`
`Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Not Present
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` N/A
`Court Reporter
`
`Not Present
`
`
` Terry Guerrero
`
`Deputy Clerk
`
`ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
`
`
`
`PROCEEDINGS:
`
`(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`TO DISMISS (Doc. 52)
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Mot., Doc. 52.) Plaintiff
`opposed. (Opp., Doc. 61.) Defendants replied. (Reply, Doc. 62.) For the reasons given
`below, the Court DENIES the Motion.1
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of United States Patent No. 8,023,580 (the “’580 Patent”)
`and United States Patent No. 8,457,228 (the “’228 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
`Patents”). (Compl., Doc. 1 ¶ 2; ’580 Patent, Doc. 61-2; ’228 Patent, Doc. 61-3.) The
`Asserted Patents describe roughly the same technology—indeed, they are identically
`titled: “System and Method of Communication Using at Least Two Modulation
`Methods.” (’580 Patent col. 1 ll. 1-3; ’228 Patent col. 1 ll. 1-3.)
`As described in the specifications of the Asserted Patents, transceivers in existing
`communications systems can effectively communicate with one another only if both are
`using the same modulation method. (’580 Patent col. 1 ll. 27-30; ’228 Patent col. 1 ll. 29-
`32.) Hence, data transmission sessions begin by negotiating and establishing a common
`
`1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78;
`C.D. Cal. R. 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for August 23, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., is
`VACATED.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Exhibit 1032
`Page 1 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`modulation method. (’580 Patent col. 1 ll. 36-39; ’228 Patent col. 1 ll. 38-41.) Some
`transceivers are compatible with multiple modulations methods, but some require a
`certain modulation method; therefore, where a system is comprised of a master
`transceiver transmitting various data packets to multiple tributary transceivers,
`impediments arise if the various tributary receivers require distinct modulation methods.2
`(’580 Patent col. 1 ll. 56-67, col. 2 ll. 1-15; ’228 Patent col. 1 ll. 58-67, col. 2 ll. 1-18.)
`Particularly, even if the master transceiver itself is compatible with all modulation
`methods required by each of the tributary receivers, it is inefficient to renegotiate the
`modulation method to be used for each new transmission; time is wasted between each
`session as the master transceiver makes futile connection attempts with incompatible
`tributary receivers as it reaches out seeking to connect with the next compatible tributary
`receiver. (’580 Patent col. 1 ll. 56-65; ’228 Patent col. 1 ll. 58-67.)
`The Asserted Patents aim to alleviate these inefficiencies in multi-transceiver
`systems by creating a system in which all transmissions begin with a “first” modulation
`method, but prefatory information sent via such first method may indicate a switch to a
`“second” modulation method. (’580 Patent col. 2 ll. 24-51; ’228 Patent col. 2 ll. 48-63.)
`If so, tributary transceivers compatible with only the first modulation method may be
`instructed by such prefatory information to standby until further notice; the master
`transceiver may then transmit data to compatible tributary transceivers according to the
`second modulation method without interfering connection attempts from incompatible
`tributary receivers. (’580 Patent col. 5 ll. 57-67, col. 6 ll. 1-15; ’228 Patent col. 6 ll. 14-
`
`2 The Asserted Patents describe a multipoint system with two types of transceivers: a command-
`issuing “master” transceiver and command-receiving “slave” or “tributary” transceivers. The
`Court notes that the “master/slave” terminology often used to describe the relationship between
`technological devices is both unnecessary and inaccurate. The relationship is based on issuing
`and receiving commands, not ownership. If patent drafters wish to illustrate such a relationship
`anthropomorphically, perhaps they could use military jargon. To avoid confusion, the Court will
`use the “slave” descriptor when quoting from Asserted Patents or the parties’ other submissions.
`Otherwise, the Court will use the “tributary” descriptor. In this, our country’s 400th year after
`the slave trade began, the Court encourages future patent drafters to move away from the
`“master/slave” metaphor and adopt a more appropriate term of art. See generally Ron Eglash,
`Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy in Technical Literature, 48 Technology and
`Culture 360 (2007).
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2
`
`Page 2 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`44.) At the end of the transmission via the second modulation method, trailing
`information may be sent according the first modulation method to notify the standing-by
`tributaries that the second modulation method session is ended. (’580 Patent col. 6 ll. 16-
`29; ’228 Patent col. 6 ll. 45-58.) By this protocol, a single transmission session from the
`master efficiently negotiates standby and reactivation of non-compatible tributary
`transceivers while accomplishing an intervening delivery of data to compatible
`transceivers.
`This system and method is described by the following claims at issue (collectively,
`the “Claims”):3
`
`
`A communication device capable of communicating according to a
`1.
`master/slave relationship in which a slave communication from a slave to a
`master occurs in response to a master communication from the master to
`the slave, the device comprising:
`a transceiver, in the role of the master according to the master/slave
`relationship, for sending at least transmissions modulated using at least two
`types of modulation methods, wherein the at least two types of modulation
`methods comprise a first modulation method and a second modulation
`method, wherein the second modulation method is of a different type than
`the first modulation method, wherein each transmission comprises a group
`of transmission sequences, wherein each group of transmission sequences is
`structured with at least a first portion and a payload portion wherein first
`information in the first portion indicates at least which of the first
`modulation method and the second modulation method is used for
`modulating second information in the payload portion, wherein at least one
`group of transmission sequences is addressed for an intended destination of
`the payload portion, and wherein for the at least one group of transmission
`sequences:
`the first information for said at least one group of transmission
`sequences comprises a first sequence, in the first portion and modulated
`
`3 The Complaint asserts only dependent claims 2 and 59 of the ’580 Patent and dependent claim
`21 of the ’228 Patent. Although not asserted themselves, claims 1 and 58 of the ’580 Patent and
`claim 1 of the ’228 Patent are the independent claims on which the asserted claims are based and
`are therefore also at issue for purposes of this Motion.
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 3
`
`Page 3 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`according to the first modulation method, wherein the first sequence
`indicates an impending change from the first modulation method to the
`second modulation method, and
`the second information for said at least one group of transmission
`sequences comprises a second sequence that is modulated according to the
`second modulation method, wherein the second sequence is transmitted
`after the first sequence.
`
`The device of claim 1, wherein the transceiver is configured to
`2.
`transmit a third sequence after the second sequence, wherein the third
`sequence is transmitted in the first modulation method and indicates that
`communication from the master to the slave has reverted to the first
`modulation method.
`
`58. A communication device capable of communicating according to a
`master/slave relationship in which a slave message from a slave to a master
`occurs in response to a master message from the master to the slave, the
`device comprising:
`a transceiver, in the role of the master according to the master/slave
`relationship, capable of transmitting using at least two types of modulation
`methods, wherein the at least two types of modulation methods comprise a
`first modulation method and a second modulation method, wherein the
`second modulation method is of a different type than the first modulation
`method, and wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit messages
`with:
`
`a first sequence, in the first modulation method, that indicates at
`least which of the first modulation method and the second modulation
`method is used for modulating a second sequence, wherein, in at least one
`message, the first sequence indicates an impending change from the first
`modulation method to the second modulation method, and wherein the at
`least one message is addressed for an intended destination of the second
`sequence, and
`the second sequence, modulated in accordance with the modulation
`method indicated by the first sequence and, in the at least one message,
`modulated using the second modulation method, wherein the second
`sequence is transmitted after the first sequence.
`
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 4
`
`Page 4 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`
`The device of claim 58, wherein the transceiver is configured to
`59.
`transmit a third sequence after the second sequence, wherein the third
`sequence is transmitted in the first modulation method and indicates that
`communication from the master to the slave has reverted to the first
`modulation method.
`
`(’580 Patent col. 7 ll. 53-67, col. 8 ll. 1-24, col. 11 ll. 51-67, col. 12 ll. 1-17.)
`
`
`A master communication device configured to communicate with
`1.
`one or more slave transceivers according to a master/slave relationship in
`which a slave communication from a slave device to the master
`communication device occurs in response to a master communication from
`the master communication device to the slave device, the master
`communication device comprising:
`a master transceiver configured to transmit a first message over a
`communication medium from the master transceiver to the one or more
`slave transceivers, wherein the first message comprises:
`first information modulated according to a first modulation method,
`second information, including a payload portion, modulated according to
`the first modulation method, wherein the second information comprises
`data intended for one of the one or more slave transceivers and
`first message address information that is indicative of the one of the
`one or more slave transceivers being an intended destination of the second
`information; and
`said master transceiver configured to transmit a second message over
`the communication medium from the master transceiver to the one or more
`slave transceivers wherein the second message comprises:
`third information modulated according to the first modulation
`method, wherein the third information comprises information that is
`indicative of an impending change in modulation to a second modulation
`method, and
`fourth information, including a payload portion, transmitted after
`transmission of the third information, the fourth information being
`modulated according to the second modulation method, the second
`modulation method being of a different type than the first modulation
`
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 5
`
`Page 5 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`method, wherein the fourth information comprises data intended for a
`single slave transceiver of the one or more slave transceivers, and
`second message address information that is indicative of the single
`slave transceiver being an intended destination of the fourth information;
`and
`
`wherein the second modulation method results in a higher data rate
`than the first modulation method.
`
`The master communication device as in claim 1, wherein the first
`21.
`information that is included in the first message comprises the first message
`address data.
`
`(’228 Patent col. 8 ll. 18-60, col. 10 ll. 28-30.)
`Plaintiff filed this suit on April 15, 2019 alleging infringement of the Asserted
`Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271. (See Compl.) Defendants now moves to dismiss the
`Complaint. (Mot. at 1.)
`
`II.
`
`
`Legal Standard
`
`In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept as true all
`“well-pleaded factual allegations” in a complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
`(2009). A court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
`non-moving party. See Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Assoc., 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir.
`2010). Yet, “courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a
`factual allegation.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
`Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
`complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
`relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
`570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
`the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
`alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). A plaintiff must not merely allege
`conduct that is conceivable; “[w]hen a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent
`with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 6
`
`Page 6 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`of entitlement to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). On a motion to dismiss a
`patent infringement claim, this means “all factual inferences drawn from the [patent]
`specification must be weighed in favor of [the patentee], the non-moving party.” Visual
`Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`III. Discussion
`
`Defendants argue that the Complaint does not state a claim for patent infringement
`because the asserted Claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are
`therefore invalid and unenforceable as a matter of law. (Mem. at 1.) “Eligibility under
`§ 101 is a question of law based on underlying facts that . . . may be resolved on a motion
`to dismiss where ‘there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the
`eligibility question as a matter of law.’” Natural Alternatives Int’l, Inc. v. Creative
`Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Aatrix Software, Inc. v.
`Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`
`A.
`
`Patent Eligibility Framework
`
`“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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35
`U.S.C. § 101. “The Supreme Court has ‘interpreted § 101 and its predecessors for more
`than 150 years’ to ‘contain an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural
`phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.’” Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v.
`CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS
`Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)) (alterations omitted). “Although these
`exceptions are not required by the statutory text, they are consistent with the idea that
`certain discoveries ‘are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men’ and are ‘free to
`all men and reserved exclusively to none.’” Kaneka Corp. v. Zhejiang Med. Co., No.
`CV11-02389 SJO (SHSx), 2018 WL 2718036, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2018) (quoting
`Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)), aff’d sub
`
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 7
`
`Page 7 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`nom. Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., No. 2018-1892, 2019 WL 2082033
`(Fed. Cir. May 13, 2019). Hence, in analyzing § 101, the Supreme Court distinguishes
`“between patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that
`integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby transforming them into a
`patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (internal quotation marks and
`citations omitted).
`In Alice, “[t]he Supreme Court [] established a two-step framework to determine
`subject matter eligibility under § 101.” Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 919
`F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Step one asks whether the claim is ‘directed to one of
`[the] patent-ineligible concepts.’” Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd., 827 F.3d at 1047 (quoting
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354). “If the answer is no, the inquiry is over: the claim falls within
`the ambit of § 101.” Id.; see also Endo Pharm., 919 F.3d at 1352 (“If the claims are not
`directed to a patent-ineligible concept at step one, [the Court] need not address step two
`of the inquiry.”) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
`2016)). “If the answer is yes, the inquiry moves to step two, which asks whether,
`considered both individually and as an ordered combination, ‘the additional elements
`transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.’” Rapid Litig. Mgmt.
`Ltd., 827 F.3d at 1047 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (internal quotation marks
`omitted)).
`
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`Regarding step one, Defendants argue that the Claims are invalid because they are
`“directed to the abstract idea of using more than one modulation method for
`communication.” (Mem. at 1.)
`“The Supreme Court has cautioned that ‘too broad an interpretation of’ ineligible
`subject matter ‘could eviscerate patent law’ because ‘all inventions at some level
`embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
`ideas.’” Endo Pharm., 919 F.3d at 1352-53 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
`Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)). “Accordingly, at step one, ‘it is not
`enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; [the Court]
`
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 8
`
`Page 8 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`must determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is “directed
`to.”’” Id. at 1353 (quoting Rapid Litig. Mgmt., 827 F.3d at 1050). “The step one
`‘directed to’ inquiry focuses on the claim as a whole.” Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo
`Collaborative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 750 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “To determine whether a
`claim is directed to an ineligible concept, [the Federal Circuit] ha[s] frequently
`considered whether the claimed advance improves upon a technological process or
`merely an ineligible concept, based on both the written description and the claims.” Id.
`(collecting cases).
`Simply computerizing an existing technology or concept is not a patent-eligible
`improvement on the underlying subject matter. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
`Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, a patent must do more than
`describe an otherwise unimproved technology linked by a computerized network. See
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 770 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Rather, to
`be patent-eligible, claims must be “directed to a specific improvement to computer
`functionality.” In re TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 612; see also ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at
`768. Defendants cite In re TLI Commc’ns and ChargePoint in arguing that the Asserted
`Patents describe little more than that abstract concept of switching communication modes
`to facilitate transfer of information—as a group of conversing humans might switch
`between different languages depending on various lingual compatibilities and who is
`trying to speak to whom at a given time. (Mot. at 7-8.) Defendants contend that the
`Asserted Patents simply claim a digital embodiment of this abstract concept using
`existing technology without improvement. (Id.)
`Here, however, the Asserted Patents are directed at more than the abstract concept
`of “using more than one modulation method for communication.” (Mot. at 4.) Instead,
`the Asserted Patents describe a specific protocol to facilitate efficient switching and
`improve overall system functionality. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs.,
`Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. The Asserted
`Patents attempt to resolve the problem of interference by non-target tributary transceivers
`by nesting data aimed at target tributary transceivers and delivered by a second
`modulation method—which the non-target tributaries cannot properly read and might
`interrupt—in stop/start commands made in a first modulation method that are readable by
`
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 9
`
`Page 9 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`the non-target tributaries. Without these prefatory and trailing commands in the
`“language” the non-target tributary transceivers can understand, attempted transmissions
`in another “language” might be interrupted by an ignorant non-target tributary. The
`Asserted Patents are therefore “directed to” a specific technical protocol for improved
`communication in master-tributary systems in which multiple modulation methods are
`required and not merely to the abstract idea of multiple modulation methods being used
`in a single system.
`Defendants further argue that communication-facilitating steps articulated by the
`Asserted Patents describe little more than “manipulation of data using existing device
`capabilities.” (Mot. at 8.) To be sure, mere data manipulation is “abstract” under § 101.
`See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017) (collecting and discussing cases holding that collecting and reorganizing data
`for storage or display in a different format is abstract). This argument is inapt, however,
`because the Asserted Patents do not concern data manipulation. Their aim is to transfer
`data, not to transform it. Rather than rearrange input data to produce the same data in
`different form, the Claims provide for a more efficient method of communication of
`information from one device to another by arranging existing technical components and
`capabilities to produce an original and improved system of transmission. Defendants do
`not contest that improved data transmission between devices is a patent-eligible end.
`Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Claims are directed to patent-eligible
`subject matter. This conclusion at step one ends the Alice inquiry. See Rapid Litig.
`Mgmt. Ltd., 827 F.3d at 1047; Endo Pharm., 919 F.3d at 1352. Moreover, even assuming
`Defendants prevailed at step one, step two requires “evaluating the inventiveness of a
`process compared to the prior art,” which “is a deeply factual inquiry ill-suited for
`disposition on a motion to dismiss.” Am. River Nutrition, LLC v. Beijing Gingko Grp.
`Biological Tech. Co., Ltd, No. 8:18-CV-02201-JLS-JDE, 2019 WL 3889490, at *6 (C.D.
`Cal. June 20, 2019) (citing Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2018)). Hence, the Court declines to address the parties’ arguments regarding step two of
`Alice and whether the Asserted Patents are sufficiently inventive. See id.
`
`
`
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 10
`
`Page 10 of 11
`
`

`

`____________________________________________________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
`
`
` Date: August 22, 2019
`Case No. 8:19-cv-00708-JLS-JDE
`Title: Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP et al. v. Broadcom Incorporated et al.
`IV. Conclusion
`
`
`
`
`For the Foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion.
`
`
`
` Initials of Preparer: tg
`
`
` CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 11
`
`Page 11 of 11
`
`