throbber
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
`
`1
`
`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. 1022
`Case No. IPR2016-00156
`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
`
`Extra

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket