Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`ORDER RE: OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS;
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05928-YGR
`
`Dkt. No. 31, 75
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05929-YGR
` Dkt. No. 29, 63
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05931-YGR
` Dkt. No. 23, 63
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05933-YGR
` Dkt. No. 41, 81
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR
` Dkt. No. 27, 61
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05938-YGR
`Dkt. No. 43, 69
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05939-YGR
` Dkt. No. 31, 66
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MOOV, INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NIKE, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FOSSIL GROUP, INC. ET AL
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL INC. ET AL
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CANNON U.S.A., INC.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOPRO, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 1
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,258,698
`EXHIBIT
`
`Cellspin-2007
`
`IPR2019-00127
`
`exhibitsticker.com
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JK IMAGING, LTD.
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 17-cv-05941-YGR
` Dkt. No. 34, 67
`
`Case No. 17-cv-06881-YGR
` Dkt. No. 43, 70
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin”) brings fourteen patent infringement actions1 alleging that
`each defendant infringed one or more of Cellspin’s patents, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 8,738,794 (the “‘794
`
`Patent”); 8,892,752 (the “‘752 Patent”); 9,749,847 (the “‘847 Patent”); and 9,258,698 (the “‘698 Patent”)
`(collectively the “Asserted Patents”).2 Cellspin asserts claims 1–4, 7, 9, 16–18 and 20–21 from the ‘794
`Patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12–14 from the ‘752 Patent; claims 1-3 from the ‘847 Patent; and claims 1,
`
`3–5, 7-8, 10–13, 15–20 from the ‘698 Patent. (See, e.g., Cellspin Soft Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 17-cv-05928-YGR,
`Dkt. No. 1, Complaint for Infringement of U.S. Patents (“Complaint”).)3
`
`Defendants Fitbit, Moov, Nike, Fossil, Cannon, GoPro, Panasonic, and JK (the “Omnibus
`
`Defendants”) have filed an omnibus motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
`
`12(b)(6) on the ground that the asserted patents are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Dkt. No. 31,
`
`
`1 Nine actions are noted within the omnibus caption. Further, plaintiff’s patent infringement action
`
`against Eastman Kodak Company was dismissed without prejudice on December 3, 2017. (Cellspin Soft v.
`Eastman Kodak Company, 17-cv-5940-YGR, Dkt. Nos. 14, 15.) Plaintiff’s action against TomTom, Inc.
`and TomTom North America was dismissed without prejudice on January 25, 2018. (Cellspin Soft v.
`TomTom, Inc., et al., 17-cv-5937-YGR, Dkt. Nos. 46, 47.) The following defendants remain: Fitbit, Inc.
`(“Fitbit”); Moov, Inc. (“Moov”); Adidas America, Inc. (“Adidas”); Nike, Inc. (“Nike”); Under Armor, Inc.
`(“Under Armor”); Fossil Group, Inc. and Misfit, Inc. (collectively “Fossil”); Garmin International, Inc.
`(“Garmin”); Cannon U.S.A., Inc. (“Cannon”); GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro”); Panasonic Corporation of America
`(“Panasonic”); Nikon Americas, Inc. and Nikon, Inc. (collectively “Nikon”); and JK imagining LTD (“JK”).
`Adidas, Under Armor, and Nikon have filed answers.
`
`2 The ‘794, ‘752 and ‘847 Patents are asserted against Fitbit, Moov, Adidas, Nike, Under Armor, and
`
`Fossil; the ‘698 Patent against Canon, GoPro, Panasonic and JK; and all four against Garmin and Nikon.
`
`3 Unless stated otherwise all citations to docket entries refer to Cellspin Soft Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 17-
`
`
`cv-05928-YGR.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 2
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Dismiss Cellspin Soft, Inc.’s Complaints (“Omnibus MTD”).) Also before the Court is defendant
`
`
`
`Garmin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) on the same ground. (See Cellspin
`
`Soft Inc. v. Garmin International, Inc., 17-cv-5934-YGR, Dkt. No. 27.)
`
`
`
`Having carefully reviewed the pleadings, the papers and exhibits submitted on these motions, the
`
`parties’ arguments at the hearing held on March 6, 2018, and for the reasons set forth more fully below, the
`
`Court GRANTS the Omnibus Defendants’ motion to dismiss Cellspin’s complaints and GRANTS Garmin’s
`motion for judgment on the pleadings.
`I.
`PATENTS AT ISSUE
`
`
`
`Each of the four Asserted Patents is titled “Automatic Multimedia Upload for Publishing Data and
`
`Multimedia Content” and recites the same specification. (See, e.g., Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Garmin
`
`International, Inc., 17-cv-5934-YGR, Dkt. No. 1, Exs. A–D at 1:1-3.) Accordingly, the Court shall first
`
`discuss the ‘794 Patent and then highlight variations presented by the ‘752, ‘847, and ‘698 Patents,
`
`respectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ‘794 Patent
`
`The specification for the ‘794 Patent describes a “method of utilizing a digital data capture device
`
`[such as a digital or video camera or wearable fitness tracker] in conjunction with a Bluetooth™ enabled
`
`mobile device for publishing data and multimedia content on one or more websites automatically or with
`
`minimal user intervention.” (Id. at 3:28-32.) According to the patent, the conventional method for
`
`publishing data and multimedia content on a website was time-consuming required and manual user
`
`intervention:
`
`
`
`Typically, the user would capture an image using a digital camera or a video camera, store
`the image on a memory device of the digital camera, and transfer the image to a computing
`device such as a personal computer (PC). In order to transfer the image to the PC, the user
`would transfer the image off-line to the PC, use a cable such as a universal serial bus (USB)
`or a memory stick and plug the cable into the PC. The user would then manually upload the
`image onto a website which takes time and may be inconvenient for the user.
`(‘794 Patent at 1:38-47.) The ‘794 Patent purports to solve this problem by “utilizing a digital data capture
`
`device in conjunction with a Bluetooth™ (BT) enabled mobile device” to “automatically publish[] data and
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 3
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multi-media content on one or more websites simultaneously.” (Id. at 1:33-36, 1:65-2:3.) Independent
`
`Claim 1 recites:
`
`
`A method for acquiring and transferring data from a Bluetooth enabled data
`capture device to one or more web services via a Bluetooth enabled mobile
`device, the method comprising:
`
`providing a software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device;
`
`providing a software module on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device;
`
`establishing a paired connection between the Bluetooth enabled data capture
`device and the Bluetooth enabled mobile device;
`
`acquiring new data in the Bluetooth enabled data capture device, wherein new
`data is data acquired after the paired connection is established;
`
`detecting and signaling the new data for transfer to the Bluetooth enabled
`mobile device, wherein detecting and signaling the new data for transfer
`comprises:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transferring the new data from the Bluetooth enabled data capture device to
`the Bluetooth enabled mobile device automatically over the paired Bluetooth
`connection by the software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture
`device;
`
`receiving, at the Bluetooth enabled mobile device, the new data from the
`Bluetooth enabled data capture device;
`
`applying, using the software module on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device,
`a user identifier to the new data for each destination web service, wherein
`
`each user identifier uniquely identifies a particular user of the web service;
`
`
`determining the existence of new data for transfer, by the software
`module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device; and
`
`sending a data signal to the Bluetooth enabled mobile device,
`corresponding to existence of new data, by the software module on the
`Bluetooth enabled data capture device automatically, over the
`established paired Bluetooth connection, wherein the software module
`on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device listens for the data signal sent
`from the Bluetooth enabled data capture device, wherein if permitted
`by the software module on the Bluetooth enabled data capture device,
`the data signal sent to the Bluetooth enabled mobile device comprises a
`data signal and one or more portions of the new data;
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`transferring the new data received by the Bluetooth enabled mobile device
`along with a user identifier to the one or more web services, using the software
`module on the Bluetooth enabled mobile device;
`
`receiving, at the one or more web services, the new data and user identifier
`from the Bluetooth enabled mobile device, wherein the one or more web
`services receive the transferred new data corresponding to a user identifier;
`and
`
`making available, at the one or more web services, the new data received from
`the Bluetooth enabled mobile device for public or private consumption over
`the internet, wherein one or more portions of the new data correspond to a
`particular user identifier.
`
`(Id. at 11:48-12:39 (emphasis supplied).) Six asserted claims (2 through 5, 7, and 9) depend on independent
`claim 1 and add further limitations such as when the “data signal and the new data are transferred from the
`Bluetooth enabled data capture device to the Bluetooth enabled mobile device simultaneously[;]”
`“Bluetooth capability is provided internally in the Bluetooth enabled data capture device[;] and the
`“Bluetooth enabled mobile device comprises one or more of audio data, video data, image data, text data, or
`digital data.” (Id. at 12:39-50 (Claim 2), 13:48-50 (Claim 7), 13:55-58 (Claim 9).)
`Additionally, the ‘794 Patent contains two other independent claims, namely claims 6 and 16.4
`
`Asserted independent claim 16 of the ‘794 Patent is directed to transferring content from an “Internet
`
`incapable data capture device to an Internet server via separate Internet capable mobile device by polling the
`
`Bluetooth enabled data capture device for newly captured data within an already paired and Bluetooth
`
`connection between the data capture device and the mobile device.” (Dkt No. 38, Opposition at 20-21
`
`(citing ‘794 Patent at 14:14-64) (emphasis supplied).) Claim 16 has five dependent claims and adds further
`
`limitations such as when the “Bluetooth capability is provided internally in the Bluetooth enabled data
`
`capture device[;]” “Bluetooth capability is provided to the Bluetooth enabled data capture device by an
`
`external Bluetooth module[;]” and “the new data transferred from the Bluetooth enabled mobile device to
`
`one or more web services is data associated with new data.” (‘794 Patent at 14:65-15:14.)
`
`//
`
`//
`
`
`
`4 Independent claim 6 is not asserted in the above-captioned matters.
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`The ‘752 Patent
`
`B.
`Independent Claim 1 of the ‘752 Patent is directed to method of transferring data from an internet
`
`incapable data capture device to an internet server via an intermediary internet capable mobile device by
`
`pushing event notifications within an already paired and encrypted Bluetooth connection. (See ‘752 patent
`
`at 11:48-59.) Unlike the ‘794 Patent, the ‘752 Patent recites the use of a “secured” Bluetooth connection
`with a data encryption step.5 (Id. at 11:51-59, 12:13-16).
`C.
`The ‘847 Patent
`Independent asserted Claim 1 of the ‘847 Patent is directed to a method and system of utilizing an
`
`
`
`encrypted, paired Bluetooth connection to transfer data between an internet incapable data capture device
`
`and a separate internet capable mobile device. Unlike the ‘794 Patent, the ‘847 Patent recites the transfer of
`
`data by pushing event notifications within an already paired and encrypted Bluetooth connection. (See ‘847
`
`Patent at 12:13-68.) Claim 1 of the ‘847 Patent recites the use of generic computer hardware and software,
`
`namely a “Bluetooth enabled cellular phone,” “first processor,” and “mobile application.” (Id. at 12:12-
`
`13:3).
`
`The ‘698 Patent
`
`D.
`Independent asserted claim 5 of the ‘698 Patent is directed to system for using an encrypted paired
`
`
`
`short-range wireless connection between an internet incapable digital camera device and a separate internet
`
`capable mobile device wherein the acquired data is transferred to the cellular phone in response to a request
`
`initiated by the software application on the cellular phone over an already paired and encrypted short-range
`
`wireless connection. (See ‘698 Patent at 11:56-12:25.) Independent asserted claim 1 of the ‘698 patent is
`
`directed to a method of network architecture used to implement the system recited in claim 5.
`
`
`
`Differences between the ‘698 Patent and the ‘794 Patent include the ‘698 Patent’s utilization of a
`
`“digital camera device” instead of a “data capture device[;]” “cellular device” instead of a “mobile
`
`device[;]” and “short-range wireless connection” instead of “Bluetooth” connection. (Id., at 12:56-67.)
`
`//
`
`
`5 At the hearing held on March 6, 2018, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that that use of an encrypted
`
`
`Bluetooth connection to transfer data was conventional, well known, and not inventive.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`A.
`The scope of subject matter eligible for patent protection is defined in Section 101 of the Patent Act:
`
`Patent Eligibility Under § 101
`
`“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`
`matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions
`
`and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision
`
`contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
`
`patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular
`
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). In applying this exception, courts “must
`
`distinguish between patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
`
`building blocks into something more.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (internal quotations and alterations
`
`omitted); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1301 (2012).
`
`“The Supreme Court, setting up a two-stage framework, has held that a claim falls outside § 101
`
`where (1) it is ‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract
`
`idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered both individually and ‘as an ordered
`
`combination, do not add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.””
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice 134 S.Ct. at
`
`2355). “The Supreme Court's formulation makes clear that the first-stage filter is a meaningful one,
`
`sometimes ending the § 101 inquiry.” Id. (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355.) “At the same time, the two
`
`stages are plainly related” in that they “involve overlapping scrutiny of the content of the claims . . . [and]
`
`there can be close questions about when the inquiry should proceed from the first stage to the second.” Id.
`
`(citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The burden of establishing
`
`invalidity rests on the movant. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2245 (2011) (citing
`
`35 U.S.C.A. § 282).
`
`Thus, in considering whether claims are patent-ineligible, the court must first determine whether the
`
`claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea (the “Stage-One Inquiry”). See
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980). “A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth . . .
`
`[which] cannot be patented.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (internal citations and quotations
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 7
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`omitted). “Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual
`
`
`
`concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Id. To
`
`determine whether patent claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Court must “distill[] the gist of the
`claim[s].”6 Open Text S.A, 2015 WL 269036 (N.D. Cal. 2015), at *2 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593,
`611-12 (2010)). A “claim directed to an abstract idea does not move into section 101 eligibility territory by
`
`‘merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation.’”buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355).
`
`
`
`If claims are directed to an abstract idea, the court must then consider whether the claims contain a
`
`sufficient “inventive concept” such that “the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
`
`upon the [ineligible concept] itself” (the “Stage-Two Inquiry”). Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo,
`
`132 S. Ct. at 1294); see also DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(“Distinguishing between claims that recite a patent-eligible invention and claims that add too little to a
`
`patent-ineligible abstract concept can be difficult, as the line separating the two is not always clear.”). “For
`
`the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this
`
`analysis, it must involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities
`
`previously known to the industry.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`
`Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted). Further, claims must be “directed to a ‘specific means or method’ for improving technology” and
`
`not “simply directed to an abstract end-result.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322,
`
`1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017). For example, “when a claim directed to an abstract idea ‘contains no restriction on
`
`how the result is accomplished . . . [and] [t]he mechanism . . . is not described, although this is stated to be
`
`the essential invention” then the claim is not patent-eligible. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`
`838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
`
`1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`
`6 On the other hand, courts must be careful not to oversimplify claims because “[a]t some level, all
`inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
`ideas.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354; see also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
` 8
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`B. Motion to Dismiss
`Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
`
`relief may be granted. Dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is
`
`proper if there is a “lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a
`
`cognizable legal theory.” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing
`
`Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988)). The complaint must plead “enough
`
`facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
`
`(2007). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
`
`draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the facts alleged do not support a reasonable inference of liability, stronger than a
`
`mere possibility, the claim must be dismissed. Id. at 678–79. Mere “conclusory allegations of law and
`
`unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179,
`
`1183 (9th Cir. 2004).
`C.
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings
`
`The standard applied to a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is “substantially
`
`identical” to the standard applied to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Chavez v. United States, 683
`
`F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). “[U]nder both rules, ‘a court must determine whether the facts alleged in
`
`the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy.’” Id. (quoting Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg. Inc.,
`
`2011 WL 6140912, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2011)). “If the complaint fails to articulate a legally sufficient claim,
`
`the complaint should be dismissed or judgment granted on the pleadings.” Brooks, 2011 WL 614912 at *3.
`
`Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate “when there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving
`
`party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009)
`
`(citing Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 1999)).
`
`If a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, a “court should freely give leave [to amend]
`
`when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, “[a]s with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
`
`court granting judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) should grant leave to amend unless it is
`
`clear that amendment would be futile.” Kelly Moore Paint Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
`
`Pittsburgh, PA, 2014 WL 2119996, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 9
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`A.
`
`Stage-One Inquiry: Claims Directed to an Abstract Idea?
`1. Legal Standard
`At the Stage-One Inquiry, the Court must determine whether the asserted claims are directed to an
`
`
`
`abstract idea. Courts deem claims directed to “analyzing information by steps people go through in their
`
`minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea
`
`category.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (citing In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,
`
`613 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). The use of “existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on ‘abstract ideas’” is
`
`not sufficient to remove a claim from the abstract-idea category. Id. (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36;
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358–59). For example, the Supreme Court in Alice found that claims directed to
`
`“facilitate the exchange of financial [information] between two parties by using a computer system as a
`
`third-party intermediary” were abstract. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352. The Alice Court further held that “the
`
`prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of [an
`
`abstract idea] to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 2358 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11);
`see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).7 Similarly, in Electric Power, the Federal Circuit “treated
`collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as
`
`information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. The Electric Power
`
`Court further “recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
`
`information, without more . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id. at 1354.
`
`
`
`By contrast, claims which “focus[] not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer
`
`capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement . . . in how computers could carry out one of their
`
`basic functions” may fall outside the abstract-idea category. Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (citing
`
`
`7 Plaintiffs’ attempt to distinguish Electric Power and TLI on the ground that the patents at issue in
`
`those cases did not involve the use of Bluetooth technology or a paired connection does not persuade. The
`mere fact that the technology at issue here is different than the technology at issue in Electric Power and TLI
`
`does not necessarily render those prior cases inapposite.
`
`10
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 10
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (the question is “whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted
`
`improvement in computer capabilities” or on computers which “are invoked merely as a tool”)); see also
`
`Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358–59. However, the “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers
`
`does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.” Credit Acceptance Corp. v.
`
`Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing TLI, 823 F.3d at 612; OIP Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Similarly, making a “process more efficient” in
`
`itself does not “render an abstract idea less abstract.” Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`
`873 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`Ultimately, to be patentable claims must “sufficiently describe how to achieve [an improvement in
`
`computer technology] in a non-abstract way.” Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874
`
`F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding limitations requiring “sending” and “directing” of information
`
`“d[id] not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way”); see also Affinity Labs of
`
`Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims were directed to
`
`an abstract idea where they claimed “the function of wirelessly communicating regional broadcast content to
`
`an out-of-region recipient, not a particular way of performing that function”). For example, claims which
`
`recite “generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity” are deemed
`
`abstract. See In re TLI, 823 F.3d at 612 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338).
`2. Analysis of the ‘794 Patent
`With regard to the ‘794 Patent, the Court finds that the asserted claims are directed to an abstract
`
`
`
`idea, namely a method of acquiring, transferring, and publishing data and multimedia content on one or
`
`more websites. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial
`
`Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim “directed to . . . collecting, displaying, and manipulating
`
`data” deemed abstract); see also EasyWeb Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 689 F. App’x 969, 971 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (“As we have explained in a number of cases, claims involving data collection, analysis, and
`
`publication are directed to an abstract idea.”); W. View Research, LLC v. Audi AG, 685 F. App’x 923, 926
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
`
`analysis are a familiar class of claims ‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept.”). The Federal Circuit
`
`
`“treat[s] collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its
`11
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 - Pg. 11
`
`

`

`Case 4:17-cv-05928-YGR Document 79 Filed 04/03/18 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353.
`
`“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more
`
`(such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
`
`analysis.” Id. at 1354. Here, the asserted claims “focus [] on the combination of . . . abstract-idea
`
`processes[,]” namely “collecting information[,]” transferring information between devices via a Bluetooth or
`
`other wireless connection, and “presenting the results” of this data collection and transfer process on one or
`
`more websites. Id. at 1353–54.
`
`
`
`TLI is instructive. There, plaintiff asserted claims which were directed to a method of utilizing a
`
`smartphone to record and store digital images and then transfer those images to an online server for further
`
`processing. See TLI, 823 F.3d at 609-10. The Federal Circuit highlighted that the problem facing the
`
`inventor was “not how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular
`
`network . . . . Nor was the problem related to the structure of the server that stores the . . . digital images.”
`
`Id. at 612. In finding the claims directed to an abstract idea, the Court held that the claims were “not
`
`directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality” but instead were “directed to the use of
`
`conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment.” Id. As in TLI, the ‘794
`
`Patent does do not recite a specific improvement with regard to “how to combine a camera with a cellular
`
`telephone [or] how to transmit images via a cellular network.” See id. The ‘794 Patent is “not directed to a
`
`specific improvement to computer functionality” but merely utilizes generic computer hardware and
`
`software components, namely a “ubiquitous mobile phone,” paired Bluetooth connection, event
`
`notifications, “fairly widespread” personal digital assistant, and “general purpose computers and computing
`
`devices” to automate the process of transmitting multimedia content from a data capture device to one or
`
`more websites. (See ‘794 Patent at 9:37–48, 10:10–13.)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff argues that defendants attempt to oversimplify the asserted claims as covering only the
`
`abstract idea of acquiring, transferring and publishing data. According to Cellspin, the ‘794 Patent describes
`
`“specific improvements” in acquiring, transferring, and publishing data on the internet. However, plaintiff
`
`fails to identify these alleged “specific improvements” or otherwise explain how these improvements result
`
`in enhanced “computer capabilities” rather than “a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which
`
`
`computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339.
`12
`
`
`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
`
`Cellspin Ex. 2007 -