Case 3:14-cv-02668-CAB-WVG Document 88 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`In re WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC
`patent cases
`
` Case Nos.:
`14-CV-2668-CAB (WVG)
`14-CV-2670-CAB (WVG)
`14-CV-2675-CAB (WVG)
`14-CV-2677-CAB (WVG)
`14-CV-2679-CAB (WVG)
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
`FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`Before the Court is plaintiff West View Research’s motion for leave to assert
`
`alternative claims. [Doc. No. 63.]1 Defendant Tesla filed an opposition [Doc. No. 67],
`
`which was joined by defendants Nissan, BMW and Hyundai. Defendants Audi AG,
`
`Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of America (collectively “VW”) filed a separate
`
`opposition. [Doc. No. 81, in 14cv2668.] West View filed a reply. [Doc. No. 69.] The Court
`
`finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral
`
`argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`The Court’s previous order granting judgment on the pleadings provides a detailed
`
`background of these cases and description of the patents at issue, so only a short
`
`
`
`1 Cites are to the docket entries in West View v. Tesla, 14cv2679, unless otherwise noted.
`
`1
`
`14cv2668, 14cv2670, 14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`VWGoA - Ex. 1018
`Case No. IPR2016-00123
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. - Petitioner
`West View Research, LLC - Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02668-CAB-WVG Document 88 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`introduction is needed here. [See Doc. No. 58.] These cases involve 11 continuation
`
`patents, all issued from the same parent specification, numerous claims of which are
`
`asserted in various combinations in the five individual cases. For purposes of efficient case
`
`management, the cases were consolidated for discovery, claim construction and invalidity
`
`challenges. The Court initially ordered Plaintiff to select a maximum of seven claims from
`
`each patent for assertion against Defendants.
`
`The defendants in four of the cases2 jointly filed a motion for judgment on the
`
`pleadings for a determination that all the selected claims for nine of the patents at issue3 in
`
`these cases describe subject matter that is not eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101
`
`and are invalid. On December 11, 2015, the Court granted that motion. [Doc. No. 58.] The
`
`Court found that all the selected claims of the nine patents were substantially similar and
`
`linked to the same abstract idea. The claims did not include an element or combination of
`
`elements sufficient to ensure that the patents in practice amount to significantly more than
`
`a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
`
`Before the entry of judgment for Defendants, however, the Court allowed Plaintiff
`
`an opportunity to select alternative claims from each of the nine patents if Plaintiff could
`
`demonstrate in good faith that the claims were distinguishable from the primary set of
`
`claims Plaintiff elected to assert. To that end, Plaintiff has identified 32 alternative claims
`
`in seven of the nine patents. Plaintiff declined to offer alternative claims for U.S. Patents
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`8,682,673 and 8,706,504.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`II. The Alternative Claims Are Not Distinguishable
`
`West View has not demonstrated that the substitute claims it has elected to assert are
`
`distinguishable from the original group of claims. As Defendants persuasively outline in
`
`
`
`2 The VW defendants did not join the initial motion for judgment on the pleadings, but all the patents and
`claims asserted against the VW defendants were the subject of that motion.
`3 Defendants did not address claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,456 and 8,311,834 in connection with
`the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the asserted claims under these patents are not at issue in
`the instant motion. These patents are only asserted in case 14cv2670, West View v. BMW, and remain at
`issue in that case.
`
`2
`
`14cv2668, 14cv2670, 14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02668-CAB-WVG Document 88 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`their oppositions, the replacement claims are virtually indistinguishable from one or more
`
`of the previously asserted claims, all of which the Court found invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§101. [See Doc. Nos. 67-2 through 67-5; Doc. No. 81-1 through 81-8 in 14cv2668.]
`
`Instead of distinguishing the substitute claims it wants to assert from the claims the
`
`Court found invalid, West View’s motion essentially reiterates its position that the claims
`
`of these continuation patents are for inventive combinations of known components that
`
`achieve significantly more than the idea of a computer system receiving an input query,
`
`retrieving information and generating either a visual or audio response. Again despite the
`
`unambiguous statements in the specification that the disclosure requires no particular
`
`combination of components, all of which are known in the art, and utilizes well-known
`
`architectures and algorithms, West View contends that the parent specification discloses
`
`novel and nonobvious systems and/or algorithmic configurations to provide information to
`
`a system user. West View even boasts that its system and user interface combinations have
`
`been broadly adopted in a vast array of technologies such as smartphones, tablets, vehicles
`
`and other platforms. [See Doc. No. 74-1, at 10, fn. 6.] This only underscores the high level
`
`of abstraction of the disclosure and the claims – to receive an information request from a
`
`user, access the information from a remote server, display the information to the user and/or
`
`transfer it to a portable device associated with the user.
`
`The Court rejected this argument when it granted Defendants’ motion for judgment
`
`on the pleadings with respect to the initially asserted claims, and West View has not
`
`identified an element or combination of elements in the proposed alternate claims that
`
`warrants a different result here. None of the alternate claims support West View’s
`
`contention that these continuation patents claim more than a combination of conventional
`
`computer components that respond to a user query for information. Indeed, the patent
`
`examiner in a recent Office Action of an ongoing prosecution of another continuation
`
`patent to this parent application also rejected a number of proposed claims similar to those
`
`at issue in this litigation, on the grounds that those claims were directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The examiner also found that the claims do not include elements sufficient to amount to
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3
`
`14cv2668, 14cv2670, 14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02668-CAB-WVG Document 88 Filed 03/31/16 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea. [Doc. No. 83, fn. 2, citing to U.S. Patent
`
`Application Serial No. 13/733,098.]4
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`The proposed alternate claims are not distinguishable from those the Court deemed
`
`invalid because they do not claim more than a combination of conventional computer
`
`components that respond to a user query for information. West View’s motions to proceed
`
`on these substitute claims, therefore, are DENIED. Accordingly, for all of the reasons
`
`stated in the Court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 58.], the Clerk of
`
`Court should enter JUDGMENT in favor the Defendants in case numbers 14cv2668,
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, and 14cv2679. As for case number 14cv2670, all of Plaintiff’s
`
`infringement claims are dismissed aside from the claims under U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,456
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`and 8,311,834.
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is further ORDERED that West View’s motions to stay
`
`[see, e.g., Doc. No. 62 in case no. 14cv2679] and VW’s Motion to Modify Limits on
`
`Invalidity Contentions [Doc. No. 65 in case no. 14cv2668] are DENIED as moot. Further,
`
`VW’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 79 in case no. 14cv2668] is
`
`GRANTED, for all of the same reasons discussed in the Court’s prior order granting
`
`judgment on the pleadings [Doc. No. 58 in case no. 14cv2679] and herein.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 West View cited this prosecution history to demonstrate the PTO only rejected some of the pending
`claims of its new application under §101. However, the file wrapper shows all the remaining claims were
`also rejected as obvious and/or unsupported by the specification. The elements of the §101 rejected claims
`appear to closely resemble those of the patents at issue in this litigation and the Patent Office rejection is
`in accord with this Court’s analysis.
`
`
`4
`
`14cv2668, 14cv2670, 14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4