Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 1 of 26
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-21761-MOORE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`LATINOAMERICA MIAMI, INC.
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 2 
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................. 7 
`
`A. 
`
`Patentability Under § 101 Can Be Determined in the Context of a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`Motion Without Claim Construction. ................................................................ 7 
`
`B. 
`
`Abstract Ideas Are Ineligible For Patent Protection. .......................................... 8 
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 11 
`
`A. 
`
`This Case is Well-Suited for Early Dismissal. ................................................. 11 
`
`1. 
`
`The ’591 Patent is Drawn to an Abstract Idea Under Step One of the Alice
`
`Test. ...................................................................................................... 13 
`
`2. 
`
`The ’591 Patent Claims Do Not Add Inventive Concepts And Therefore,
`
`Fail the Second Step of the Alice Test. ................................................ 16 
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 19 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`No. 3:15-cv-00164-HES-MCR, Dkt. 59 at 13-14 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2015) ................7, 10, 11
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................5, 12
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .........................................1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ...............................................................................................................8
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .............................................................................................................8, 16
`
`In re BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig.,
`774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................10
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10, 16
`
`Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc.,
`No. 12–CV–04182–WHA, 2013 WL 245026 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013), aff'd, 817 F.3d 1316
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................................................11
`
`Clear with Computers, LLC v. Altec Indus., Inc.,
`No. 6:14-cv-79, 2015 WL 993392 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015) ..................................................11
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10, 11
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................13
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 4 of 26
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................18
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10, 12
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`2015-1778, 2016 WL 4073318 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) ..............................................9, 16, 18
`
`Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. 8:11-cv-2826-T-23TBM, 2014 WL 4540319 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2014) ........................10
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`No. 8:14-CV-2685-T-23MAP, 2015 WL 3883958 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2015) .......................10
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
`818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................7, 9
`
`I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc.,
`576 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring) ......................................................7
`
`Jericho Sys. Corp. v. Axiomatics, Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-02281-K, 2015 WL 2165931 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2015), aff’d, No. 15-1656, 2016
`WL 945275 (Fed. Cir. March 14, 2016) ..................................................................................15
`
`Louis A. Coffelt, Jr. v. NVIDIA Corp., et al,
`No. 5-16-cv-00457-SJO, Dkt. 34 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2016) ...................................................14
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829, 841 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ...............................................................................18
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .........................................................................................................8, 16
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................13
`
`MyMedicalRecords, Inc. v. Walgreen Co.,
`No. 2:13-CV-00631-ODW SH, 2014 WL 7339201 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014) ......................17
`
`OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2012-1696, 2015 WL 3622181 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................9
`
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`78 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1049-50 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................................17
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 5 of 26
`
`Page v. Postmaster Gen. & Chief Exec. Officer of U.S. Postal Serv.,
`493 F. App'x 994 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Exhibits attached to the complaint are treated as part of
`the complaint for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes.”) ..............................................................................7
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC,
`576 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................10
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS, LLC,
`961 F.Supp.2d 840 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2013) ....................................................................10
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................................9
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Ultramercial, LLC v. WildTangent, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 2907, 192 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2015) ......................................................................8, 9, 18
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ...............................................................................................................2, 6, 7, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 6 of 26
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)
`
`confirmed a cornerstone principle of American patent law that laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“§ 101”). Put simply, §
`
`101 prevents a patentee from obtaining a monopoly on abstract ideas and ensures that patents
`
`pertain to concrete innovations.
`
`The patent asserted by Plaintiff, Prisua Engineering Corp. (“Prisua” or “Plaintiff”),
`
`against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Electronics Latinoamerica Miami, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”)—U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,650,591 (the “ʼ591 patent”)—claims a textbook example of a patent-ineligible concept under
`
`the Supreme Court’s two-step framework in Alice. Under Alice’s two-step test, first the claims
`
`are analyzed for whether they claim an abstract idea. If the claims are directed to an abstract
`
`idea, the Court proceeds to a second step in which it analyzes whether the claims include an
`
`“inventive step.” Without an “inventive step,” the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concept and are invalid.
`
`Here, the ʼ591 patent claims only recite abstract functional steps of cutting-and-pasting
`
`images onto one another. For example, Prisua’s infringement allegations, as stated in its
`
`Complaint, assert that Samsung’s devices infringe the ’591 patent because the “Best Face”
`
`application purportedly allows a user to “select a portion of the captured images… and
`
`substitutes said first image with said second image.” In other words, Prisua contends the ’591
`
`patent claims are directed to a well-known human activity (i.e., cutting-and-pasting portions of
`
`images), as performed by conventional, preexisting technologies. The Federal Circuit has
`
`repeatedly held that such activities are abstract ideas under step one of the Alice framework.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 7 of 26
`
`Under Alice, when the claims are directed to an abstract idea, as they are here, they can
`
`only be saved if they also claim an “inventive step.” Here, however, the ’591 patent claims do
`
`not include any inventive step or other technological improvements that would make the claims
`
`patentable.
`
`Alice and its progeny have consistently held that generic computing elements, like those
`
`claimed in the ’591 patent, are insufficient to amount to an “inventive step” capable of saving a
`
`claimed abstract idea. The only tangible aspects of the ’591 patent claims are four features of
`
`generic computing: (1) image capture device, (2) image display device, (3) data entry device, and
`
`(4) digital processing unit. None of these concepts have any inventive weight, and these kinds of
`
`generic components have consistently been found insufficient to save or transform otherwise
`
`unpatentable, abstract claims and ideas.
`
`As detailed below, the Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and numerous district courts have
`
`routinely struck down claims analogous to those here as a matter of law at the pleading stage.
`
`Thus, to conserve judicial resources and avoid unnecessary and costly litigation between the
`
`parties, Samsung respectfully requests that this Court find that the asserted claims are invalid
`
`under § 101 of the Patent Act and dismiss, with prejudice, the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The ’591 patent is entitled “Video Enabled Digital Devices for Embedding User Data in
`
`Interactive Applications” and issued from an application filed on March 8, 2011.
`
`The ʼ591 patent explains the idea of creating a composite video by copying a preexisting
`
`image onto a preexisting video. FIG. 3 (below) shows the preferred cutting-and-pasting (i.e.,
`
`image substitution) claimed in the all of the claims of the patent. As the patent specification
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 8 of 26
`
`details, FIG. 3 (below) illustrates “a user input 150 of a photo image of the user used to replace
`
`the face of the image shown on the device 108. The user transmits the photo image 150 by wired
`
`or wireless means to the device 108. The image substitution is performed and the device 108
`
`shows the substituted image 190.” ’591 patent at Col. 2:66-3:4 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`The ’591 patent does not disclose any innovative components or technologies for
`
`carrying out this simple image substitution concept (i.e., cut-and-paste). Nor does the ’591
`
`patent include any technical nuances for its claimed image substitution that require anything
`
`other than generic computer components. For example, the specification describes the claimed
`
`subject matter as follows:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 9 of 26
`
`Referring to FIG. 3 we show a user input 150 of a photo image of the
`user used to replace the face of the image shown on the device 108.
`The user transmits the photo image 150 by wired or wireless means to
`the device 108. The image substitution is performed and the device
`108 shows the substituted image 190.
`
`’591 patent at Col. 2:66-3:4 (emphasis added). No other portion of the specification includes a
`
`more detailed or technically nuanced description of how the image substitution is claimed to
`
`work.
`
`In other words, the patent recites image substitution using conventional, routine activities
`
`on a general-purpose computer by adding some data (e.g., image) onto some other existing data
`
`(e.g., video) to create modified data (e.g., video having an image added on). The ’591 patent
`
`does not disclose any particular circuitry, algorithm, special programming, or other technical
`
`detail to perform the disclosed image substitution. ’591 patent at Col. 6:18-23.
`
`Prisua has asserted four of the ’591 patent’s claims against Samsung: claims 1, 3, 4, and 8.
`
`Claim 1 is an independent claim and the other three claims depend therefrom (i.e., they include
`
`all the elements of claim 1, plus the additional elements specifically disclosed in each respective
`
`claim). Claim 1 states:
`
`1. An interactive media apparatus for generating a displayable edited video data stream
`from an original video data stream, wherein at least one pixel in a frame of said original
`video data stream is digitally extracted to form a first image, said first image then
`replaced by a second image resulting from a digital extraction of at least one pixel in a
`frame of a user input video data stream, said apparatus comprising:
`
`
`an image capture device capturing the user input video data stream;
`
`an image display device displaying the original video stream;
`
` a
`
` data entry device, operably coupled with the image capture device and the
`image display device, operated by a user to select the at least one pixel in the
`frame of the user input video data stream to use as the second image, and further
`operated by the user to select the at least one pixel to use as the first image;
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 10 of 26
`
`wherein said data entry device is selected from a group of devices consisting of: a
`keyboard, a display, a wireless communication capability device, and an external
`memory device;
`
` a
`
` digital processing unit operably coupled with the data entry device, said digital
`processing unit performing:
`
`
`identifying the selected at least one pixel in the frame of the user input
`video data stream;
`
`extracting the identified at least one pixel as the second image;
`
`storing the second image in a memory device operably coupled with the
`interactive media apparatus;
`
`receiving a selection of the first image from the original video data stream;
`
`extracting the first image;
`
`spatially matching an area of the second image to an area of the first image
`in the original video data stream, wherein spatially matching the areas
`results in equal spatial lengths and widths between said two spatially
`matched areas; and
`
`performing a substitution of the spatially matched first image with the
`spatially matched second image to generate the displayable edited video
`data stream from the original video data stream.
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is, in substance, a generic apparatus that performs a claimed method. See Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Put another way, the system claims are no different from the method claims
`
`in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the
`
`system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the
`
`same idea.”); Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1341
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[S]ystem claims that closely track method claims and are grounded by the
`
`same meaningful limitations will generally rise and fall together.”). In other words, the generic
`
`hardware components highlighted in yellow are the general system (an image capture device, i.e.,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 11 of 26
`
`camera, coupled to a conventional computer) within which the claimed abstract idea, highlighted
`
`in green, is performed.
`
`The green highlighted portion of independent claim 1 states that a “digital processing unit”
`
`performs the process of cutting-and-pasting existing data (e.g., an image) onto other existing data
`
`(e.g., a video or even a still image under Prisua’s broad assertion of the patent).1 Specifically,
`
`the “digital processing unit” (1) retrieves a captured image as the second image, (2) selects a
`
`portion of another image as a first image, (3) retrieves the second image, and (4) pastes a portion
`
`of the second image onto a portion of the first image.
`
`The three asserted dependent claims (i.e., claims 3, 4, and 8) only teach additional
`
`generic functionalities of the claimed “digital processing unit.”
`
`3. The interactive media apparatus of claim 1 wherein the digital
`processing unit is further capable of extracting the at least one pixel
`from the user entering data in the data entry display device.
`
`4. The interactive media apparatus of claim 3 wherein the digital
`processing unit is further capable of extracting the at least one pixel
`from the user pointing to a spatial location in a displayed video frame.
`
`8. The interactive media apparatus of claim 1, wherein the substitution
`performed by the digital processing device replaces at least a face of a
`first person from the original video data stream by at least a face of a
`second person from the user input video data stream.
`
`’591 patent at Col. 7:64-8:19 (emphasis added).
`
`The non-asserted claims also pertain to cutting-and-pasting with minimal modifications.
`
`For example, independent claims 12 and 17 mirror claim 1, but require the use of the Internet or
`
`wireless capabilities. Independent claim 11 is simply claim 1 re-written into traditional method
`
`
`1 Notably, the specification of the ’591 patent does not even reference the “digital processing unit”
`that is the claimed computing unit for performing image substitution.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 12 of 26
`
`claim form. The remaining dependent claims are similar to the asserted dependent claims in that
`
`they add generic requirements to the claimed “digital processing unit.”
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Patentability Under § 101 Can Be Determined in the Context of a Rule
`12(b)(6) Motion Without Claim Construction.
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint
`
`when it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
`
`plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial
`
`plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer
`
`possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) review also includes consideration of any exhibits attached to the complaint. See
`
`Page v. Postmaster Gen. & Chief Exec. Officer of U.S. Postal Serv., 493 F. App'x 994, 995 (11th
`
`Cir. 2012) (“Exhibits attached to the complaint are treated as part of the complaint for Rule
`
`12(b)(6) purposes.”).
`
`Patentability under § 101 is a threshold legal issue, which may properly be determined at
`
`the pleading stage without construing the claims or conducting discovery. See, e.g., Aatrix
`
`Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00164-HES-MCR, Dkt. 59 at 13-14
`
`(M.D. Fla. July 15, 2015) (“The issue of patentable subject matter is purely an issue of law and it
`
`is proper for the Court to make a determination as to the patent eligibility of the Asserted Patents
`
`under Section 101 at the pleading stage without first construing the claims or allowing the parties
`
`to conduct fact discovery and submit opinions from experts supporting their claim construction
`
`positions”); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 13 of 26
`
`(“[C]laim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.”).
`
`As Judge Mayer of the Federal Circuit has explained:
`
`From a practical perspective, there are clear advantages to
`addressing Section 101’s requirements at the outset of litigation.
`Patent eligibility issues often can be resolved without lengthy
`claim construction, and an early determination that the subject
`matter of asserted claims is patent ineligible can spare both
`litigants and courts years of needless litigation.
`
`I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., 576 F. App’x 982, 995-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring).
`
`B.
`
`Abstract Ideas Are Ineligible For Patent Protection.
`
`Under § 101 of the Patent Act, “[w]hoever 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 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains
`
`an important implicit exception [for] [l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (citing Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.
`
`Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)) (internal quotations omitted). It has been well established “for more than
`
`150 years” that a patent directed to an abstract idea is outside the scope of patent eligibility.
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. A patent claiming an abstract idea “‘would risk disproportionately
`
`tying up the use of the underlying’ idea[].” Id. at 2354-55 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth a two-part test for evaluating patents under § 101.
`
`First, courts should “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to [a] patent-ineligible
`
`concept[],” such as an abstract idea. Id. at 2355. Abstract ideas include a “fundamental
`
`economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce,” a “longstanding commercial
`
`practice,” or “a method of organizing human activity.” Id. at 2355-56 (citing Bilski v. Kappos,
`
`561 U.S. 593, 611, 619 (2010)). Fundamentally, an idea is abstract where, as here, the idea is
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 14 of 26
`
`“devoid of a concrete or tangible application.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
`
`715 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Ultramercial, LLC v. WildTangent, Inc., 135 S. Ct.
`
`2907, 192 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2015).
`
`The second step of the Alice framework is reached when the claims are found to be tied
`
`to an abstract idea. Under the second step, an abstract idea is not patentable unless the claims
`
`include an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
`
`eligible application” of the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo Collaborative
`
`Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). Claiming “a generic computer
`
`cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2358.
`
`Likewise, the following are all insufficient for transforming a claimed abstract idea into a patent-
`
`eligible concept: (1) adding “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
`
`to the industry;” (2) limiting an idea to a particular field of use or a particular technological
`
`environment; (3) adding data-gathering steps; and (4) adding any other token or trivial activity.
`
`Id. at 2357-59 (internal quotations omitted).
`
`Since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision in June 2014, the Federal Circuit has invoked
`
`Alice to invalidate patents on numerous occasions. Specifically, post-Alice, the Federal Circuit
`
`has affirmed approximately forty-one out of forty-five district court decisions invalidating
`
`patents and/or claims under § 101. Among those, nine of the decisions came to the Federal
`
`Circuit as 12(b)(6) motions invalidating patents at the pleading stage and eight of those nine
`
`were affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Below are examples of the types of patents the Federal
`
`Circuit has confirmed are invalid under Alice:
`
` Patents directed to the abstract concept of requiring the collection, analysis, and
`display of available information in the context of power grid monitoring (Elec. Power
`Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 2015-1778, 2016 WL 4073318, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1,
`2016));
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 15 of 26
`
` A patent that claimed the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an
`organized manner (In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607,
`609 (Fed. Cir. 2016));
`
` A patent that claimed “a consequence of the naturally occurring linkages in the DNA
`sequence” (Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1375);
`
` A claim describing “the fundamental economic concept of offer-based price
`optimization through the use of generic computer functions” (OIP Techs. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2012-1696, 2015 WL 3622181, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2015));
`
` A patent that claimed the business method of using “an advertisement as an exchange
`or currency” (Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 714);
`
` A patent directed to another business method that was “a well-known, and widely
`understood concept—a third party guarantee of a sales transaction—and then applied
`that concept using conventional computer technology and the Internet” (buySAFE,
`Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
`
` A patent directed to a well-known practice in the banking industry of storing and
`collecting data, a function that “humans have always performed,” especially in the
`banking industry (Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776
`F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
`
` A patent that managed “a bingo game while allowing a player to repeatedly play the
`sets of numbers in multiple sessions” because the idea “consists solely of mental steps
`which can be carried out by a human using pen and paper” (Planet Bingo, LLC v.
`VKGS, LLC, 576 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1007 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Planet Bingo, LLC
`v. VKGS, LLC, 961 F.Supp.2d 840, 851 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2013));
`
` A claim describing the process of taking two data sets and combining them into a
`single data set known as a “device profile” because it recited the “abstract process of
`gathering and combining data that does not require input from a physical device”
`(Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014)); and,
`
` Patent claims directed to identifying alterations of a gene by comparing the patient's
`gene with a “wild-type” gene and identifying inconsistencies arising therefrom (In re
`BRCA1- and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763
`(Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`Although there has been no § 101 case in the Southern District of Florida since the Alice
`
`decision, the Middle District of Florida has not hesitated to invalidate patents at the pleading
`
`stage for this reason. See, e.g., Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., No. 3:15-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 16 of 26
`
`cv-00164-HES-MCR, Dkt. 59 at 3, 31 (M.D. Fla. March 30, 2016); see generally also,
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., No. 8:14-CV-2685-T-23MAP, 2015 WL 3883958, at
`
`*5 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2015) (motion to dismiss granted where patent used a method for
`
`detecting fraud in a computer environment; “analyzing records or human activity to detect
`
`suspicious behavior” is an abstract idea improper for a patent); Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells
`
`Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:11-cv-2826-T-23TBM, 2014 WL 4540319, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11,
`
`2014) (invalidating patent claims directed to “routinely modifying transaction amounts and
`
`depositing the designated, incremental differences into a recipient account”).
`
`The claims at issue here fall squarely into the commonly recognized patent-ineligible
`
`territory because the claims are directed to the abstract idea of cut-and-paste without any
`
`“inventive step” that saves their eligibility under Alice.
`
`A.
`
`This Case is Well-Suited for Early Dismissal.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The ʼ591 patent claims (and their included claim terms) do not need construction to
`
`permit this Court to adjudicate the claims as invalid at the pleading stage. See, e.g., Content
`
`Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1349 (where the court has a “full understanding of the basic character of
`
`the claimed subject matter,” the question of patent eligibility may properly be resolved on the
`
`pleadings); see also Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., No. 12–CV–04182–WHA, 2013 WL
`
`245026, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013) (same), aff'd, 817 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Clear with
`
`Computers, LLC v. Altec Indus., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-79, 2015 WL 993392, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3,
`
`2015) (granting motion to dismiss before claim construction where “the claim language is
`
`relatively simple”); Aatrix Software, No. 3:15-cv-00164-HES-MCR, Dkt. 59, at 3, 31 (M.D. Fla.
`
`March 30, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss before claim construction).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-21761-KMM Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2016 Page 17 of 26
`
`Here, it is apparent from the Complaint that Prisua interprets and asserts the claims of
`
`the ’591 patent broadly.2 For example, Prisua accuses the Best Face feature in certain Samsung
`
`mobile devices as infringing the ’591 patent (Compl. ¶ 21). Prisua alleges that the Best Face
`
`feature allows a user to select a face from one image and paste that face onto another image,
`
`thereby creating a modified image. See, e.g., Compl. Ex. B at 7 (“Touch each box to select the
`
`best face for the subject from one of the five photos. When you are satisfied with the photo, touch
`
`Save to combine the selected faces into one photo…”) (emphasis added); id. at 9 (“These
`
`alternative faces come from the detected faces in the other photos taken in the series of five
`
`images the camera shoots…”) (emphasis added).
`
`Prisua’s position is, therefore, that cutting-and-pasting one image (e.g., a face) onto
`
`another image (e.g., a group photo) meets the claim requirements. Notably, Prisua takes the
`
`same position in its infringement contentions, which are substantively identical to Exhibit B to
`
`the Complaint. Ex.