 Page12 of 24
`
`structure is capable of executing a query is simply another way of saying that the data structure is
`
`capable of accessing the information repository; it says nothing of /101» the data structure is capable
`
`of performing these operations. The limitation would cover any implementation of a data structure
`
`that achieves this functionality. The generic and functional nature of the data structure’s ability to
`
`execute a query is further shown by the fact that it is executing the query “based on an attribute
`
`from one or more corresponding container definition nodes.” As explained above, the container
`
`definition nodes’ attributes are nothing more than unspecified information for accessing the
`
`information repository. The derived containers’ ability to execute queries based on these attributes
`
`merely states that derived containers are able to use the information for its intended purpose.
`
`In short, taken together, the container definition nodes and derived containers are nothing
`
`more than a data structure containing information for accessing the information repository
`
`hierarchically and a data structure for using that information. This describes every conceivable
`
`implementation of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the court concludes that the claims of the ’229
`
`patent are drawn toward an abstract idea.
`
`Having found that this claim is directed to an abstract idea, the court must now search the
`
`claim limitations for an “inventive concept” to ensure that the patentee is claiming a patent—eligible
`
`application of this idea, rather than attempting to patent the idea itself. The only limitation in the
`
`claim beyond what was determined above to be a purely abstract idea is the requirement of “a
`
`number of computer readable media.” ’229 Patent at Claim 8. This limitation clearly does not
`
`supply