Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:2680
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROBERT RIVERA, JR.
`(TX 16958030) (pro hac vice)
`rrivera@susmangodfrey.com
`JOSEPH S. GRINSTEIN
`(TX 24002188) (pro hac vice)
`jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77002-5096
`Telephone (713) 651-9366
`Facsimile (713) 654-6666
`
`DAVIDA BROOK (275370)
`dbrook@susmangodfrey.com
`MENG XI (280099)
`mxi@susmangodfrey.com
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
`1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone (310) 789-3100
`Facsimile (310) 789-3150
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Vaporstream, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`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
`
`VAPORSTREAM, INC.,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`SNAP INC. d/b/a SNAPCHAT, INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KSx
`
`PLAINTIFF VAPORSTREAM,
`INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`OPPOSITION TO SNAP INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Date: October 30, 2017
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Courtroom: 7C
`Judge: Hon. Beverly Reid O’Connell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:2681
`
`
`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 CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Not Drawn to An
`Abstract Idea ......................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to A Specific
`Improvement to Electronic Messaging Systems ........................ 3
`
`The Asserted Claims Address Problems Unique to
`Electronic Messaging in Computer Systems .............................. 6
`
`The Court Should Give Appropriate Consideration and
`Due Weight to the Examiner’s Finding The ’886
`Patent Not Abstract ..................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two—The Asserted Claims Recite An Inventive
`Concept ............................................................................................... 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Snap Fails to Supply Adequate Evidence Establishing
`What Was
`“Well-Understood, Routine,
`and
`Conventional” in the Art in 2005 ............................................. 10
`
`Snap’s Own References Demonstrate That The
`Claimed Limitations Were Not Well-Understood,
`Routine, or Conventional .......................................................... 14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Separated Displays of Message Content and
`User Identifying Information Was Not Well-
`Understood, Routine, or Conventional ........................... 14
`
`Separate Transmission and Correlation of
`Message Content
`and User
`Identifying
`Information Were Not Well-Understood,
`Routine or Conventional ................................................ 17
`
`Automatic Deletion Was Not Routine or
`Conventional .................................................................. 20
`
`3.
`
`the
`Snap’s Individual-Element Approach Ignores
`Ordered Combination of Elements, Which Confers
`Patent Eligibility ....................................................................... 21
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`i
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:2682
`
`
`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
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`109 F. Supp. 3d 916 (W.D. Tex. 2015) ................................................................. 12
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................. 6, 10, 21
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Ameritox, Ltd. v. Millennium Health, LLC,
`88 F. Supp. 3d 885 (W.D. Wis. 2015)............................................................ passim
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... passim
`
`California Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns Inc.,
`59 F. Supp. 3d 974 (C.D. Cal. 2014)..................................................................... 12
`
`Cogent Medicine, Inc. v. Physicians Interactive Holdings, Inc.,
`70 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................. 21
`
`Content Extraction and Trans. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`776 F.3d 1343 (2014) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................. 9
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 3, 8, 21
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ............................................................................ 14, 15, 16, 17
`
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................... 4, 6
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 3, 5, 23
`
`In re BRCA1 and BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation,
`774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................... 11
`
`InfoGation Corp. v. ZTE Corp., Case No. 16-cv-1901-H-JLB,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44873 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) ........................................ 6
`
`Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil,
`774 F.2d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................ 9
`ii
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:2683
`
`
`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
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .................................................................................... 11, 13, 23
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 2
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia,
`No. 2016-2254, 2017 WL 3481288 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) ................................ 5
`
`VS Techs. v. Twitter, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-cv-43, 2011 WL 4744911 (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2011) ................................... 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`iii
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:2684
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On June 12, 2017, this Court issued an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss for Lack of Patentable Subject Matter. Dkt. 59 (“Order”). The Court found
`
`that the Alice Step One inquiry presented a “close call,” id. at 10, but also
`
`recognized that it would have been “premature to determine” whether the asserted
`
`limitations provided an inventive concept under Step Two without resolving the
`
`underlying factual “ambiguit[ies],” id. at 12-13.
`
`In its motion for summary judgment, Snap’s second bite at the Step-One
`
`apple consists largely of attorney arguments recasting the asserted claims as
`
`generally and simplistically (and therefore as abstractly) as possible. Relative to its
`
`first attempt at persuading the Court that the claimed inventions are directed to an
`
`abstract idea, as opposed to a specific solution to the various challenges of electronic
`
`messaging, Snap’s instant arguments do not advance the Step One inquiry.
`
`Snap also attempts to sway the Court in the Step Two analysis by supplying
`
`an expert declaration and a 1500-page “expanded summary judgment record”
`
`consisting of two dozen prior art references purporting to show that each of the
`
`“claimed limitations [is] [a] mere conventional protocol[].” Mot. at 1. Snap fails,
`
`however, to consider the state of the art at the relevant time, to provide evidence in
`
`the pertinent field of art, and to conduct the required “ordered combination”
`
`analysis. Indeed, by trying to tip the scales with the sheer volume of references,
`
`Snap ends up demonstrating the fatal flaw with its renewed motion: That there is a
`
`genuine dispute as to the facts underlying Alice Step Two’s “inventive concept”
`
`analysis, which was the precise reason the Court denied Snap’s previous motion.
`
`This Court should once again deny Snap’s motion for summary judgment.
`
`First, Snap fails to establish as a matter of law that the asserted claims of
`
`Vaporstream’s patents are directed to abstract ideas—and not to specific solutions to
`
`technological problems that are unique to electronic messaging systems. Second, and
`
`even if the Court finds for Snap on Step One, the issue of whether the technological
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`1
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:2685
`
`
`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
`
`features disclosed in the asserted claim limitations—either individually or in an
`
`ordered combination—were “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the art
`
`is, and continues to be, hotly contested. This Court cannot enter judgment for Snap
`
`when issues of material fact remain in dispute. The evidence is sufficient for a
`
`reasonable juror to conclude the asserted patents claim an improvement to electronic
`
`messaging systems and are not directed to an abstract idea. See VS Techs. v. Twitter,
`
`Inc., No. 2:11-cv-43, 2011 WL 4744911, at *2, 6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2011) (denying
`
`summary judgment of invalidity based on § 101 and setting the case for a jury trial).
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Not Drawn to An
`Abstract Idea
`
`Snap’s summary judgment motion recycles the same arguments this Court
`
`rejected in denying Snap’s Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 23). Specifically, Snap
`
`continues to contend that the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`“preventing third parties from tracing a message’s content to the sender or recipient,”
`
`Mot. at 8, which the Court had previously found to be from an overly “macroscopic
`
`perspective.” Order at 8. Snap maintains, incorrectly, that the technological solutions
`
`provided by the patents are comprised of “basic technique[s]” that are “well-known”
`
`and “common” and are not technological solutions at all. Mot. at 4. And Snap tries,
`
`relentlessly, to get its previously presented classroom note-pass, briefcase courier,
`
`and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE analogies to stick, id. at 9-10, despite the Court’s
`
`admonition that they were “incompatible with fundamental, technological aspects of
`
`the methodology and the problem to be solved” and are therefore of “limited value to
`
`a section 101 analysis.” Order at 9.
`
`As the Court noted, the Step One inquiry determines whether the asserted
`
`claims “focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology”
`
`or are “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke
`
`generic processes and machinery.” Order at 4 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`2
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:2686
`
`
`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
`
`Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In addressing the Step One
`
`inquiry as applied to a computer-implemented invention, it is often helpful to ask
`
`whether the claims are directed to “an improvement in the functioning of the
`
`computer,” or merely “adding conventional computer components to well-known
`
`business practices.” Order at 8 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
`
`1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). An important consideration relevant to the Step One
`
`determination for the case at hand is whether the asserted patents address problems
`
`that are unique to electronic messaging in computer systems. Id. at 8-9.
`
`The largely recycled Step One arguments in Snap’s motion do not help resolve
`
`the “close call” presented in the previous motion. Id. at 10. The Court should instead
`
`find that “[l]ike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, Vaporstream’s computer-based
`
`claims [are] directed to overcome challenges specifically arising in the realm of
`
`Internet-based messaging systems, such as the uncontrolled storage, manipulation,
`
`widespread dissemination, and interception of electronic messages.” Id.
`
`1. The Asserted Claims Are Directed to A Specific Improvement to
`Electronic Messaging Systems
`
`The asserted claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of
`
`electronic messaging systems. As
`
`the specification explains,
`
`the claimed
`
`improvement allows “users of [] computers 315 and 320 to have a private
`
`conversation over [an open] network 325” via “electronic messages 330.” ’739
`
`Patent, 17:47-49. The background to the patents identifies numerous problems
`
`existing in prior art electronic messaging systems, which prevented users from
`
`having truly private conversations over the Internet for fear that the electronic
`
`messages would be intercepted, logged, archived, manipulated, and/or disseminated
`
`without their consent. Id. at 1:53-2:6.
`
`Against this backdrop of prior art electronic messaging systems, the asserted
`
`send-side claims disclose methods designed to enhance users’ privacy and security in
`
`electronic messaging systems by: (1) separately specifying the message recipient and
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`3
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:2687
`
`
`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
`
`message content (and having two displays so information about the recipient and the
`
`content are not displayed at the same time); (2) associating a message ID that
`
`correlates the message content with the message recipient; (3) transmitting the
`
`content separately from the recipient identification; and (4) preventing the sender
`
`from accessing the content after it is sent. Order at 6; see, e.g., ’739 Patent, cl. 1; ’885
`
`Patent, cl. 1; ’155 Patent, cl. 1. The asserted receive-side claims alleviate prior art
`
`problems by disclosing that an improvement to prior art electronic messaging
`
`systems can be achieved if the following specific techniques were observed: (1)
`
`displaying the sender of the message to the recipient, (2) separately displaying
`
`message content to the recipient; (3) separately receiving content and sender
`
`information; (4) maintaining an association between the content and the sender; and
`
`(5) automatically destroying the content after receipt and display. Order at 7; see,
`
`e.g., ’351 Patent, cls. 1 and 12. The combination of the methods and techniques from
`
`the send-side and receive-side claims results in a specific application of electronic
`
`messaging in computer systems that is an improvement over prior art technology.
`
`Snap takes too narrow a view of what counts as an “improvement” in
`
`computer or network functionality when it argues that the Vaporstream patents do
`
`not “make the computer run any faster, more efficiently, or more reliably.” Mot. at
`
`14. Speed, efficiency, and reliability are not the only improvements that matter.1
`
`The cases cited by Snap at 13-14 are distinguishable because the challenged patents
`
`therein simply invoked the Internet as a means to an end; they did not improve the
`
`functioning of the Internet itself. Patents that fall within that paradigm are ineligible
`
`because “the focus of the[ir] claims is not on such an improvement in computers as
`
`tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”
`
`Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`In contrast, the asserted claims here constitute an improvement of electronic
`
`
`1 To the extent they are, improving the security of electronic communications, at the
`very minimum, improves their reliability.
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`4
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:2688
`
`
`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
`
`messaging itself, focusing on improving computers as tools for private and secure
`
`communication. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility, 827 F.3d
`
`1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing patent as “not claiming the idea of filtering
`
`content simply applied to the Internet” but rather “a technology-based solution . . . to
`
`filter content on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with other Internet
`
`filtering systems”); Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia, No. 2016-2254, 2017 WL
`
`3481288, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) (finding challenged patent to be “directed to
`
`an improved computer memory system, not to the abstract idea of categorical data
`
`storage” because it improved on “prior art memory systems [which] lacked
`
`versatility because they were designed and optimized based on the specific type of
`
`processor selected for use in that system”). Describing inventions similar to the one
`
`at issue, the Federal Circuit has stated that it is “not persuaded that the invention’s
`
`ability to run on a general-purpose computer dooms the claims” if the claims “are
`
`directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at
`
`1338-39 (distinguishing collection of cases involving claims which “simply add[]
`
`conventional computer components to well-known business practices”).
`
`To help with the § 101 inquiry, the Federal Circuit in Electric Power
`
`highlighted “an important common-sense distinction between ends sought and
`
`particular means of achieving them, between desired results (functions) and particular
`
`ways of achieving (performing) them.” 830 F.3d at 1336. Here, the Vaporstream
`
`patents provide the specific means of achieving the ends—that is, the claims disclose
`
`a particular method of performing the desired result of reduced traceability in
`
`electronic messaging. The implementation of specific methods and techniques result
`
`in an improved e-messaging system. The claims are not focused on a result that itself
`
`is the abstract idea (“preventing third parties from tracing a message’s content to the
`
`sender or recipient,” in Snap’s words) all the while adding the words “apply it.” Alice
`
`Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2357 (2014).
`
`As confirmed by the specification, the specific methods disclosed in the
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`5
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 10 of 31 Page ID #:2689
`
`
`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
`
`asserted claims are intended to help ensure that the improved electronic messaging
`
`system will not allow an electronic message to be “archived, forwarded, copied,
`
`pasted,” logged, or recreated, nor “leave [any] trace of the message content, header
`
`information, or the fact that it was created, existed, delivered, viewed, etc.” ’739
`
`Patent, 17:47-18:6. The asserted claims themselves are focused on making
`
`electronic messaging systems more private and more secure by “preventing
`
`screenshot logging” and by “reduc[ing] [the] traceability” of user identifying
`
`information and message content. ’351 Patent, cl. 9; ’886 Patent, cl. 1; ’155 Patent,
`
`cl. 1; ’111 Patent, cl. 1; ’711 Patent, cl. 1.
`
`The asserted claims are focused on advancing prior art electronic messaging
`
`systems by reciting a specific technique (here a concrete architecture providing for
`
`the separated display and transmission of message content from sender/recipient
`
`information, a correlation between the content and sender/recipient information, and
`
`restricted access to/deletion of the message content after transmission/display) for
`
`improving an existing technological process (here prior art electronic messaging in
`
`which messages are transmitted without restriction over an open network which
`
`allows them to be stored and manipulated by senders/recipients and intercepted and
`
`redistributed by third parties) and is therefore not directed to an abstract idea. See
`
`InfoGation Corp. v. ZTE Corp., No. 16-cv-1901, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44873, at
`
`*14-17 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017) (analyzing claim language with specification
`
`support to find asserted claims to be directed to a technological advance over the
`
`prior art mobile navigation systems under Alice Step One) (citing Affinity Labs of
`
`Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`2. The Asserted Claims Address Problems Unique to Electronic
`Messaging in Computer Systems
`
`The asserted claims address problems that specifically arise in the electronic
`
`messaging context. The background to the patents identifies numerous problems
`
`existing in prior art electronic messaging systems, such as how swiftly and easily
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`6
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 11 of 31 Page ID #:2690
`
`
`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
`
`electronic messages were: (1) “intercept[ed] by unintended third parties,” ’739
`
`Patent, 1:53-56; (2) “logged and archived” by the prior art systems themselves, and
`
`thus “copied, cut, pasted, printed, forwarded, blind copied, . . . manipulated” or
`
`disseminated by either the sender or the recipient, giving the messages longevity or
`
`a “shelf-life” that was “uncontrollable” and often unintended, id. at 1:56-59; and (3)
`
`linked to “identifying information regarding the sender, the recipient, the location
`
`of the message, times and dates associated with the message, etc.” which “exposed”
`
`senders and recipients to potential mischief by “third parties that have gained
`
`unauthorized access,” id. at 1:61-2:6. These problems are unique to electronic
`
`messaging in computer systems due to the very nature of electronic messages,
`
`which, unlike brick-and-mortar mail, “travel along a public network, such as the
`
`Internet, and [were] susceptible to interception by [countless] unintended third
`
`parties” and can be easily “manipulated,” “archived,” or disseminated by countless
`
`third parties to the sender’s and/or recipient’s dismay. Id. at 1:53-59.
`
`Snap’s classroom note-pass, briefcase courier, and self-destructing messages
`
`analogies fail, because all three scenarios involve a “message” that is a one-off
`
`which, unlike electronic messages, cannot be manipulated, archived, or disseminated
`
`by millions of unintended third parties within seconds. Second, Snap’s analogies are
`
`fatally flawed in a way that exposes precisely why Vaporstream’s patents are
`
`directed to solving a problem unique to electronic communications: Snap’s examples
`
`each involve communicating information via two separate communication channels
`
`or mediums. The question Jill receives to the dance is written on a physical note, but
`
`sender Jack’s identity is handled orally by John, the note-passer. In the briefcase
`
`courier analogy, the contents of the briefcase are written down, while the identity of
`
`the sender is conveyed separately to or by the courier through a different channel or
`
`medium. The MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE example has the same issue with using separate
`
`communication channels: the self-destructing tape contains the message content, but
`
`the recipient address information is conveyed by whomever delivers the tape. These
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`7
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 12 of 31 Page ID #:2691
`
`
`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
`
`are all unlike in the electronic messaging context, where one must send both the
`
`message content and the user address electronically over the Internet as opposed to
`
`through separate—written versus oral—communication channels.
`
`To remedy the problems identified by Vaporstream that are unique to
`
`electronic messaging, the asserted claims disclose a particular way of sending and
`
`receiving electronic messages such that privacy is ensured, sender/recipient identity
`
`is unascertainable, and the message content cannot be copied, stored, manipulated,
`
`or disseminated. ’739 Patent, 3:48-4:3, 6:44-60, 9:9-17, 10:2-9, 15:23-38, 17:47-
`
`18:6. The patented methods provide a technological solution by requiring structured
`
`graphical user interfaces that separately display sender/recipient identifying
`
`information and the message content; protocols that transmit sender/recipient
`
`identifying
`
`information
`
`separately
`
`from
`
`the message
`
`content;
`
`a
`
`correlation/association method; and restrictions on accessing the message content
`
`upon transmission and display. See, e.g., id., cl. 1;’351 Patent, cls. 1 and 12. The
`
`asserted claims thus solve a “challenge particular to the Internet,” DDR Holdings,
`
`LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014), because they solve
`
`the challenge of reducing traceability of electronic messages sent over a computer
`
`network. The claims address the identified privacy and security problems such that
`
`through use of the disclosed methods, (a) neither the sender nor the recipient is able
`
`to store, manipulate, or otherwise disseminate the message, (b) should the message
`
`be intercepted by a third party, the identity of the sender or recipient is not
`
`discoverable, and (c) no record of the message exists upon transmission (by the
`
`sender) or display (by the recipient).
`
`The concrete and specific way Vaporstream’s claims address the identified
`
`problems which are unique to electronic messaging helps them overcome
`
`abstraction and grounds them as an improvement on an existing technological
`
`process for electronic messaging rather than in an abstract idea.
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`8
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 13 of 31 Page ID #:2692
`
`
`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
`
`3. The Court Should Give Appropriate Consideration and Due
`Weight to the Examiner’s Finding The ’886 Patent Not Abstract
`
`Snap mistakenly asserts that in conducting the Alice Step One analysis the
`
`Court should disregard the fact that the Examiner allowed the ’886 Patent to issue
`
`over a rejection of the then-pending claims under § 101. Mot. at 12-13 & n.8.
`
`Longstanding Federal Circuit precedent makes clear that an examiner’s decision is
`
`“evidence the court must consider in determining whether the party asserting
`
`invalidity has met its statutory burden . . . .” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-
`
`Allan Indus., 807 F.2d 955, 961 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (emphasis added and quotation
`
`marks omitted). As the Court acknowledged in the Order, the Examiner rejected the
`
`then-pending claims for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under § 101
`
`only to allow the ’886 Patent to issue after Vaporstream amended the claims to
`
`“emphasize[] limitations such as ‘providing separate displays on the device to
`
`prevent sender and recipient information from being linked to message content’ and
`
`added the new limitation of message content-header information ‘correlation.’”
`
`Order at 12 n.6. The Examiner’s determination has persuasive value because he
`
`recognized that the separation of displays and protocols enabling the separate
`
`transmission of message content and user identifying information are the innovative
`
`structural elements directed to improving privacy in electronic messaging that allow
`
`Vaporstream’s inventions to pass § 101 muster. See Declaration of Meng Xi,
`
`submitted concurrently herewith (“Xi Decl.”), at Exs. 2 (Response to Office
`
`Action) & 3 (Notice of Allowance) at 1-2. In allowing Vaporstream’s claims to
`
`issue, the Examiner apparently agreed that the claim amendments and § 101-based
`
`arguments made by Vaporstream were sufficient to transport the claims away from
`
`the realm of the abstract. Id., Ex. 2 at 2-6, 14-28. The Court should arrive at the same
`
`conclusion after giving “appropriate consideration and due weight” to “the
`
`examination procedure and result.” Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d
`
`1132, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 1985). To be clear, while Vaporstream agrees that the
`
`5350299v1/014580
`
`9
`
`Snap's Exhibit No. 1066
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00220-BRO-KS Document 82 Filed 09/26/17 Page 14 of 31 Page ID #:2693
`
`
`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
`
`Examiner’s decision is not dispositive of the § 101 issue, Vaporstream submits that
`
`the Examiner’s conclusion should, at minimum, count as substantial evidence that
`
`creates a fact issue on patent-eligibility.
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two—The Asserted Claims Recite An Inventive
`Concept
`
`Under Alice Step Two, in evaluating whether there is an “inventive concept”
`
`in a claim, courts must “consider the elements of each claim both individually and
`
`‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements
`
`‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2355. The inquiry looks to the presence of “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. (modification
`
`marks omitted). An element or combination of elements is not an inventive concept if
`
`it “amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement’ an abstract idea ‘on a computer’” or
`
`simply to “apply [the identified abstract idea].” Id. at 2357-58. Even if the Court is
`
`persuaded that Vaporstream’s claims are directed to an abstract idea, at the very least,
`
`a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether the asserted claims
`
`provide an “inventive concept” that renders them patent-eligible.
`
`1. Snap Fails to Supply Adequate Evidence Establishing What Was
`“Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional” in the Art in 2005
`
`In articulating why it was “premature” to make an Alice Step Two
`
`determination at the pleadings stage, the Court identified several factual issues
`
`underlying the patent-eligibility analysis that it wanted addresse