Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:550
`
`
`
`JAMES C. YOON, State Bar No. 177155
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`RYAN R. SMITH, State Bar No. 229323
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`ALBERT SHIH, State Bar No. 251726
`ashih@wsgr.com
`MARY PROCACCIO-FLOWERS, State Bar No. 286936
`mprocaccioflowers@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`
`LISA D. ZANG, State Bar No. 294493
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`lzang@wsgr.com
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`Telephone: (323) 210-2923
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants
`SZ DJI Technology Co,, Ltd. and DJI
`Europe B.V.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Yuneec International Co. Ltd. et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`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 NO.: 5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`PLAINTIFFS SZ DJI
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. AND
`DJI EUROPE B.V.’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`YUNEEC INTERNATIONAL’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER
`FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
`PROCEDURE 12(B)(6)
`
`Date: October 3, 2016
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 14
`
`Judge: Hon. Beverly Reid O’Connell
`
`
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Yuneec USA, Inc.,
`
`
`Counter-Claimant,
`
`
`v.
`
`SZ DJI Technology Co., et al.,
`
`
`Counter-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:551
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE ’506 PATENT ......................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 8
`
`A.
`
`The ’506 Patent is Directed to a Patent-Eligible Concept. ................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’506 Patent Serves to Improve UAV Target Tracking
`Control and Operation. ............................................................... 9
`
`Defendant’s Alleged Abstract Idea Ignores Nearly All
`Claim Language and Mischaracterizes the Claimed
`Inventions.................................................................................. 11
`
`B.
`
`The ’506 Patent Claims an Inventive Concept that Poses Little
`Risk of Pre-empting Further Ingenuity. .............................................. 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The ’506 Patent Solves a Specific Problem Faced by UAV
`Users Using Known Computer Components. .......................... 14
`
`The ’506 Patent Claims Pose Little Risk of Pre-Empting
`All Use of the Alleged Abstract Idea........................................ 16
`
`C.
`
`Defendant’s Motion is Premature Because it Precedes Claim
`Construction. ....................................................................................... 19
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`V.
`
`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
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`- i -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:552
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ....................... passim
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Sols., Inc., No. SACV 11-00189
`AG, 2014 WL 7012391 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2014) .................................. 14, 18
`
`Apollo Fin., LLC, v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:15-CV-9696
`RSWL (PJWx) D.I. 23 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) .............................................. 8
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) .................................................................................... 17
`
`Bancorp Serv’s, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 19
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 119
`U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016) ............................. 15
`
`Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ........................................................................ 7
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................... 18, 19
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 974
`(C.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................... 9, 16, 17
`
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Linear LLC, 114 F. Supp. 3d 614 (N.D. Ill.
`2015) ............................................................................................................ 9, 17
`
`CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Co. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................... 8
`
`CMG Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Pac. Trust Bank, FSB, 50 F. Supp. 3d 1306
`(C.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co. L.P., Case
`No. 2:12-cv-00859, D.I. 310 (E.D. Penn. Sept. 9, 2016) .......................... 11, 15
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLP v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l
`Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed Cir. 2014) ............................................................. 10
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 3d 510
`(E.D. Tex. 2015) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii- - ii -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:553
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Data Distrib. Techs., LLC v. BRER Affiliates, Inc., Civil No. 12-4878
`(JBS/KMW), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115543 (D. N.J. Aug. 19,
`2014) ................................................................................................................ 20
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) .......................................................... 7
`
`Eclipse IP LLC v. McKinley Equip. Corp., No. SACV 14-154-GW,
`2014 WL 4407592 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) .............................................. 7, 19
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., No. 2015-1778, 2016 WL
`4073318 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) ................................................................... 18
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................. 13
`
`Etak, Inc. v. Zexel USA Corp., No. C 94-4041 SC,
`1995 WL 462240 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 1995) ...................................................... 9
`
`Execware, LLC v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., No. 14-233,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132387 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2015) ............................... 20
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir.
`May 17, 2016) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363
`(Fed.Cir.2015) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`JSDQ Mesh Techs LLC. V. Fluidmesh Networks, LLC, Case No. 16-cv-
`212 (GMS) D.I. 21 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016) .................................................... 12
`
`Kinglite Holdings Inc. V. Micro-Star Int’l Co. Ltd., Case No. SACV
`14-3009 (JVS) D.I. 226 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) ........................................... 8
`
`MacroPoint, LLC v. FourKites, Inc., No. 1:15 CV 1002,
`2015 WL 6870118 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2015) .......................................... 12, 13
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289
`(2012) .................................................................................................... 8, 13, 18
`
`Messaging Gateway Sols., LLC v. Amdocs, Inc., No. CV 14-732-RGA,
`2015 WL 1744343 (D. Del. Apr. 15, 2015) .................................................... 13
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii- - iii -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:554
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Earthlink, Inc., No. SA CV 14-0347-
`DOC, 2015 WL 1239992 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) .......................... 13, 14, 18
`
`Sandborn v. Avid Tech., Inc., Civ. 11-11472, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`126772 (D. Mass. Sept. 5, 2013) ..................................................................... 20
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 745 (E.D. Tex. 2015) .................... 12
`
`Stoneeagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Sols., Inc., 113 F. Supp. 3d 1241
`(M.D. Fla. 2015) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 245 (2015) ............................... 13
`
`Timeplay, Inc. v. Audience Entm’t LLC, No. CV 15-05202 SJO (JCX),
`2015 WL 9695321 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) ........................................ 8, 9, 14
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................ 8, 9
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 100 F.
`Supp. 3d 405, 413 (D. N.J. 2015) .................................................................... 13
`
`Wolf v. Capstone Photography, Inc, (No. 13-9573,
`2014 WL 7639820 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2014). ................................................ 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................... passim
`
`STATUTES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................... 1, 22
`
`RULES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv- - iv -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:555
`
`TABLE OF REFERENCES
`
`Plaintiffs SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
`and DJI Europe B.V.
`
`“Plaintiffs” or “DJI”
`
`Defendant Yuneec International Co.
`Ltd.
`
`“Defendant” or “Yuneec”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,164,506
`
`“’506 patent”
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014),
`
`“Alice”
`
`United States Patent and Trademark
`Office
`
`“USPTO” or “Patent Office”
`
`unmanned aerial vehicle
`
`“UAV”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`“Section 101” or “§ 101”
`
`Defendant Yuneec International Co.
`Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Under Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
`
`“Motion”
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v- - v -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:556
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and DJI
`
`Europe B.V.
`
`respectfully submit
`
`this Opposition
`
`to Defendant Yuneec
`
`International Co. Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The invention described in the’506 patent represents years of research and
`
`development resources spent by DJI to provide an easy-to-use, yet technologically
`
`complex, aerial system in the trailblazing unmanned aerial robotics field.
`
`Specifically, the invention underlying the ’506 patent identifies a specific
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`technological challenge associated with target tracking by a UAV, as well as a
`
`11
`
`specific, unconventional solution developed to improve upon the existing UAV
`
`12
`
`design to overcome the challenge.
`
`13
`
`Nevertheless, Defendant asks this Court to invalidate all asserted claims of
`
`14
`
`the ’506 patent under Section 101, relying merely on a sweeping generalization
`
`15
`
`and an incomplete portrayal of the technical facts underlying the patented
`
`16
`
`invention. Defendant’s assertion that the ’506 patent is directed to an abstract idea
`
`17
`
`that can be performed by a human mind not only grossly mischaracterizes the
`
`18
`
`invention of the ’506 patent, but also ignores the need for complex, real-time
`
`19
`
`movement adjustment in the improved UAV design. Notably, following the Patent
`
`20
`
`Office’s Guidance on subject matter eligibility after Alice, the ’506 patent was
`
`21
`
`examined and allowed without the examiner raising any Section 101 concern. And
`
`22
`
`despite bearing the burden of proving that the ’506 patent is directed to patent
`
`23
`
`ineligible subject matter, Defendant does not even attempt to explain why the
`
`24
`
`Patent Office—which rigorously examined the ’506 patent for patent eligibility—
`
`25
`
`erred in granting the ’506 patent.
`
`26
`
`Moreover, this case is in its infancy, and DJI cannot speculate what claim
`
`27
`
`terms Defendant may dispute. As DJI already disagrees with Defendant’s
`
`28
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`1
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:557
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`portrayal of several technical features of the ’506 patent, it would be premature to
`
`evaluate any Section 101 challenge at this early stage.
`
`For the reasons explained herein, Defendant’s analysis simply does not
`
`support a finding of patent ineligibility and its Motion should be denied.
`
`II. THE ’506 PATENT
`
`The Patent Office examined the claims of the ’506 patent against the patent
`
`eligibility standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
`
`CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), and its progeny.1 By granting the ’506
`
`patent, the USPTO determined that the ’506 patent did not claim unpatentable
`
`10
`
`subject matter.
`
`11
`
`The ’506 patent stems from DJI’s pioneering research and development in
`
`12
`
`the field of consumer UAVs. In particular, the ’506 patent recognizes a
`
`13
`
`fundamental limitation of prior art UAVs—namely, that “tracking [by aerial
`
`14
`
`vehicles] is traditionally achieved via control commands from a user-operated
`
`15
`
`remote control terminal or device . . . [and that] the attention necessary for such
`
`16
`
`manual tracking typically requires a dedicated user that controls a camera []
`
`17
`
`onboard the aerial vehicle separate from a user that controls the navigation of the
`
`18
`
`aerial vehicle . . . .” (’506 patent, 1:20-30.) This conventional tracking scheme
`
`19
`
`“increases the cost for aerial photography and other applications of the aerial
`
`20
`
`vehicles,” which “may become difficult . . . when the movable object or target is
`
`21
`
`moving quickly or when the movable object is at least partially blocked from view
`
`22
`
`of the user.” (Id. at 1:23-31.)
`
`23
`
`To overcome this challenge, the ’506 patent discloses a system where “a
`
`24
`
`single user can control both the navigation of a UAV and tracking of a target
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1 See Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A (EXAMINATION GUIDANCE
`AND TRAINING MATERIALS, http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-
`regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials (last
`visited Sept. 5, 2016)).
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2- - 2 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 8
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:558
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`substantially concurrently without the help of an extra person.”
`
` (’506
`
`
`
`patent, 10:63-67.) Specifically, the UAV system according to the ’506 patent
`
`“may be configured to receive target information from a control terminal related to
`
`a target to be tracked by an imaging device coupled to the UAV,” and use the
`
`target information to “automatically cause the imaging device [of the UAV] to
`
`track the target so as to maintain predetermined position and/or size of the target
`
`within one or more images captured by the imaging device.” (Id. at 10:54-61.)
`
`The target information may include “characteristics of a specific target such
`
`as an initial position (e.g., coordinates) and/or size of a target within one or more
`
`10
`
`images captured by an imaging device carried by the movable object . . . [,]
`
`11
`
`characteristics of a type or category of targets including color, texture, pattern,
`
`12
`
`size, shape, dimension, and . . . data representation of an image of the target.” (Id.
`
`13
`
`at 13:4-15.) The target information may also include “the target’s GPS location.”
`
`14
`
`(Id. at 12:30-33.) Based on the target information, the UAV can adjust “the
`
`15
`
`attitude, position, velocity, zoom, and other aspects of the UAV and/or the imaging
`
`16
`
`device . . . to ensure that the user maintains a designated position and/or size within
`
`17
`
`the images captured by the imaging device.” (Id. at 11:26-29.)
`
`18
`
`For example, Figure 5 of the ’506 patent (reproduced below) depicts one
`
`19
`
`embodiment of the adjustment applied to the UAV and/or the imaging device to
`
`20
`
`track a target.
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3- - 3 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 9
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:559
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`As shown, “the movable object 502 carrying the optic module 507 may be capable
`
`of rotating around up to three orthogonal axes.” (’506 patent, 25:63-65.)
`
`Depending on the available number of rotatable axes, the UAV determines whether
`
`to “only permit the payload 506 to move around and/or along a subset of the three
`
`axes X2, Y2, and Z2 relative to the movable object 502.” (Id. at 26:33-35.)
`
`As another example, Figure 6 depicts one embodiment of the calculation that
`
`may be performed to adjust the UAV and/or the imaging device based on the
`
`received target information.
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4- - 4 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 10
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:560
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`As shown, a target to be tracked “is located at position P (u, v) 602, and the
`
`expected position of the target is P0 (u0, v0) 604 that is different from P 602.”
`
`(’506 patent, 27:28-30.) To track the target, “[t]he rotation around the Y axis for
`
`the field of view of an imaging device may be achieved by a rotation of the
`
`movable object, a rotation of the payload (via a carrier) relative to the movable
`
`object, or a combination of both.” (Id. at 27:53-56.) For example, “adjustment to
`
`the payload may be selected when adjustment to the movable object is infeasible or
`
`otherwise undesirable, for example, when the navigation path of the movable
`
`object is predetermined.” (Id. at 27:56-60.) “[T]he deviation from the expected
`
`target position can be used to derive one or more angular velocities for rotating the
`
`field of view of the imaging device around one or more axes.” (Id. at 27:43-46.)
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5- - 5 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 11
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:561
`
`
`
`Asserted claim 1 of the ’506 patent, provided below, embodies the
`
`above-described technical features:
`
`1. A system for controlling an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV),
`comprising:
`
`one or more receivers, individually or collectively, configured to
`receive from a remote user (1) one or more navigation commands to
`move the UAV along a flight path, and (2) target information of a
`target to be tracked by an imaging device on the UAV; and
`
`one or more processors, individually or collectively, configured to
`track the target according to the target information by automatically
`adjusting at least one of the UAV or the imaging device while the
`UAV moves along the flight path according to the one or more
`navigation commands from the remote user,
`
`wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively,
`make a determination to adjust 1) the UAV, 2) the imaging
`device, or 3) both the UAV and the imaging device,
`
`wherein said determination is dependent upon a) number of
`rotational axes of the imaging device and orientation of said
`rotational axes relative to the UAV; b) a navigation path of the
`UAV; or c) a maximum angular speed allowable for the UAV
`or the imaging device.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`(Id. at 52:25-45 (emphasis added).)
`
`The claims that depend from claim 1 add a number of additional technical
`
`features related to UAV technology, including, for example, “a plurality of rotors
`
`configured to generate lift for the UAV” (claim 6), an imaging device “coupled to
`
`the UAV via a carrier configured to permit the imaging device to rotate around at
`
`least two axes relative to the UAV” (claim 7), and a determination that is
`
`“dependent upon a maximum angular speed allowable for the UAV or the imaging
`
`device” (claim 12).2 (Id. at 52:62-67; 53:25-27.)
`
`2 DJI currently asserts claims 1, 6, 7, and 12 of the ’506 patent. As an initial
`matter, Defendant’s Motion fails to take into account asserted claims 7 and 12 of
`the ’506 patent. Nevertheless, Defendant’s arguments as to claims 1 and 6 fail for
`the reasons that follow.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6- - 6 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 12
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:562
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Title 35, Section 101 of the United States Code broadly defines subject
`
`matter that may be patented:
`
`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; see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010). “In
`
`choosing such expansive terms . . . modified by the comprehensive ‘any,’ Congress
`
`plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope” “to ensure
`
`that ‘ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement.’” Eclipse IP LLC v.
`
`McKinley Equip. Corp., No. SACV 14-154-GW, 2014 WL 4407592, at *2 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Sept. 4, 2014) (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601 and Diamond v.
`
`Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980)).
`
`The Supreme Court recognizes “abstract ideas” as an exception to
`
`Section 101’s broad patentability principles. To identify which claims are (and are
`
`not) abstract ideas, the Supreme Court has articulated the following two-part test:
`
`First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
`those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
`there in the claims before us?” To answer that question, we 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. We have
`described step two of this analysis 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.”
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citations omitted and emphasis added). The Supreme
`
`Court cautioned that “we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle
`
`lest it swallow all of patent law” because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions ...
`
`embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7- - 7 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:563
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`abstract ideas.’” Id. at 2354 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012)). Accordingly, Section 101 analysis is
`
`limited to claims that carry a “risk of pre-emption” or those that “risk
`
`disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying ideas.” Id. at 2354-55
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`In evaluating patent eligibility after Alice, courts have been split on whether
`
`to apply the “clear and convincing evidence” standard. Compare CLS Bank Int’l v.
`
`Alice Co. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Rader, J.,
`
`concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part) (“any attack on an issued patent based
`
`10
`
`on a challenge to the eligibility of the subject matter must be proven by clear and
`
`11
`
`convincing evidence”) with Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 720-21
`
`12
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring) (“no presumption of eligibility attends the
`
`13
`
`section 101 inquiry.”). A number of courts in the Central District of California
`
`14
`
`have applied the “clear and convincing” standard. See, e.g., Kinglite Holdings Inc.
`
`15
`
`v. Micro-Star Int’l Co. Ltd., Case No. SACV 14-3009 (JVS) D.I. 226 at 13, 15
`
`16
`
`(C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) (applying clear and convincing evidence standard to a
`
`17
`
`Section 101 challenge); Apollo Fin., LLC, v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Case No. 2:15-CV-
`
`18
`
`9696 RSWL (PJWx), D.I. 23 at 10-11 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) (acknowledging the
`
`19
`
`clear and convincing evidence standard for challenging validity).
`
`20
`
`Regardless of the standard of review, “the movant ‘still bear[s] the burden of
`
`21
`
`establishing that the claims are patent-ineligible under [Section] 101.’” Timeplay,
`
`22
`
`Inc. v. Audience Entm’t LLC, No. CV 15-05202 SJO (JCX), 2015 WL 9695321,
`
`23
`
`at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015). As discussed herein, Defendant has failed to meet
`
`24
`
`this burden under either standard of review.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The ’506 Patent is Directed to a Patent-Eligible Concept.
`
`The first step of the Alice framework requires the Court to “determine
`
`whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.”
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8- - 8 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 14
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:564
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 714. In this step, “the court must identify the purpose of
`
`the claim—in other words, what the claimed invention is trying to achieve—and
`
`ask whether that purpose is abstract.” See Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns,
`
`Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 974, 991 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
`
`1.
`
`The ’506 Patent Serves to Improve UAV Target Tracking
`Control and Operation.
`
`Defendant mischaracterizes the purpose of the ’506 patent. The claimed
`
`inventions are necessarily rooted in UAV technology and provide solutions to
`
`several problems faced specifically by UAVs, including that (1) “manual tracking
`
`control may become difficult in certain circumstances, such as when the movable
`
`object or target is moving quickly or when the movable object is at least partially
`
`blocked from view of the user” (’506 patent, 1:23-26), and (2) increased costs for
`
`aerial photography and other applications of aerial vehicles because “the attention
`
`necessary for such manual tracking typically requires a dedicated user that controls
`
`a camera that [is] onboard the aerial vehicle separate from a user that controls the
`
`navigation of the aerial vehicle . . . .” (Id. at 1:26-30.) Defendant’s
`
`characterization of the invention as merely “automatic tracking of a target” “both
`
`ignores the stated purpose of the patented invention and the limitations of the
`
`claims themselves.” Timeplay, 2015 WL 9695321, at *7.
`
`Courts have found similar patent claims, including claims related to target
`
`tracking, to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter. See, e.g., Etak, Inc. v.
`
`Zexel USA Corp., No. C 94-4041 SC, 1995 WL 462240, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 8,
`
`1995) (finding a patent outlining how a vehicle navigation system, which tracks a
`
`vehicle’s location as it moves through the streets, patentable and stating
`
`“employing well known hardware constituents and a general purpose computer
`
`does not render the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101”); see also Chamberlain
`
`Grp., Inc. v. Linear LLC, 114 F. Supp. 3d 614, 625-26 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (finding
`
`patent claims directed to a computer network interface to facilitate communication
`
`DJI’S OPPOSITION TO MTD UNDER FRCP 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9- - 9 -
`
`5:16-cv-595-BRO (KKx)
`
`
`Yuneec Exhibit 1011 Page 15
`
`

`
`Case 5:16-cv-00595-BRO-KK Document 45 Filed 09/12/16 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:565
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`between a movable barrier and a controller or operator patentable because they had
`
`“a clear concrete and tangible form in that they are directed to monitoring and
`
`opening and closing a movable barrier”).
`
`Defendant’s argument that “processes that can be performed manually are
`
`abstract under § 101” must fail. (ECF No. 41, Op. Br. at 11) Many of Defendant’s
`
`cited cases involve purely software—not hardware—systems and methods. See
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(method of verifying validity of credit card transactions over the Internet); Versata
`
`Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (method for
`
`10
`
`pricing products in multi-level product and organizational groups); Content
`
`11
`
`Extraction & Transmission LLP v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343,
`
`12
`
`1345 (Fed Cir. 2014) (method of extracting data from hard copy documents using
`
`13
`
`an automated digitizing unit such as a scanner, recognizing specific information
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`from the extracted data, and storing that information in a memory). 3
`