throbber
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

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