`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT MANAGEMENT, LLC
`
`* *
`
`VS.
`
`DISH NETWORK CORPORATION
`
`* CIVIL ACTION NO. W-18-CV-207
`*
`*
`
`November 28, 2018
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING
`MOTION HEARING
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`John Marcus Bustamante, Esq.
`J. Scott Denko, Esq.
`Denko & Bustamante LLP
`114 W. 7th Street, Suite 1100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Jeffrey G. Toler
`Toler Law Group, PC
`8500 Bluffstone Cove, Suite A201
`Austin, TX 78759
`
`Kurt Pankratz, Esq.
`Thomas Carter, Esq.
`G. Hopkins Guy, III, Esq.
`Baker Botts, L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201-2980
`
`John Palmer, Esq.
`Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee
`400 Austin Avenue, Suite 800
`Waco, Texas 76701
`
`Kristie M. Davis
`United States District Court
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`For the Defendant:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`25
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 2 of 63
`
`2
`
`(November 28, 2018, 2:53 p.m.)
`
`DEPUTY CLERK: Civil proceeding on hearing on motion to
`
`dismiss in Civil Action W-18-CV-207, styled Multimedia Content
`
`Management, LLC vs. Dish Network Corporation.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Denko?
`
`MR. DENKO: Yes, sir.
`
`THE COURT: Would you like to introduce yourself for the
`
`record?
`
`MR. DENKO: Scott Denko for the plaintiff Multimedia
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Content Management, LLC.
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: I recognize Mr. Bustamante, but I don't know
`
`12
`
`who the gentleman in the middle is.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`MR. TOLER: Jeff Toler for the plaintiff.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Toler, I think we've met too, but I...
`
`MR. TOLER: We have, Your Honor.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Your Honor, Kurt Pankratz with Baker Botts
`
`17
`
`on behalf of the defendant Dish Network.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: I'm joined today with my colleagues Hopkins
`
`20
`
`Guy, Tom Carter and John Palmer. We're also joined today by
`
`21
`
`in-house counsel from Dish Lawrence Katzin and James Hanft.
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Well, thank you so much for coming to Waco. I
`
`23
`
`really appreciate -- I love it when the clients attend these
`
`24
`
`hearings. I actually know a little more about this than I did
`
`25
`
`about the IDEA case I just had. So -- and there are binders so
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 3 of 63
`
`3
`
`I recognize this as a patent case. I know walking in what I'm
`
`going to deal with.
`
`So counsel for Dish, it's your motion and I will hear from
`
`you guys. Just so you know, I have reviewed everything that
`
`you submitted. I've actually got a fair number of questions to
`
`ask. You may wind up answering them as you go through, but I
`
`just wanted you to know that I have -- I have looked at
`
`everything and I am -- I had another 101 hearing a week or two
`
`ago, maybe two weeks ago. So I'm a little bit current on what
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`the -- the more recent cases are, but don't let that dissuade
`
`11
`
`you from, you know, hitting on whatever you want to.
`
`12
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, Kurt
`
`13
`
`Pankratz on behalf of the defendant Dish. And I heard about
`
`14
`
`the match.com hearing. So I was aware that you were -- you are
`
`15
`
`well aware of the current state of the 101 case law and I will
`
`16
`
`not go too deep into any of it, but I would like to start, Your
`
`17
`
`Honor, by focusing what this analysis is on which is based on
`
`18
`
`the Supreme Court telling us in Alice that the focus is on the
`
`19
`
`claims. And within the slide deck I'm going to -- I'll
`
`20
`
`reference you to certain pages. I'm probably going to jump
`
`21
`
`around a little bit so not necessarily go in exact order
`
`22
`
`necessarily nor hit all the slides, but I'll try and reference
`
`23
`
`by slide number if I'm ever referring to a particular one.
`
`24
`
`At Slide No. 4, a couple of quotes from the Alice case
`
`25
`
`because we think it's really important to reorient ourselves
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 4 of 63
`
`4
`
`and think about what is the fundamental question or what are
`
`the fundamental questions that we're asking ourselves and what
`
`do we need to look at to answer them? In Alice the Supreme
`
`Court tells us that there are the two steps and they're both
`
`focused on the claims themselves. At Step 1, first determine
`
`whether the claims at issue are directed to patent ineligible
`
`concepts, and then at the second step, if so, what else is in
`
`the claims before us? So it is a focus on the claims, not on
`
`what could have been in the claims, what could have been
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`included based on descriptions in the specification but on the
`
`11
`
`claims themselves.
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: And let me interrupt you to say you did a
`
`13
`
`really good job of making that point in your briefs and I would
`
`14
`
`encourage Mr. Denko or Mr. Bustamante or whoever it is that
`
`15
`
`argues, and I'm not sure who will, but I would look forward to
`
`16
`
`hearing from the plaintiff references to what is in the claims
`
`17
`
`that defeat your argument that there's nothing there. I mean,
`
`18
`
`you made that point pretty well and I look forward to hearing
`
`19
`
`from them a fairly specific response to that.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Perfect, Your Honor. Thank you.
`
`I will note that at Slide 6 we've got just a clean copy of
`
`22
`
`Claim 23 if at any point we need to jump to that slide and
`
`23
`
`reference the claim with no annotations or at least no
`
`24
`
`annotations yet on this slide.
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: And while you're doing this, you actually
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 5 of 63
`
`5
`
`anticipated my next question. You might address -- I know I'm
`
`going to hear from them why we just don't look at Claim 23 and
`
`it's not enough. There are a zillion claims, blah, blah, blah,
`
`blah. And so if you want to take that on now, I'll hear from
`
`them when they're up, but why -- why -- you might want to put
`
`on the record why my analysis of Claim 23 is sufficient to
`
`resolve the question of whether Alice applies to all of the
`
`claims.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: I'd be happy to take that question right
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`now if you'd prefer.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: I think -- and I'm not even sure there is a
`
`13
`
`dispute as to whether Claim 23 is representative at least with
`
`14
`
`respect to the independent claims. Now, our brief focused on
`
`15
`
`Claim 23. Their brief pivoted and focused on Claim 1 from the
`
`16
`
`same patent and I think I can address for you right now why we
`
`17
`
`think that those two claims are equivalent. I don't even know
`
`18
`
`if this is a dispute. It may be helpful to hear straight from
`
`19
`
`them. Do they think that the four independent claims rise and
`
`20
`
`fall together? I don't know if they agree. It seems they
`
`21
`
`might from the briefing, but I'm not sure. But I can certainly
`
`22
`
`address that.
`
`23
`
`Page 30 of the slide deck, Your Honor -- and I think
`
`24
`
`you're probably aware we've got two patents in suit here.
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 6 of 63
`
`6
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: We've got four independent claims between
`
`them. In each patent there is one system and one method claim.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: So what I'll do first is show you that the
`
`two method claims line up and then I'll show you where the
`
`applicant themselves said the system and method claims are the
`
`same thing.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: So first at Slide 30 you can see exactly
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`here. It's a comparison of the independent method claims from
`
`11
`
`the two patents in suit. On the left is Claim 23 from the '468
`
`12
`
`and on the right is Claim 29 from the '925 patent, and we've
`
`13
`
`highlighted in red the differences. There's just a few.
`
`14
`
`Claim 23, which we addressed in our briefing, has a little
`
`15
`
`more substance and requirement to it. In Claim 23 it requires
`
`16
`
`gateway units as opposed to the even broader network elements
`
`17
`
`claim in the '925 patent. You can see the Claim 23 of the '468
`
`18
`
`patent requires that the content request be user entered
`
`19
`
`whereas Claim 29 takes that out.
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: And just to shortcut this, your position would
`
`21
`
`be that if you persuade me that 23 is insufficient under Alice,
`
`22
`
`then I'm going to knock out 29 because 23 is, for lack of a
`
`23
`
`better word, better than 29 is.
`
`24
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: You read my mind, Your Honor. That's
`
`25
`
`exactly. If something can be even more invalid under Alice,
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 7 of 63
`
`7
`
`yes. Claim 29 would be.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Now, the system to method claims, the next
`
`slide, Slide 31, this is from the prosecution of the '468
`
`patent. The patentee was facing an election restriction
`
`requirement, which I think Your Honor may be familiar with,
`
`where the patent office tells you you've got two different
`
`kinds of claims in your patent. You need to pick one.
`
`THE COURT: Right.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: And the patentee came back and said, no. I
`
`11
`
`don't. I've only got one kind of claim. All the claims are
`
`12
`
`focused on the exact same thing and they go in and they
`
`13
`
`actually chart it, but we've put the little dots to take out
`
`14
`
`all their analysis, but the summary they give is in that second
`
`15
`
`paragraph. Independent Claims 1 and 116 correspond to each
`
`16
`
`other exactly, except the former is recited in system form and
`
`17
`
`the latter in method form.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`THE COURT: So if you knock out 1, you knock out 116?
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: That's right. And 116, if you turn to the
`
`20
`
`next page, Page 32, you'll see that Claim 116, the method
`
`21
`
`claim, during prosecution became Claim 23 in the final issued
`
`22
`
`patent.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: I got it.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: And so, Your Honor, again I don't know that
`
`25
`
`they contest this, but I think the record is clear if you knock
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 8 of 63
`
`8
`
`out Claim 23 under Alice, all four independent claims fall.
`
`THE COURT: Got it.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Now, as to the dependent claims, Your
`
`Honor, we have provided analysis in our briefing. I think we
`
`have hit on the different elements of those and we've raised
`
`why -- first off we feel like they're all addressing the same
`
`fundamental concept which is controlling access to content, and
`
`in each of the dependent claims they're merely adding extra
`
`steps. It's -- you know, if you want to think about
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`controlling access at a library and you have to have a library
`
`11
`
`card, some of the dependent claims could be, you know, put a
`
`12
`
`lock on the front door or add an extra librarian. It's things
`
`13
`
`that don't add any unconventional steps. And we can address
`
`14
`
`that in more detail if you have questions, but fundamentally we
`
`15
`
`think we've raised why those are all targeted at the same
`
`16
`
`fundamental concept and why none of them add unconventional
`
`17
`
`aspects sufficient to survive at Step 2.
`
`18
`
`And under the Affinity Labs vs. DirecTV case at 1256, Note
`
`19
`
`1, there is a point made by the Federal Circuit that Affinity
`
`20
`
`didn't separately argue patentability of its other claims, and
`
`21
`
`in light of that and Affinity's failure to present any
`
`22
`
`meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any
`
`23
`
`claim limitations other than those included in Claim 1, we
`
`24
`
`treated -- we the Federal Circuit treated Claim 1 as
`
`25
`
`representative, and we would contend that MCM has not, and
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 9 of 63
`
`9
`
`we'll go into greater detail on this with respect to especially
`
`the independent claims, but they have not identified any
`
`specific elements and said here's an unconventional one.
`
`Here's something that no one knew before that's not well-known.
`
`Instead, Your Honor, it's our contention that the dependent
`
`claims are just adding well-known computer aspects.
`
`THE COURT: And the reason you say that really they
`
`haven't claimed anything more than controlling access to the
`
`service -- to the network is because basically you're looking
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`at the first part of independent claims and then you're saying
`
`11
`
`really the only thing that they add is a controller note or
`
`12
`
`some form of controlling but even then they don't -- they don't
`
`13
`
`do anything, you know, beyond that, beyond the abstract concept
`
`14
`
`of controlling access.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Correct, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: And really there's a couple of things to
`
`18
`
`jump back and answer that question in particular. I think one
`
`19
`
`is looking at a statement that the patentee made during
`
`20
`
`prosecution where -- we're fortunate here, right? Alice came
`
`21
`
`out and they said the Supreme Court told us you need to figure
`
`22
`
`out what are these claims directed to. You have to do that.
`
`23
`
`We're trying to help you out.
`
`24
`
`We have the wonderful benefit here where the patentee back
`
`25
`
`before Alice even issued before this lawsuit was filed, filed
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 10 of 63
`
`10
`
`something with the patent office to say, here's what I think
`
`the claims are directed to. So we can see that if you go
`
`straight to Slide No. 6 -- I'm sorry -- Slide No. 8 -- my
`
`eyesight is not as good as it used to be -- in that same action
`
`when the patentee was facing election restriction, they
`
`characterized exactly what they believed the claims were
`
`directed to and they say it right there: Both sets of claims
`
`are directed towards, quote, "regulating access to a service
`
`provider network," end quote.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`THE COURT: Well, how -- how controlling is this language
`
`11
`
`in my determination of whether or not 101 applies or not?
`
`12
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: I don't view it as an admission that they
`
`13
`
`can't ever change or definitive for all time. I view it as
`
`14
`
`really persuasive evidence of what the patentee viewed their
`
`15
`
`claims to be directed to because it's --
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: Well, I don't think they dispute -- I don't
`
`17
`
`think they're going to get up here and dispute that what the
`
`18
`
`patents generally are related to are regulating access to a
`
`19
`
`service provider network. I mean, I think that's pretty close
`
`20
`
`to the title of the patent.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: It is.
`
`THE COURT: And so I'm not sure -- I'm not sure how far
`
`23
`
`this gets you in terms of saying -- I don't think there's any
`
`24
`
`fight over this. I mean, your fight is that they don't do
`
`25
`
`more, but I don't think they fight that this is what the claims
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 11 of 63
`
`11
`
`are aimed towards.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: It's a -- right. I would -- I would agree
`
`with that and I think they would agree that at least this is a
`
`statement of part of what the claims are directed towards.
`
`Maybe there's more. And I certainly do want to address what
`
`they say more there is.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: And I'm happy to jump to that, but first
`
`I'd like to, if Your Honor's okay with that, point to the claim
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`language itself and tell you why we think --
`
`11
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: No. I would like that. Yes.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: So Slide 10, Your Honor, is an annotated
`
`13
`
`version of Claim 23, and what we've done here is simply
`
`14
`
`provided some underlining and bolding and we've used two
`
`15
`
`different colors to indicate what we view as kind of two
`
`16
`
`different aspects present in these claims. So we've got six
`
`17
`
`steps. And fundamentally this boils down to you generate
`
`18
`
`instructions and then you apply them. You apply them to
`
`19
`
`control access to content. So we've highlighted in yellow
`
`20
`
`Steps A, B and D which are the steps of generating
`
`21
`
`instructions, transmitting instructions and then receiving
`
`22
`
`instructions. I think it'd be hard -- you'd be hard pressed to
`
`23
`
`argue that those aren't just generic computer steps taking
`
`24
`
`place.
`
`25
`
`And then on the gateway side you receive user entered
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 12 of 63
`
`12
`
`content requests. You selectively transmit those content
`
`requests in accordance with the controller instructions and you
`
`transfer content data responsive to that.
`
`I really would contend, and I don't know that the other
`
`side might agree to this based on their briefing, but Steps A,
`
`B, C, D and F, basically everything except E, appears to me to
`
`be almost unambiguously a generic computer step. And the
`
`reason I say that I'm not sure the other side will disagree
`
`with me is because when the other side is addressing what this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`claim is directed to, Your Honor, they provided a table in
`
`11
`
`their brief and the only element they focused on is Element E.
`
`12
`
`THE COURT: Well, and this should frighten you, everyone,
`
`13
`
`just not you you, but this is more broad that actually when I
`
`14
`
`read through this that was what I was thinking when I read the
`
`15
`
`patent. I was thinking E was the step that they would be
`
`16
`
`focusing on as well.
`
`17
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: And you nailed it. That's what we're all
`
`18
`
`looking at and it simply says selectively transmitting by the
`
`19
`
`plurality of gateway units the content request to the service
`
`20
`
`provider network in accordance with the controller
`
`21
`
`instructions. Selectively transmitting requests in accordance
`
`22
`
`with instructions. If that's your formulation of what this
`
`23
`
`claim is directed to, that might be even more broad and more
`
`24
`
`abstract than controlling access to content. These claims are
`
`25
`
`really written in very, very broad strokes. And, Your Honor, I
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 13 of 63
`
`13
`
`would suggest that perhaps the top case, if you were to ask me
`
`what do I think is the most analogous case, perhaps the Prism
`
`Technologies case that we've cited, and we have that cited on
`
`Slide 11 or at least a portion of it right there, where the
`
`Federal Circuit on appeal --
`
`THE COURT: Yeah.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: -- faced with the question. So...
`
`THE COURT: And when you cited that, I went and read that.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Okay. Thank you.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`I would also commend Your Honor's attention to the
`
`11
`
`Affinity Labs vs. Amazon case. That's on Slide 12. The
`
`12
`
`concept of delivering user selected media content to portable
`
`13
`
`devices is an abstract idea. I think the Federal Circuit has
`
`14
`
`been clear that broad generic language about controlling access
`
`15
`
`to content or controlling access to resources, user selected
`
`16
`
`content being delivered, those are abstract ideas. There is no
`
`17
`
`specific technical improvement to the computer or computer
`
`18
`
`network itself recited in these claims.
`
`19
`
`THE COURT: What about the language in accordance with the
`
`20
`
`controller instructions?
`
`21
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Well, Your Honor, even I would say
`
`22
`
`instructions is in the computer sense perhaps the most generic
`
`23
`
`thing that you can possibly ask for. Every computer since the
`
`24
`
`dawn of computers has operated in accordance with instructions.
`
`25
`
`The controller instructions could be as broad as, send every
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 14 of 63
`
`14
`
`request or send two of every request or send half of the
`
`requests. We don't know. We have no idea what those
`
`controller instructions require. They are everything. They
`
`cover everything, and if we want proof that the other side
`
`believes that, they've proposed a construction for controller
`
`instructions that simply says they're computer executable
`
`instructions. And if you'd like to reference their
`
`construction, we have those. I don't know if you want to jump
`
`to that or not.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`THE COURT: Y'all included some of those in the briefing
`
`11
`
`and I saw --
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: The plaintiff did.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah. I saw a bunch of those.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Okay. And, Your Honor, fundamentally, you
`
`15
`
`know, this claim is so broad that it -- it covers a concept as
`
`16
`
`broad as a library with library cards. You go in. You try to
`
`17
`
`check out a book and the librarian scans your card there at the
`
`18
`
`desk and she knows based on, you know, maybe you've got five
`
`19
`
`books outstanding, she says, the instructions tell me you don't
`
`20
`
`get that book. Sorry. Now she's controlling access to content
`
`21
`
`based on instructions, and maybe it's even over a computer
`
`22
`
`system's library setup, but this is -- in our view it's hard to
`
`23
`
`get more generic, more abstract and more broad in coverage than
`
`24
`
`just selectively transmitting requests in accordance with
`
`25
`
`instructions. And there is no -- no specific technical
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 15 of 63
`
`15
`
`improvement that would save these claims at Step 1. There is
`
`no structure. There's nothing like the specific tabbed
`
`notebook structure in Data Engines that saved the Corel patent
`
`of, you know, jumping between spreadsheet pages. There's
`
`nothing like a specific technical structure that's stored in
`
`the BIOS of a computer that I believe was -- I think that might
`
`have been the Ancora case. There are all these cases and when
`
`they find a claim eligible at Step 1, they really find a
`
`specific technical structure that improves the computer or the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`computer's user interface itself. Something as broad as, apply
`
`11
`
`instructions to selectively transmit request. Your Honor, we
`
`12
`
`just think that's too broad, that that is, according to Prism
`
`13
`
`and Affinity Labs and other cases, an abstract concept.
`
`14
`
`And unless Your Honor has more questions on Step 1, I'll
`
`15
`
`gladly move to Step 2.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: So at Step 2 -- and this section begins at
`
`18
`
`Page 21 of the slide deck that I handed up, Your Honor, as I'm
`
`19
`
`sure you're aware the question here under Alice is what beyond
`
`20
`
`the abstract idea is in the claims? Is there an inventive
`
`21
`
`concept? Or put another way based on the cases that have come
`
`22
`
`out, is any element in the claim that we're looking at more
`
`23
`
`than just a conventional routine well-known computer element?
`
`24
`
`Is it something other than just generic computer steps or is
`
`25
`
`the ordered combination of elements satisfying that? And again
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 16 of 63
`
`16
`
`the focus is on the claim language which I'd like to do first
`
`and then I will take on MCM's rebuttal points briefly as well.
`
`But turning to the claim itself, if you could turn to Page
`
`22, we've got here Claim 23 again, this time annotated, in an
`
`attempt to show with the colors and the bolding and underlining
`
`what we view as being the generic computer functions in red and
`
`the generic computer elements in black. It's hard -- I believe
`
`the other side would be hard pressed to say that steps such as
`
`generating, transmitting, receiving, transferring are anything
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`but well-known, routine computer activities and I would say to
`
`11
`
`Your Honor that there are cases saying exactly that. For
`
`12
`
`example Ultramercial v. Hulu, the transfer of content between
`
`13
`
`computers is merely what the computers do. Or En re: TLI
`
`14
`
`Communications, storing, receiving and extracting data that
`
`15
`
`were addressed there, those were just generic computer steps.
`
`16
`
`And as for the elements, here I think Prism is a good case
`
`17
`
`to look at as well. In Prism, again, the claim there, Your
`
`18
`
`Honor, I would say had even more detail and more specificity
`
`19
`
`than the independent claims here. And it's a very short
`
`20
`
`opinion. Nice easy one, a great one for us because it's short
`
`21
`
`and to the point. But in the Prism case the Federal Circuit
`
`22
`
`made clear that the asserted claims -- and this is at 1017 in
`
`23
`
`the Prism Technologies case. The Federal Circuit made clear
`
`24
`
`that the asserted claims merely recite a host of elements that
`
`25
`
`are indisputably generic computer components. And it cites to
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 17 of 63
`
`17
`
`an authentication server, an access server, internet protocol
`
`network, client computer device database. This type of generic
`
`computer element can't save these claims. These are not
`
`unconventional elements. These are quite the contrary.
`
`They're broad generic elements. And I think this claim really
`
`does raise the specter that the Supreme Court has flagged which
`
`is, is this claim so broad that it would preempt virtually any
`
`method of applying instructions to control access to content?
`
`Well, that's what the claim purports to be is applying
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`instructions to control access to content with no technical
`
`11
`
`specificity and we believe it does definitely run afoul of that
`
`12
`
`concern.
`
`13
`
`Now, in rebuttal, MCM could make your job easier by
`
`14
`
`saying, Your Honor, nope. Let me point you to an element that
`
`15
`
`is unconventional, right? Here's a factual dispute because
`
`16
`
`this is an unconventional element. They could have done that
`
`17
`
`in their complaint. They would have had to do so not just by
`
`18
`
`legal argument, right? They couldn't just say, this element is
`
`19
`
`unconventional. They would have to actually have some basis in
`
`20
`
`the specification or somewhere else to say that, but they
`
`21
`
`didn't even take that step. They have not identified, as far
`
`22
`
`as we can tell, a single element that they claim to be
`
`23
`
`unconventional nor have they taken the position, as we've seen
`
`24
`
`it, that the ordered combination is somehow unconventional, and
`
`25
`
`I think that would -- you'd be hard pressed to say that the
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 18 of 63
`
`18
`
`ordering of steps is somehow unconventional. I think we all
`
`know that if you want to tell a computer what to do, you do
`
`that first and then it follows your instructions later. So
`
`providing instructions and then following them -- I guess that
`
`even goes for my kids and for me and everybody, right? We have
`
`to hear the instructions first before we apply them.
`
`THE COURT: Not my kids.
`
`(Laughter)
`
`THE COURT: You have better kids than I do.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Maybe mine are too young to know.
`
`THE COURT: Wait until they're driving.
`
`(Laughter)
`
`THE COURT: In fact I'll -- I haven't met your kids. I'll
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`trade -- I'll take two of yours if you'll take either of mine.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`(Laughter)
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: It depends on the day whether I'll make
`
`17
`
`that trade, Your Honor.
`
`18
`
`Your Honor, MCM, they had the opportunity and they had the
`
`19
`
`opportunity in their brief to point to you and show you why
`
`20
`
`their claims were not well-known, routine or conventional, and
`
`21
`
`they purported to do that at Page 13 in their brief Section B,
`
`22
`
`and if you turn to Slide 25 we've excerpted the title of that
`
`23
`
`section in the first paragraph. It actually spans about four
`
`24
`
`paragraphs on Page 13 and it's a section entitled, The Claimed
`
`25
`
`System is Not Well-Known, Routine or Conventional. Well,
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 19 of 63
`
`19
`
`that's legal argument. Now let's find the evidence that would
`
`back it up that's either in a well pled complaint or to be
`
`found in the patent itself. Their first sentence simply states
`
`that MCM's complaint offers specific evidence that the elements
`
`of the patent claims are not well-known, routine or
`
`conventional. Again just a legal conclusion. It then states
`
`an example, and if you read that example, doesn't say anything
`
`about any elements being unconventional, not well-known, not
`
`routine. It simply says, MCM alleged a system and method that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`uses specific components to solve the technical problem of
`
`11
`
`providing access regulation and data traffic control
`
`12
`
`techniques. Well, the same could be said about a claim that's
`
`13
`
`not unconventional, right? Or maybe I'm putting too many nots
`
`14
`
`in there. The same could be said about any conventional
`
`15
`
`technique, right? There is no allegation in that statement
`
`16
`
`that there is something unconventional. And if we look to the
`
`17
`
`evidence they cite to, the complaint at 57, that's on Slide 26,
`
`18
`
`you'll see that they have used language there that's -- and
`
`19
`
`this isn't the only paragraph in their complaint where they use
`
`20
`
`similar language, but this is very representative of how
`
`21
`
`they've treated this at each instance. And you can search
`
`22
`
`throughout Paragraph 57 and their whole complaint for anywhere
`
`23
`
`where they say, there, Your Honor. There's the unconventional
`
`24
`
`element in the claims. All they've done here, Your Honor, is
`
`25
`
`given us two legal conclusions at the beginning, two sentences,
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 20 of 63
`
`20
`
`without saying that anything is unconventional in the elements
`
`and then they've quoted the claim language for the remainder.
`
`They haven't identified a single one of these elements as being
`
`unconventional.
`
`THE COURT: I am just wrapped with anticipation to hear
`
`Mr. Denko address exact -- a direct response and he will tell
`
`me what is unconventional when he gets up here.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: I'm sure he will, Your Honor, and I
`
`would --
`
`THE COURT: I've got a whole notebook.
`
`(Laughter)
`
`THE COURT: And so there's got to be something in here
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`that is unconventional.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`MR. DENKO: There is, Your Honor.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: I would urge Your Honor, and I know you
`
`16
`
`know this, but conclusory lawyer argument can't stand in for a
`
`17
`
`well pled complaint.
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: That was all they ever allowed me to make were
`
`19
`
`the conclusory general arguments. It took someone smarter than
`
`20
`
`me to do the harder stuff. But no. I actually -- I completely
`
`21
`
`follow -- just so your clients don't leave here terrified, and
`
`22
`
`they may anyway, but no. I completely understand what you're
`
`23
`
`saying and I will tell you I at some level share the same
`
`24
`
`concern that there are 57 -- looks a little bit like a cut and
`
`25
`
`paste of what the patent says and they say, see. We say all
`
`EXHIBIT 2011
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-ADA Document 30 Filed 12/04/18 Page 21 of 63
`
`21
`
`this and that's what it says in the claim. So I am -- I had
`
`already written down and could show you that was one of the
`
`questions I had for the plaintiff was for them to go through
`
`and let me know where in the claim language there was -- there
`
`was something that if they wanted me to find in their favor I
`
`could say in my order this is what's unconventional if they
`
`think they need to get that far if they think they need to get
`
`to Step 2.
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Understood. I will say, Your Honor, that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`in the section of their brief, that Section B, the four
`
`11
`
`paragraphs do address one other type of evidence which is the
`
`12
`
`patent office actions and the inter partes review filings, Your
`
`13
`
`Honor, it's our position, and I think the Federal Circuit has
`
`14
`
`agreed with us, that that is irrelevant for purposes of 101.
`
`15
`
`It is addressing whether these patents are -- allow --
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: 101's not before the -- they don't take up
`
`17
`
`101. I get that.
`
`18
`
`MR. PANKRATZ: Right. And the Federal Circuit including
`
`19
`
`in Two-Way Media vs. Comcast has specifically said it's fine
`
`20
`
`for a district court to just basically disregard that. That's
`
`21
`
`not evidence of 101.
`
`22
`
`And the final thing I would like to