Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 8161
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`PERSONALIZED MEDIA
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 13-1608-RGA
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, LLC
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Edmond D. Johnson, Esq., James G. McMillan, III, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wilmington,
`DE; Henry C. Bunsow, Esq., Brian A.E. Smith, Esq., Dino Hadzibegovic, Esq., Bunsow, De.
`Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, San Francisco, CA; Denise M. De Mory, Esq., Christina M. Finn,
`Esq., Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Redwood City, CA, attorneys for Plaintiff
`Personalized Media Communications, LLC.
`
`Richard L. Horwitz, Esq., David E. Moore, Esq., Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., Potter Anderson &
`Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Joseph R. Re, Esq., Joseph S. Cianfrani, Esq., Kent N. Shum,
`Esq., Jeremy A. Anapol, Esq., Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Irvine, CA; Colin B.
`Heideman, Esq., Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, Seattle, WA, attorneys for Defendants
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, LLC.
`
`August Jf , 2015
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 8162
`
`Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (D.I.
`
`86). The matter has been fully briefed. (D.I. 87, 103, 106, 134, 138). The Court heard oral
`
`argument on February 27, 2015. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendants' motion is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Personalized Media Company filed this patent infringement action on September
`
`23, 2013.
`
`(D.I. 1). Plaintiff alleged that Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services LLC
`
`infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,769,170("the'170 patent"), 5,887,243 ("the '243 patent"),
`
`7,883,252 ("the '252 patent"), 7,801,304 ("the '304 patent"), 7,827,587 ("the '587 patent"),
`
`7,805,749 ("the '749 patent"), 8,046,791 ("the '791 patent"), 7,940,931 ("the '931 patent"), and
`
`7,864,956 ("the '956 patent").
`
`(Id). On July 21, 2014, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the
`
`claims with respect to the '170 patent and the '931 patent. (D.I. 57).
`
`All of the patents are entitled "Signal processing apparatus and methods." (D.I. 1 at 4-
`
`5). The patents are directed to "the use of control and information signals embedded in
`
`electronic media content to generate output for display that is personalized and relevant to a
`
`user." (Id at 3).
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A Rule 12( c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed under the same standard
`
`as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the Rule 12(c) motion alleges that the plaintiff failed
`
`to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Turbe v. Govt of the Virgin Islands, 938
`
`F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991); Revell v. Port Auth., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010). The court
`
`must accept the factual allegations in the complaint and take them in the light most favorable to
`
`1
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 8163
`
`the non-moving party. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury,
`
`536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). "[U]pon cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, the court must
`
`assume the truth of both parties' pleadings." 61AAm. Jur. 2d Pleading§ 555; cf Pichler v.
`
`UNITE, 542 F.3d 380, 386 (3d Cir. 2008) ("On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court
`
`construes facts and draws inferences 'in favor of the party against whom the motion under
`
`consideration is made."'). "When there are well-ple[d] factual allegations, a court should
`
`assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
`
`relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The court must "draw on its judicial
`
`experience and common sense" to make the determination. See id.
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`It provides:
`
`"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. The Supreme Court
`
`has recognized an implicit exception for three categories of subject matter not eligible for
`
`patentability: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS
`
`Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). The purpose of these carve outs is to protect the
`
`"basic tools of scientific and technological work." Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
`
`"[A] process is not unpatentable simply because it
`
`contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm," as "an application of a law of nature or
`
`mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
`
`protection."
`
`Id. at 1293-94 (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The Supreme Court has
`
`made clear that "to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent-eligible application of
`
`2
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 8164
`
`such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words 'apply
`
`it."'
`
`Id. at 1294 (emphasis omitted).
`
`The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the framework laid out in Mayo for
`
`distinguishing "patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from
`
`those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
`
`First, the court must determine whether the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible concept.
`
`Id.
`
`If the answer is yes, the court must look to "the elements of the claim both individually and as an
`
`'ordered combination"' to see ifthere is 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. (alteration in
`
`original); see also Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
`
`1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("[T]he court must first 'identify and define whatever fundamental concept
`
`appears wrapped up in the claim.' Then, proceeding with the preemption analysis, the balance
`
`of the claim is evaluated to determine whether 'additional substantive limitations ... narrow,
`
`confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full
`
`abstract idea itself."' (internal citation omitted)).
`
`Furthermore, "the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by
`
`attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding
`
`insignificant postsolution activity." Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`In addition, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
`
`transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2358. For this second step, the machine-or-transformation test can be a "useful clue," although
`
`it is not determinative. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`3
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 8165
`
`"Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under§ 101 is an issue oflaw
`
`"
`
`In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff'd sub nom. Bilski v. Kappas, 561
`
`U.S. 593 (2010). The Federal Circuit has held that the district court is not required to
`
`individually address claims not asserted or identified by the non-moving party, so long as the
`
`court identifies a representative claim and "all the claims are substantially similar and linked to
`
`the same abstract idea." Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`
`Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the
`
`purpose of this motion, Plaintiff's proposed claim constructions are adopted.
`
`(D.I. 120).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`The '243 Patent
`
`Claim 13 is representative and reads:
`
`13. A method of providing data of interest to a receiver station from a first remote data
`source, said data of interest for use at said receiver station in at least one of generating
`and outputting a receiver specific datum, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`storing said data at said first remote data source;
`
`receiving at said remote data source a query from said receiver station;
`
`transmitting at least a portion of said data from said first remote data source to
`said receiver station in response to said step ofreceiving said query, said receiver
`station selecting and storing said transmitted at least a portion of said data and;
`
`transmitting from a second remote source to said receiver station a signal which
`controls said receiver station to select and process an instruct signal which is
`effective at said receiver station to coordinate presentation of said at least a
`portion of said data with one of a mass medium program and a program segment
`presentation sequence.
`
`Defendants argue that claim 13 claims the abstract idea of combining information from
`
`multiple sources.
`
`(D.I. 138 at p. 15). Defendants maintain that the method is no different than
`
`generating a vehicle advertisement for a local dealership: combining information from a national
`
`source, such as a manufacturer (the "mass medium programming") with user-specific data, such
`
`4
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 8166
`
`as the address of a local dealer (the user-specific "data of interest").
`
`(Tr. 21-22). Defendants
`
`further argue that the claim does not have an inventive concept because limiting the type of data
`
`being combined is no more than a field of use limitation.
`
`(D.I. 138 at p. 16).
`
`Plaintiff responds that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a method
`
`of providing data of interest to a receiver station from a first remote data source, the receiver
`
`station combining the data of interest with mass media programming to generate a coordinated
`
`presentation.
`
`(Tr. 44, 46-4 7). Plaintiff argues that there is more than just combining data,
`
`because it involves combining mass media programming with user-specific information and
`
`creating a coordinated presentation.
`
`(Id. at 45-46).
`
`Plaintiff also argues that claim 13 supplies an inventive concept.
`
`(D.I. 134 at p. 17). As
`
`of the priority date of the patent, Plaintiff argues that programming could either be delivered as
`
`(1) one-to-many distribution or (2) one-to-one distribution.
`
`(Id.). Plaintiff maintains that "the
`
`patent introduced a new method by which to provide receiver specific data with mass media
`
`programming via a coordinated presentation." (Id.). Plaintiff also argues that the patent does
`
`not preempt combining information from multiple sources.
`
`(Tr. 29-50; D.I. 103 at pp. 12-13).
`
`I find that claim 13 of the '243 patent is directed to the abstract idea of using personal
`
`information to create a customized presentation. Creating a coordinated presentation using user(cid:173)
`
`specific information is similar to a claim recently held patent-ineligible by the Federal Circuit.
`
`The patent at issue there related to "customizing webpage content as a function of navigation
`
`history and information known about the user." Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al v. Capital One
`
`Financial, 2015 WL 4068798, at 10 (Fed. Cir. July 6, 2015) ("Intellectual Ventures I"). The
`
`Federal Circuit held,
`
`5
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 8167
`
`This sort of information tailoring is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system.
`There is no dispute that newspaper inserts had often been tailored based on information
`known about the customer-for example, a newspaper might advertise based on the
`customer's location. Providing this minimal tailoring-e.g., providing different
`newspaper inserts based on the location of the individual-is an abstract idea.
`
`Id at 11 (citations and alterations omitted). The abstract idea here is the same: it customizes a
`
`mass media program, such as the website in Intellectual Ventures I, using stored personal
`
`information.
`
`Turning to the second step of Alice, I do not think that the claim provides an inventive
`
`concept sufficient to render it patent eligible. That the method was a new means of transmitting
`
`information is not relevant to the § 101 analysis. "The 'novelty' of any element or steps in a
`
`process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject
`
`matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter."
`
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981); see Ultramercial, Inc, 772 F.3d at 714-15 ("We
`
`do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to
`
`the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.").
`
`In addition, I do not think that the claim satisfies the second prong of the § 101 analysis
`
`merely because it does not preempt the idea of combining information. "[A]lthough courts have
`
`framed the "second-step" analysis in terms of preemption, there is no rule that ideas that do not
`
`preempt an entire field are per se patent eligible." Money Suite Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin.
`
`Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 436160, at *5 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2015).
`
`The '243 patent claims the abstract idea of using personal information to create a
`
`customized presentation and lacks an inventive concept.
`
`It is not patent eligible.
`
`B.
`
`The '252 Patent
`
`Claim 1 is representative and reads:
`
`6
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8168
`
`1. A method ofreprogramming a receiver station, said receiver station including a
`programmable device of a specific version having a memory, a signal detector, and a
`receiver operatively connected to said signal detector, said method comprising the
`steps of:
`storing information specifying said specific version of said programmable device,
`wherein said specific version indicates a version of an operating system executing
`on said programmable device and controlling the processing capabilities of said
`programmable device;
`
`receiving an information transmission at said receiver, said information
`transmission including a control signal which designates a designated version of
`programmable device;
`
`passing said information transmission to said signal detector and detecting said
`control signal;
`
`determining whether said specific version is said designated version in response
`to said control signal;
`
`communicating operating system instructions to said memory only when said step
`of determining determines that said specific version is said designated version,
`wherein said communicating comprises erasing any operating system instructions
`stored within an erasable portion of said memory and then storing said
`communicated operating system instructions within said erasable portion of said
`memory; and
`
`executing said communicated operating system instructions to control operation
`of said programmable device.
`
`Defendants argue that the '252 patent is directed to the abstract idea of updating
`
`operating system instructions. (D.I. 138 at p. 12). They note that this Court has held that
`
`"distributing software updates to a computer" is an abstract idea.
`
`(Id (citing Intellectual
`
`Ventures I, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 2015 WL 846532, at *7 (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2015)
`
`("Intellectual Ventures"))). Defendants argue that the claim is essentially a computerized
`
`version ofreceiving a new copy of the Federal Rules and replacing the old one.
`
`(Tr. 23).
`
`Defendants maintain that there is nothing to add an inventive concept, as the "control signal"
`
`7
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 8169
`
`Plaintiff identifies as a meaningful limitation is itself both abstract and conventional.
`
`(D .I. 13 8
`
`at p. 13).
`
`Plaintiff maintains that the patent comprises patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`(D.I. 103 at
`
`p. 16). Plaintiff argues that the patent is directed to a very specific process of updating
`
`operating instructions: it is done remotely, and only after the new version is compared to the old
`
`version. (Id.). Plaintiff also argues that claim 1 supplies an inventive concept.
`
`(Id. at p. 17).
`
`Specifically, the "control signal" element limits the claim to instances where a control signal is
`
`received and triggers the update.
`
`(Id.). Plaintiff argues that the claim does not preempt all
`
`methods of updating operating instructions and is a technological improvement. (Id.).
`
`I do not agree that the patent claims a very specific method of updating operating
`
`instructions. The method seems quite generic.
`
`It involves only checking a receiver station to
`
`see if it has the current operating instructions, and, if it does not, updating them. Other than the
`
`fact that the method is implemented on a computer, it is no different from checking to see if a
`
`copy of the Federal Rules is up to date, and, if it is not, replacing it with a new one. "Steps that
`
`do nothing more than spell out what it means to 'apply it on a computer' cannot confer patent(cid:173)
`
`eligibility." Intellectual Ventures I, 2015 WL 4068798, at 14. Plaintiff claims that the patent
`
`does not preempt all methods of updating operating instructions, but it seems to me it does
`
`preempt all methods of doing so remotely. Nor does the inclusion of a control signal make the
`
`claim patent eligible. The Federal Circuit has held that signals are not directed to patent-eligible
`
`subject matter. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d
`
`1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`The '252 patent claims the abstract idea of updating operating instructions and lacks an
`
`inventive concept.
`
`It is not patent eligible.
`
`8
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 8170
`
`C.
`
`The '304 Patent
`
`Claim 1 of the '304 patent is representative and reads:
`
`1. A method for controlling the decryption of programming at a subscriber station, said
`method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving programming, said programming having a first encrypted digital control
`signal portion and an encrypted digital information portion;
`
`detecting said first encrypted digital control signal portion of said programming;
`
`passing said first encrypted digital control signal portion of said programming to a
`decryptor at said subscriber station;
`
`decrypting said first encrypted digital control signal portion of said programming
`using said decryptor at said subscriber station;
`
`passing said encrypted digital information portion of said programming to said
`decryptor;
`
`decrypting said encrypted digital information portion of said programming using
`said decryptor at said subscriber station based on the decrypted control signal
`portion; and
`
`presenting said programming.
`
`Defendants argue that the '304 patent claims the abstract idea ofdecryption. (D.I. 138 at
`
`p. 8). Defendants maintain that decryption is merely converting information from one format to
`
`another, which the Supreme Court has held is abstract. (Id (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
`
`U.S. 63, 67-68 (1972) (holding that converting binary numbers to binary coded decimals is
`
`abstract))). Defendants argue that, other than the abstract idea of decryption, the claim adds
`
`only conventional computer functions and generic computer components.
`
`(D.I. 87 at p. 18).
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants ignore the purpose of the patent, which is to decrypt
`
`programming to control access to content.
`
`(D.I. 134 at p. 9). Plaintiff maintains that the patent
`
`is directed to a specific means of decryption, not the abstract idea of decryption. (Id at pp. 9-
`
`10). Plaintiff also argues that the asserted claims add an inventive concept. (Id at 10). In
`
`1981, the conventional means of restricting access to programming was analog descrambling, not
`
`9
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 8171
`
`encryption.
`
`(Id). Plaintiff argues that claim 1 differs from that conventional practice by
`
`instead using encryption. (Id).
`
`In addition, Plaintiff contends that the claim differs from
`
`existing encryption schemes because it recites "double encryption, not generic encryption."
`
`(Id.; Tr. 65-66). Plaintiff further argues that the claim does not preempt all decryption
`
`techniques.
`
`(Tr. 66).
`
`I agree with Defendants that the claim recites the abstract idea of decryption. The claim
`
`involves receiving an encrypted control signal and encrypted information, decrypting the control
`
`signal, using the signal to decrypt the information, and then presenting programing. "Without
`
`additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing
`
`information to generate additional information is not patent eligible." Digitech, 758 F.3d at
`
`1351. I think the claim here is similar to that in Digitech: some decryption algorithm is used to
`
`convert the encrypted signal into a decrypted signal. That decryption occurs twice does not
`
`make it any less abstract.
`
`In addition, it is irrelevant to the § 101 analysis that decryption is used
`
`to protect programming content; field of use limitations cannot render a claim patent eligible.
`
`Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301.
`
`There is no inventive concept to render the abstract idea patent eligible. Cryptography
`
`has been used to protect information since ancient Mesopotamia. Double encryption is
`
`similarly not inventive; it has been in practice since the Cold War. 1 Even ifthat were not so,
`
`performing an abstract idea twice in a row is not a meaningful limitation. Plaintiff's argument
`
`that using encryption to control content is inventive because, at the time, scrambling was the
`
`primary means of controlling conten~ goes to novelty. Practicing an abstract idea in a novel
`
`1 Michael Kilian, 50-year Secret: How US. Broke Soviet A-bomb Spies' Codes, CHICAGO
`TRIBUNE, July 12, 1995.
`
`10
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 8172
`
`way is still practicing an abstract idea.
`
`In addition, while there is no question that preemption is
`
`an important policy concern underlying patent eligibility, whether the claim preempts all
`
`decryption is not the test for patent eligibility.
`
`The '304 patent claims the abstract idea of decryption and lacks an inventive concept.
`
`It
`
`is not patent eligible.
`
`D.
`
`The '587 Patent
`
`Claim 9 of the '587 patent reads:
`
`9. A method of processing signals in a network including:
`
`receiving at a transmitter station in said network an information transmission from
`a remote station, said transmission including incomplete processor instructions;
`
`receiving at said transmitter station a control signal;
`
`detecting at said transmitter station said incomplete processor instructions and
`said control signal and passing said incomplete processor instructions and said
`control signal to a computer in said transmitter station;
`
`storing said incomplete processor instructions in said computer;
`
`generating information to complete said incomplete processor instructions by
`processing, at said computer, information stored in said computer based on said
`control signal, wherein said stored information is not part of said transmission;
`
`completing, at said computer, said incomplete processor instructions by placing
`said generated information into said passed and stored incomplete processor
`instructions; and
`
`communicating to a processor in a receiver station in said network at least a first
`portion of said completed processor instructions based on a second portion of said
`completed processor instructions.
`
`Defendants argue that claim 9 recites the abstract idea of completing partial instructions.
`
`(D.I. 138 at p. 18). Defendants contend that the '587 patent would preempt "every instance in
`
`which a computer in a network receives incomplete instructions, completes those instructions in
`
`any way based on any information (the 'control signal') received from any source, and sends the
`
`completed instructions to another computer."
`
`(Id. (emphasis omitted)).
`
`11
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 12
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 8173
`
`Plaintiff maintains that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea because "the claim is
`
`focused on generating, at the transmitter station, information to complete the incomplete
`
`instructions using information stored at the transmitter station .... " (D.I. 134 at p. 18).
`
`Plaintiff also argues that the claim supplies an inventive concept because it is an improved
`
`technological process that allows for the generation of personalized content for users.
`
`(Id. at p.
`
`19).
`
`Plaintiff's argument that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea merely spells out
`
`how the abstract idea of completing partial instructions is performed on a computer, which
`
`"cannot confer patent-eligibility." Intellectual Ventures I, 2015 WL 4068798, at 14. Nor is
`
`there an inventive concept. Nothing in the claim speaks to personalized content. Even if it did,
`
`tailoring processor instructions based on device-specific information is no different than
`
`customizing content based on user information. As discussed above, that is a long prevalent,
`
`fundamental practice.
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that "a process that employs mathematical algorithms to
`
`manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible."
`
`Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351. That is precisely what the '587 patent does. There is also a
`
`significant preemption concern. Claim 9 does not recite any limitations but generic computer
`
`components, so the patent preempts every instance of one computer completing instructions
`
`received from another.
`
`The '587 patent claims the abstract idea of completing partial instructions and lacks an
`
`inventive concept.
`
`It is not patent eligible.
`
`E.
`
`The '749 Patent
`
`Claim 2 is representative and reads:
`
`12
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 8174
`
`2. A method for mass medium programming promotion and delivery for use with an
`interactive video viewing apparatus comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving a first portion of said mass medium programming in a first
`programming signal, said first portion of mass medium programming including a
`video image that promotes a second portion of said mass medium programming;
`
`displaying said video image, said interactive video viewing apparatus having an
`input device to receive input from a subscriber;
`
`prompting said subscriber for a reply, during said step of displaying said video
`image, as to whether said subscriber wants said second portion of said mass
`medium programming promoted in said step of displaying of said video image,
`said interactive video viewing apparatus having a transmitter for communicating
`said reply to a remote site;
`
`receiving said reply from said subscriber at said input device in response to said
`step of prompting said subscriber, said interactive video viewing apparatus having
`a processor for processing said reply;
`
`processing said reply and selecting at least one of a code and a datum designating
`said second portion of said mass medium programming to authorize delivery of
`said second portion of said mass medium programming;
`
`communicating said selected at least one of a code and a datum to a remote site;
`
`receiving said second portion of said mass medium programming in a second
`programming signal;
`
`decrypting said second portion of said mass medium programming by using said
`at least one of a code and a datum in response to said step of processing said
`reply; and
`
`delivering said mass medium programming to an output device.
`
`Defendants argue that the claim is directed to the abstract idea of cross-selling.
`
`(Tr. 19). ·
`
`Defendants maintain that the claimed method is virtually identical to the one the Federal Circuit
`
`found was not patent eligible in Ultramercial.
`
`(Id.).
`
`In that case, the Feqeral Circuit found that
`
`a method of delivering copyrighted programming where a user must select and view an
`
`advertisement was an abstract idea. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d. at 715. Defendants further argue
`
`that there are no additional limitations to render the claim patent eligible.
`
`(D.I. 138 at p. 11).
`
`Plaintiff argues that the claim is not directed to cross-selling.
`
`(D.I. 103 at p. 13).
`
`Plaintiff states, "Claim 2 shows a concrete application of video display, promotion, selection,
`
`13
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 14
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 8175
`
`authorization, and decryption that is not fairly described as an 'abstract idea,' much less the
`
`abstract idea of 'cross-selling.'" (Id. at pp. 13-14). In addition, Plaintiff argues that the patent
`
`is an improved technological process. In particular, Plaintiff identifies decryption and user
`
`interaction as meaningful limitations.
`
`(D.I. 134 at p. 12; Tr. 56-57).
`
`Ultramercial is apposite here and makes clear that this claim is not patent eligible. As
`
`the court there stated,
`
`This ordered combination of steps recites an abstraction-an idea, having no particular
`concrete or tangible form. The process ofreceiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad,
`offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing
`the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad all
`describe an abstract idea, devoid of a concrete or tangible application.
`
`Ultramercial, 772 F.3d. at 715. The claim at issue here is even more abstract. The first portion
`
`of programming-construed by Plaintiff to mean "everything that is transmitted electronically to
`
`entertain, instruct, or inform, including television, radio, broadcast print, and computer
`
`programming as well as combined medium programming, designed for multiple recipients"-is
`
`not limited to advertisements; it can be anything that promotes programming.
`
`There is no inventive concept. As discussed above, decryption is itself abstract and not a
`
`meaningful limitation. User interaction is also insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.
`
`See id. at 716 ("[T]hat the system is active, rather than passive, and restricts public access also
`
`represents only insignificant pre-solution activity .... ") (internal quotations and alterations
`
`omitted).
`
`The '749 patent claims the abstract idea of promoting programming and lacks an
`
`inventive concept.
`
`It is not patent eligible.
`
`F.
`
`The '791 Patent
`
`Claim 18 reads:
`
`14
`
`PMC Exhibit 2137
`Apple v. PMC
`IPR2016-00755
`Page 15
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01608-RGA Document 148 Filed 08/10/15 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 8176
`
`18. A method of controlling a receiver station, comprising:
`
`storing information about a user of said receiver station at a memory of said
`receiver station;
`
`receiving, at said receiver station, a first computer program transmitted from a
`transmitter station;
`
`storing said first computer program in memory at said receiver station;
`
`executing said first computer program using a processor at said receiver station to
`generate an order for a product by processing said information about a user of said
`receiver station;
`
`receiving, at said receiver station, a second computer program transmitted from a
`said transmitter station;
`
`storing said second computer program in memory at said receiver station; and
`
`executing said second computer progr