Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 55
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`In re WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC
`patent cases
`
` Case Nos.:
`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 the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Tesla Motors,
`
`Inc. (“Tesla”) in Case No. 14-CV-2679. [Doc. No. 47.] The motion has been joined by
`
`the defendants in Case No. 14-CV-2675 (collectively, the “Hyundai Defendants”), and
`
`Case No. 14-CV-2677 (collectively, the “Nissan Defendants,” and together with Tesla and
`
`the Hyundai Defendants, the “Defendants”). Plaintiff has opposed the motion, and the
`
`Court held a hearing on October 29, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
`
`granted.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`On June 10, 1999, Robert Gazdzinski filed an application that issued on September
`
`2, 2003 as United States Patent No. 6,615,175 for a “‘Smart’ Elevator System and Method.”
`
`The patent discloses a system and subsystems utilizing computer hardware, software and
`
`other peripherals, known in the art, to provide information to occupants in an elevator, or
`
`VWGoA - Ex. 1016
`Case No. IPR2016-00124
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. - Petitioner
`West View Research, LLC - Patent Owner
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 55
`
`
`users of other “personnel transport devices” such as moving walkways or shuttles. It also
`
`discloses sub-systems that control the operation of the elevator car. The specification is
`
`directed at various embodiments of such a system and sub-systems, incorporated into an
`
`elevator car, although it asserts that certain aspects of the invention may be useful in other
`
`applications.
`
`In discussing the problems the invention resolves, the patent focuses on the role of
`
`elevators, and similar devices, widely used in modern urban life to transport large numbers
`
`of people between two locations on a routine basis. The patent states that advances in “data
`
`networking, thin or flat panel display technology, personal electronics, and speech
`
`recognition and compression algorithms and processing” have made it technologically and
`
`commercially viable to provide systems that allow users of elevators and such
`
`transportation devices to make productive use of the “dead time” the users experience
`
`waiting for and using such transport devices, by providing access to information such as
`
`directions, news, weather, and advertising. The user is presented with a computer system
`
`that permits the user, audibly through a microphone or physically using a keypad, to make
`
`a query that is processed, and a response is then displayed on a screen or audibly over a
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`speaker.
`
`18
`
`The specification discloses the various components of this overall information
`
`19
`
`system.1 The system includes an input device such as a touch-sensitive keypad and/or
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`display screen “of the type well known in the electrical arts.” 156 Patent, Col. 5:52-55. An
`
`example of the system’s speech recognition module is set forth, however the specification
`
`states that a “myriad [of] speech recognition systems and algorithms are available, [and]
`
`all considered within the scope of the invention.” Id., Col. 6:5-7. CELP-based voice data
`
`compression, to convert analog speech to a compressed digital format, is disclosed also
`
`recognizing that such algorithms and technology are “well known in the signal processing
`
`
`
`1 The ‘175 patent is the parent patent of all the patents at issue. All the asserted patents are based on the
`‘175 patent specification. The portions of the specification discussed herein are referenced to the
`column and line locations in one of the continuation patents at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,065,156.
`
`2
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 3 of 55
`
`
`art” and therefore are not further described. Additionally CELP is described to include any
`
`and all variants of the CELP family and notes that other types of compression algorithms
`
`and techniques may be used as well. Id., Col. 6:8-21.
`
`A digital signal processor is identified as a particular Texas Instruments processor,
`
`but “other types of processors may be used.” Id., Col. 6:36-39. Similarly the central
`
`processor is identified as a particular Intel design, “although others may be used in place
`
`of the [Intel processor].” Id., Col. 6:41-45. A keypad design is disclosed for the input
`
`device however “any number of input devices, including ‘mechanical’ keypads, trackballs,
`
`light pens, pressure sensitive ‘touch’ keypads, or the like maybe used in conjunction with
`
`the present invention.” Id., Col. 7:4-7. The patent discloses touch-screen display devices
`
`“of the type well known in the art, although other types of displays, including ‘flat’ cathode
`
`ray tubes, plasma or TFT display” or “a non-touch sensitive display” may be used. Id.,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Col. 7:11-23.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A remote central server is networked to the system via a “local area network
`
`architecture such a bus, star, ring, star/bus, or other similar topology” and the network may
`
`operate according to any number of networking protocols. Id., Col. 7:41-46. Data may
`
`also be transferred from the system to the remote server via “any wireless interface capable
`
`of accommodating the bandwidth requirements of the system.” Id., Col.7:52-58. Optical
`
`networking architectures and protocols, of the type well known in the data networking arts,
`
`may also be used to transfer data between the server and the system. Id., Col. 7:58-63.
`
`In summary, the various components of the system that function to input a query,
`
`process, retrieve and provide a visual or audible response are described as “well known”
`
`devices and technology, and the patent broadly states that “many different arrangements
`
`for the disposition of various components within the system . . . are possible, all of which
`
`are encompassed within the scope of the present invention.” Id., Col. 7:64-Col. 8:2.
`
`Nothing in the specification suggests that the collection of hardware, firmware and
`
`software that make up the information system to input a user query, process it, and provide
`
`a response is specifically configured and adapted to this particularized use. To the contrary,
`
`3
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 4 of 55
`
`
`the combination of system components is described as interchangeable and readily
`
`identifiable to those in the art.
`
`The patent then describes various sub-systems, or possible applications for this
`
`overall computer information system. A building directory sub-system is disclosed, with
`
`respect to tenant location and information. This sub-system is described as files in the
`
`system containing tenant information and indicates the sub-system can be programmed to
`
`search these files in response to a user query and provide a variety of responses, including
`
`a location graphic file, depending on the content of the files and the program parameters.
`
`Id., Col. 8:3-Col. 10:2.
`
`The patent also discloses a Network Interface sub-system, in which the input device
`
`or display of the computer information system links to a network interface by cable modem
`
`of the type well known in the networking arts, or any wireless interface that could
`
`accommodate the bandwidth requirements. Using preset function keys, the system
`
`provides information on a variety of predetermined topics at the user’s initiation, such as
`
`weather, news headlines or financial data. The generation of the responsive textual,
`
`graphic or mixed media displays is described as well known in the computer arts and not
`
`further described. Alternatively the computer information system is programmed to
`
`provide information on a rotating basis without the need for user intervention, changing
`
`topics every 10 to 15 seconds for example. Id., Col. 10:3-Col. 11:7.
`
`Should the user of the computer system wish to take the information with him or
`
`her, the patent discloses an Information Download embodiment. Id. Col. 11:8-Col. 12-3.
`
`A user may plug a personal electronic device (PED) into the computer system to download
`
`the information. Such connectors and protocols for this downloading are described as well
`
`known in the electronic arts. “A universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter or universal
`
`serial bus of the type well known in the computer arts is used to electrically interface the
`
`processor of the system and the PED.” Id., Col. 11:33-37 “Application software resident
`
`on the PED is adapted to receive the downloaded data, store it within the storage device of
`
`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
`
`4
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 5 of 55
`
`
`the PED, and display it at a later time.” Id., Col. 11:48-50. How the PED application
`
`software is adapted is not disclosed.
`
`There is a lengthy description of a Capacity Sensing sub-system to detect the
`
`passenger load of the elevator car and selectively bypass floors when the capacity is met.
`
`Id., Col. 12:4-Col. 15:18. This sub-system is not relevant to the claims at issue in this
`
`litigation.
`
`A Monitoring and Security sub-system is included that incorporates signals from
`
`cameras and/or motion detectors external to the elevator transmitted to the computer
`
`system’s display. Based on the video monitoring, a user of the system can control the
`
`operation of the elevator, contact a security station, or activate additional lighting. The
`
`patent discloses that many architectures for generating and transmitting video data between
`
`a remote location of cameras and the display unit of the computer system are known and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`possible. Id., Col. 15:19-Col. 17:49.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`The computer system can also be used as an Identification and Access sub-system,
`
`using radio frequency identification tags (RFID tag), readers, and passwords, encrypted
`
`protocols or spread spectrum techniques for security, all systems well known in the art.
`
`Users with authorized RFID tags could use the computer system to gain access to certain
`
`floors, activate lighting or environmental controls or use the tag as a personal identifier
`
`when downloading data from the computer system to a user’s PED thereby initiating
`
`application of a data file pre-configured to that user’s device. Id., Col. 17:50-Col. 20:8.
`
`The computer system can also be programmed to provide “adaptive advertising or
`
`information.” Id., Col. 20:9-Col. 24:18. “The advertising sub-system is comprised of
`
`components resident within the information and control system, as well as data files and
`
`an adaptive algorithm (not shown) running on the processor.” Id., Col. 20:15-19. The
`
`patent describes two functional modes for the adaptive algorithm.
`
`In the “prompt” mode the computer system samples the conversation between the
`
`elevator passengers, and identifies keyword(s), then uses the keyword(s) to search and
`
`select related advertising image data and display or audibly project the advertising.
`
`5
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 6 of 55
`
`
`Alternatively, advertising is provided in response to a user selection, such as in response
`
`to a user selecting a certain floor, advertising related to the tenants on that floor is displayed.
`
`Id., Col. 20:26-Col. 22:52.
`
`In the “statistical” mode, the computer systems gathers statistics on the speech
`
`patterns of the elevator occupants to determine the most frequently encountered words
`
`within its library. Advertising related to the encountered words is displayed in proportion
`
`to the percentage of statistical frequency that the related words are recognized.
`
`Alternatively, in relation to user queries, advertising corresponding to the query is
`
`displayed like “banner” display advertising “commonly used with prior art Internet
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`browsers.” Id., Col. 22:53-Col. 24:18.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Gazdzinski filed and was granted a series of continuation patents based on this
`
`disclosure. At issue in this motion are the following continuation patents, assigned by
`
`Gazdzinski to plaintiff West View Research LLC and asserted against Defendants: United
`
`States Patent Nos.: 8,065,156; 8,290,778; 8,296,146; 8,682,673; 8,706,504; 8,712,777;
`
`15
`
`8,719,037; 8,719,038; and 8,781,839.
`
`16
`
`The asserted claims of these continuation patents (set forth in Doc. Nos. 47-4
`
`17
`
`through 47-12, and attached hereto as Exhibits 1-9)2 are not limited to the elevator
`
`18
`
`environment for the computer system and applications as the parent patent claims are.
`
`19
`
`Instead the continuation claims generally recite an apparatus3 consisting of the generic
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`computer components disclosed in the specification with a program capable of receiving
`
`digitized speech or other input from a user, processing the user’s query for some form of
`
`information (directions, “topical” areas or other “desired” information) and providing a
`
`23
`
`response.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2 Collectively these patents have 365 claims, which Plaintiff contends are all at issue in this litigation.
`To provide for efficient management of this litigation, the Court required Plaintiff to identify no more
`than seven claims per patent (a total of 63 claims) to assert against the defendants. Consequently, it is
`understood that the selected claims represent the most important and relevant claims for this litigation.
`3 The ‘777 patent claims a method to provide directions based on a digitized speech query.
`
`6
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 7 of 55
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that the claims of these continuation patents are directed at an
`
`abstraction - requesting and receiving information. They contend that claim limitations for
`
`the system’s generic computer components such as the use of voice recognition modules
`
`or touch screen displays, using wireless or wired network connections, or the limitations
`
`particularizing the type of information sought and delivered, do not transform these claims
`
`from an abstract idea to a patentable invention. The claims recite no more than generic
`
`computer components functioning in their conventional manner to provide information to
`
`a user. To the extent the claim limitations include a particular type of information that is
`
`stored, retrieved and provided, the patent simply states the computer system is or can be
`
`programmed to provide this information. Defendants have therefore moved for judgment
`
`on pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) that based on the asserted claims of the patents at issue,
`
`these continuation patents claim an abstraction and are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101.
`
`II. Legal Standard Under Rule 12(c)
`
`On matters of procedural law that do not implicate patent law, the Federal Circuit
`
`defers to the law of the regional circuit court. Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips
`
`Electronics N.V., 586 F.3d 980, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In reviewing a grant of judgment
`
`on the pleadings, this court applies the procedural law of the regional circuit.”). Thus,
`
`Ninth Circuit procedural law for Rule 12(c) motions applies here. In the Ninth Circuit, a
`
`“motion for judgment on the pleadings faces the same test as a motion under Rule
`
`12(b)(6).” McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988); see also
`
`Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Because the
`
`motions are functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a Rule 12(b)
`
`motion applies to its Rule 12(c) analog.”).
`
`The standard under Rule 12(b) is a familiar one. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
`
`complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
`
`that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
`
`Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v.
`
`Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the Iqbal
`
`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
`
`7
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`7
`
`

`
`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
`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 8 of 55
`
`
`standard applies to Rule 12(c) motions). A claim is facially plausible when the collective
`
`facts pled “allow . . . the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
`
`for the misconduct alleged.” Id. There must be “more than a sheer possibility that a
`
`defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Facts “‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s
`
`liability” fall short of a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
`
`557). The Court need not accept as true “legal conclusions” contained in the complaint,
`
`id., or other “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or
`
`unreasonable inferences.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.
`
`2010).
`
`III. Discussion
`
`A. 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Section 101 defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection as: “any new and
`
`useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`
`improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 101
`
`“contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
`
`abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347,
`
`2354 (2014); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct.
`
`1289, 1293 (2012) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and
`
`abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
`
`technological work.”) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). However,
`
`“an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract
`
`concept.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354. Rather, “applications of such concepts to a new and
`
`useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.” Id. (internal quotations and brackets
`
`omitted). “Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, [the court] must distinguish
`
`between patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate
`
`the building blocks into something more, thereby transforming them into a patent-eligible
`
`invention.” Id. (internal quotations, citations, and brackets omitted); see also Potter Voice
`
`Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. C 13-1710 CW, 2015 WL 5672598, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11,
`
`8
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 9 of 55
`
`
`2015) (same).
`
`“The issue of invalidity under Section 101 presents a question of law.” OpenTV,
`
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-1622-HSG, 2015 WL 1535328, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6,
`
`2015). The analysis of whether a patent falls within the exceptions to Section 101 is a two-
`
`step process. First, the Court must “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
`
`a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355; see also DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`
`Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Second, if the claims are directed
`
`to a patent-ineligible concept, the Court must “consider the elements of each claim both
`
`individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements
`
`transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
`
`2355. This second step is also kn own as “a search for an inventive concept—i.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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`quotations and brackets omitted).
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B. Timing of the Instant Motion
`
`There is no “bright line rule requiring district courts to construe claims before
`
`determining subject matter eligibility.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of
`
`Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Content Extraction &
`
`Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(“[C]laim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under §
`
`101.”). At the same time, the Federal Circuit has stated that “it will ordinarily be
`
`desirable—and often necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101
`
`analysis, for the determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic
`
`character of the claimed subject matter.” Id. at 1273-74. That being said, “[r]elying on
`
`Alice, an increasing number of district courts have found claim construction unnecessary
`
`when determining the eligibility of patents that rely on computer implementation at the
`
`motion to dismiss stage.” Boar’s Head Corp. v. DirectApps, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-1927-KJM-
`
`KJN, 2015 WL 4530596, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 28, 2015); see also OpenTV, 2015 WL
`
`9
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 10 of 55
`
`
`1535328, at *2 (listing cases where courts have granted motions to dismiss or for judgment
`
`on the pleadings based on Section 101 prior to formal claim construction.).
`
`“Although it is defendants’ burden to show ineligibility, a court should look to the
`
`plaintiff to show some factual dispute requiring claim construction.” Boar’s Head Corp.,
`
`2015 WL 4530596, at *7. Here, Plaintiff’s opposition is couched in generalities, and
`
`Plaintiff fails to identify a construction that would affect the Court’s analysis of the instant
`
`motion.4 Accordingly, the Court is comfortable considering the instant motion at this stage
`
`in the litigation and without formal claim construction.
`
`C. Representative Claims
`
`Defendants argue that Claim 1 of the ‘778 patent, and Claim 10 of the ‘156 patent
`
`are representative, and that the Court need not address every claim of each patent in this
`
`case. Plaintiff disagrees, but the only claims it has identified as different from those
`
`identified as representative by Defendants are claims that Plaintiff has not asserted in this
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`lawsuit.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Ultimately, the Court finds that all of the asserted claims in all of the patents are
`
`“substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” Content Extraction &
`
`Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1348. As a result, addressing each asserted claim of the
`
`patents is unnecessary. See id.; see also Wolf, 2014 WL 7639820, at *10 & n.3 (“The
`
`Supreme Court’s precedents have not required a court deciding § 101 eligibility to parse
`
`each individual claim, instead finding an analysis of representative claims sufficient.”); but
`
`see Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 14-cv-1650-YGR, 2015 WL 5260506, at *7 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (analyzing all of the claims in suit, but also noting that when the only
`
`material distinctions among the claims are the inclusion of generic computer components,
`
`such distinctions did not save the claims from invalidity).
`
`
`
`4 See generally Wolf v. Capstone Photography, Inc., No. 2:13–CV–09573, 2014 WL 7639820, at *10 &
`n. 3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2014) (finding it appropriate to consider motion for judgment on the pleadings
`premised on Section 101, noting “beyond the conclusory statement that . . . terms would have to be
`construed in order to determine whether they cover an abstract idea, plaintiff offers no argument as to how
`claim construction would aid the court in applying § 101 to these non-technical terms.”).
`
`10
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 11 of 55
`
`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
`
`
`
`D. Analysis
`
`1. Abstract Ideas
`
`Defendants argue that the claims at issue here fall within the Section 101 exception
`
`because they are patent-ineligible abstract ideas. “The “abstract ideas” category embodies
`
`the longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2355
`
`(internal quotations and brackets omitted). “The Federal Circuit has characterized an
`
`abstraction as ‘an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form.’” Potter Voice
`
`Tech., 2015 WL 5672598, at *2 (quoting Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
`
`714 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`“[C]ourts have repeatedly held that finding information using a computer is an
`
`abstract idea.” Id. at *3 (citing Content Extraction and Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d 1343).
`
`Plaintiff itself describes the asserted claims as inventions that bring multi-functionality,
`
`elegance and simplicity to human-machine interaction in the context of a user/operator
`
`requesting information. [Doc. No. 52, at 6.] In sum, all the asserted claims are directed at
`
`using a computer to provide information to a user and are therefore abstract ideas.
`
`2. Inventive Concept
`
`Having determined that the claims at issue are directed at abstract ideas, the next
`
`step is to “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
`
`concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible
`
`application.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (internal quotations omitted). This
`
`transformation “requires more than simply stating the abstract idea while adding the words
`
`‘apply it.’” Id. “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
`
`ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358;
`
`see also DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt:
`
`recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
`
`patent-eligible.”). “Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere
`
`instruction to ‘implement’ an abstract idea ‘on a computer,’ that addition cannot impart
`
`patent eligibility.” Id. (internal citations and ellipses omitted).
`
`11
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 12 of 55
`
`
`
`“In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of
`
`a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed,
`
`rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be
`
`achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing
`
`calculations.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C., 687 F.3d at 1278 (“The fact that the required
`
`calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter
`
`the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”). “[M]erely adding computer
`
`functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent
`
`eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
`
`(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Blue Spike, LLC, 2015 WL 5260506,
`
`at *6 (“Merely adding limitations involving the use of general purpose computer
`
`components to an otherwise abstract concept does not constitute an inventive concept
`
`sufficient to save a claim from invalidity.”).
`
`A recent decision summarized the current state of § 101 jurisprudence as requiring,
`
`with respect to patentability of computer programs “that the patent claims in suit (1)
`
`disclose a problem ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology,’ and (2) claim a solution
`
`that (a) not only departs from the ‘routine and conventional’ use of the technology, but (b)
`
`is sufficiently specific so as to negate the risk of pre-emption. Parus Holdings, Inc. v.
`
`Sallie Mae Bank, __ F.Supp. 3d __, 2015 WL 5886179, at *6 (D. Del. Oct. 8, 2015) (citing
`
`DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257; Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1371)).
`
`Plaintiff argues that the asserted claims cover a “novel, patentable combination of
`
`hardware, software, and firmware components specifically configured and adapted for a
`
`particular architecture and use, and to solve particular technological problems.” [Doc. No.
`
`52, at 10-11.] This argument is flatly contradicted by the specification that repeatedly
`
`states the components are interchangeable and no particular configuration or architecture
`
`is required for the system to operate. “In short, each step does no more than require a
`
`generic computer to perform generic computer functions.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2359.
`
`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
`
`12
`
`14cv2675, 14cv2677, 14cv2679
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-02679-CAB-WVG Document 58 Filed 12/11/15 Page 13 of 55
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The claims here “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus, only a
`
`general purpose computer.” Id. The claims simply involve the use of a computer to receive
`
`input from a user (either vocally or through soft function keys), and provide information in
`
`response to that input. This same function could be performed by a person in place of the
`
`computer. Moreover, “a computer generating data in response to inputted data . . . is what
`
`computers have done since their inception, as courts have recognized for years.” Boar’s
`
`Head, 2015 WL 4530596, at *10 (listing cases). “[T]he computer simply performs more
`
`efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C., 687
`
`F.3d at 1279. “That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with
`
`10
`
`no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`
`11
`
`765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Relying on DDR Holdings, Plaintiff argues in its opposition that its claims “recite a
`
`specific way to automate a process” and are therefore patent-eligible. Unlike the claims
`
`here, however, the claims in DDR Holdings were “necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
`
`networks.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. The patents here do not claim solutions to
`
`a problem that arose uniquely in the realm of computer networks. Rather, the specifications
`
`describe the patents as solutions to problems associated with existing elevator systems.
`
`The patents do little more than describe the use of a computer to obtain information while
`
`in an elevator (or other related transport device). The general idea of using a generic
`
`computer to remedy this problem “is not generally the sort of ‘additional feature’ that
`
`provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to
`
`monopolize the abstract idea itself.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358; see also Content
`
`Extraction & Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1247-48 (“For the role of a computer in a
`
`computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis,