Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 1 of 26
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
`
`
`
`UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY, LP,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, by and through its
`agent, CITY PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD OF
`SAN ANTONIO, d/b/a CPS ENERGY,
`Defendant.
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:18-cv-00718
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CPS ENERGY’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
`CLAIM AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 1 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`I. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................. 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ..................................................................................... 2
`
`III. STAGE AND NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS .............................................................. 2
`
`IV. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT .............................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Legal Standard........................................................................................................4
`
`1.
`
`This Case Should Be Disposed of at the Pleading Stage Through Rule
`12(b)(6). .......................................................................................................4
`
`2.
`
`The Law of 35 U.S.C. § 101. .........................................................................5
`
`B. The Patents-in-Suit are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. .........................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Alice Step 1: The asserted patents are directed to the abstract idea of
`monitoring and controlling appliances.........................................................7
`
`Alice Step 2: The asserted patents’ claims do not include any
`inventive concept because they contain only well-understood,
`routine, and conventional features. ............................................................17
`
`V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 2 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 3 of 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015) .................................................................................16
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................5, 19
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Baxter Intern., Inc.,
`No. 1–14–CV–222–LY, 127 F.Supp.3d 687, 2015 WL 5148850 (W. D. Tex.
`Aug. 3, 2015) .....................................................................................................................13, 15
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................20
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...........................................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................11, 19
`
`Cloud Satchel, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`76 F.Supp.3d 553 (D.Del.2014) ...............................................................................................13
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................8, 16, 19
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................15
`
`Cuvillier v. Sullivan,
`503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................5
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................6
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................18
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`ii
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 3 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 4 of 26
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................15, 18
`
`Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................7
`
`Gaelco S.A. v. Arachnid 360, LLC,
`293 F. Supp. 3d 783 (N.D. Ill. 2017) .......................................................................................13
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank U.S.A.,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................19
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir 2016)...............................................................................10, 14, 15, 19
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................1, 11, 12, 16
`
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Telular Corp.,
`173 F.Supp.3d 717 (N.D. Ill. 2016) .........................................................................................12
`
`Lovelace v. Software Spectrum,
`78 F.3d 1015 (5th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ...........................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Morales v. Square, Inc.,
`75 F. Supp. 3d. 716 (W.D. Tex. 2014), aff’d, 621 F. App’x 660 (Fed. Cir.
`2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1461 (2016) ...............................................................................8
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cellular, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-152-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1065938 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2017) ...................8, 11, 17
`
`Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2017).........................................................................................................16
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................18
`
`Tuxis Technologies, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 13–1771–RGA, 2015 WL 1387815 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2015) ...........................................13
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring)..................................................5, 10, 17
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15
`
`iii
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 4 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 5 of 26
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Monitoring and controlling appliances is an abstract idea. The asserted patents contain
`
`claims that comprise nothing more than functional components used for their conventional
`
`purpose, with the end result being a system for remotely monitoring and controlling a thermostat.
`
`These claims are the quintessential example of claiming ends without claiming or even
`
`disclosing the means. See Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding claims to be patent ineligible because they were directed to a result
`
`rather than a means for achieving the result).
`
`Accordingly, CPS Energy moves to dismiss Ubiquitous’ Complaint pursuant to Rule
`
`12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
`
`be granted. The claims of the patents are directed to the abstract idea of monitoring and
`
`controlling appliances. But sending electronic messages between two devices to remotely
`
`monitor and control a thermostat is not a technological improvement, an inventive way of
`
`applying conventional technology, or even new. Moreover, none of the claims recite any specific
`
`hardware or software; instead, the patents’ shared specification discloses only that the alleged
`
`invention uses generic computer components and software to perform conventional activities.
`
`The patents do no more than withdraw a basic idea (monitoring and controlling
`
`appliances) from the public domain without disclosing any particularized application of that idea.
`
`Therefore, the patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failure to claim patent-eligible
`
`subject matter. Resolving these issues does not require discovery or formal claim construction.
`
`To avoid wasting judicial and party resources and unnecessarily litigating an invalid patent, CPS
`
`Energy thus requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`1
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 5 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 6 of 26
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`Abstract ideas are ineligible for patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, absent an inventive
`
`concept that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. The asserted patents are
`
`directed to the abstract idea of monitoring and controlling appliances. The Patents-in-Suit do not
`
`include an inventive concept beyond that idea. Should the Court therefore dismiss Ubiquitous’
`
`Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim?
`
`III.
`
`STAGE AND NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`On July 12, 2018, Ubiquitous filed this lawsuit accusing CPS Energy of infringing U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,064,935 and 9,602,655. Ubiquitous accuses CPS Energy of infringing “one or
`
`more claims of the ’935 Patent, including Claim 19” and “at least Claim 1” of the ’655 Patent by
`
`CPS Energy’s “Products and Services, that form a wirelessly controllable smart thermostat
`
`system that incorporates a base unit.” Compl. ¶¶ 32, 47.
`
`IV.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`The asserted patents are both entitled “Ubiquitous Connectivity and Control System for
`
`Remote locations,” and they share the same specification. ’935 Patent;’655 Patent. The
`
`applicants explained that systems for remotely controlling “smart appliances” existed in the prior
`
`art (’935 Patent at 1:51-57), but the goal of the alleged invention was to “allow the end-user to
`
`finally realize true global connectivity to and control of the home” (id. at 3:26-28).
`
`Claim 19 of the ’935 Patent, set forth below, is representative of the asserted claims:
`
`19. A communication system having wireless connectivity, the communication system
`comprising:
`
`a base unit operatively interfaced with an environmental device, and configured
`to receive a current status of an environmental device;
`
`a transmitter associated with said base unit, and configured to send a first
`message to a remote unit having wireless connectivity, wherein the first
`
`2
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 6 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 7 of 26
`
`message is a wireless message including the current status of the
`environmental device;
`
`a receiver associated with said base unit, and configured to receive a second
`message from the remote unit, wherein the second message is a wireless
`message including a command for the environmental device; and
`
`a controller operatively associated with the base unit and operatively connected
`with the environmental device, and configured to send the command to the
`environmental device.
`
`Id. at cl. 19.
`
`This claim consists of three main components: (1) “a base unit”; (2) “an environmental
`
`device” (e.g., a thermostat); and (3) “a remote unit” (e.g., a cellphone). The “base unit” is
`
`associated with “a transmitter” to transmit information about the thermostat to the “remote unit,”
`
`“a receiver” to receive commands from the “remote unit,” and “a controller” that controls the
`
`thermostat by sending these commands to the thermostat. Put simply, these components form a
`
`system for using a remote device to remotely monitor and control a thermostat.
`
`The purported solution the applicants provided for remotely monitoring and controlling a
`
`thermostat consists of nothing more than the use of conventional components and processes. The
`
`applicants make this clear through their own language in the specification. For example, the
`
`claimed “base unit” consists of “either off-the-shelf integrated circuits combined with discreet
`
`components or complete modules provided by other original equipment manufacturers,” (id. at
`
`4:53-56), and “consists of an antenna” that is connected “either directly through a connector
`
`incorporated as part of the antenna or through a coaxial cable,” (id. at 5:5-10). And the claimed
`
`“remote unit” can be a “Java/J2ME enable cellular telephones 30 having a keypad 32 with a
`
`plurality of keys 34 including a select button 36, and an LCD display 38 for displaying textual
`
`information 40 and graphical icons 42 responsive to commands received from the base control
`
`3
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 7 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 8 of 26
`
`unit 16 or from other control units configured through base control unit 16 to work with system
`
`10” (id. at 4:1-8), as depicted in Figure 2:
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 2. That is, the remote unit is any cellular telephone with a display. See id.
`
`The specification further explains that, for example, the remote unit communicates
`
`commands to the base unit “to enter an energy conservation mode.” Id. at 6:50-52. First, “[t]he
`
`user moves the cursor of the LCD screen 38 until the desired operational icon 42 is highlighted”
`
`and presses the highlighted icon on the cellphone. Id. at 6:54-56. As a result, “[t]he function
`
`associated with the icon 42 by the applications software is triggered.” Id. at 6:56-58. Then “[t]he
`
`applications software communicates the command to the base [unit] through the cellular
`
`telephone network.” Id. at 6:58-61. Finally, upon receiving the command, the base unit “adjusts”
`
`the desired appliance. Id. at 6:61-65. Thus, the applicants’ purported solution consists of a
`
`cellphone communicating through the cellular telephone network with a wireless device that
`
`controls a thermostat.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard.
`
`1.
`
`This Case Should Be Disposed of at the Pleading Stage Through Rule
`12(b)(6).
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a
`
`complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`4
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 8 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 9 of 26
`
`motion, a complaint “must provide the plaintiff’s grounds for entitlement to relief—including
`
`factual allegations that when assumed to be true raise a right to relief above the speculative
`
`level.” Cuvillier v. Sullivan, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and quotations
`
`omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts consider documents attached to or
`
`incorporated into the complaint as well as facts alleged in the complaint. Lovelace v. Software
`
`Spectrum, 78 F.3d 1015, 1017 (5th Cir. 1996). Although factual allegations are taken as true,
`
`legal conclusions are given no deference—those matters are left for the court to decide. See
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (noting tenet that allegations are taken as true on a
`
`motion to dismiss “is inapplicable to legal conclusions”). “[W]hen the allegations in a complaint,
`
`however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief [as a matter of law], this basic
`
`deficiency should . . . be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the
`
`parties and the court.” Cuvillier, 503 F.3d at 401 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal issue. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
`
`593, 602 (2010). Accordingly, the § 101 inquiry is properly raised at the pleadings stage if it is
`
`apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to eligible subject
`
`matter. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718–19 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J.,
`
`concurring). In those situations, claim construction is not required to conduct a § 101 analysis.
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e
`
`perceive no flaw in the notion that claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a
`
`validity determination under § 101.”).
`
`2.
`
`The Law of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act sets forth four categories of patentable subject matter: “any
`
`new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Also, the law recognizes three exceptions to patent eligibility: “laws of nature, physical
`
`5
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 9 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 10 of 26
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980) (emphasis
`
`added). Abstract ideas are ineligible for patent protection because a monopoly over these ideas
`
`would preempt their use in all fields. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611–12. In other words, “abstract
`
`intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological
`
`work.” Id. at 653 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
`
`Determining whether a patent claim is impermissibly directed to an abstract idea involves
`
`two steps. First, the court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-
`
`ineligible concept.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
`
`Second, if the claim contains an abstract idea, the court evaluates whether there is “an ‘inventive
`
`concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent
`
`in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Id.
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Transformation into a patent-eligible application requires “more than simply stating the
`
`abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs.
`
`v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). Indeed, if a claim could be performed
`
`in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, it is not patent-eligible. CyberSource
`
`Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also, a claim is not
`
`meaningfully limited if it includes only token or insignificant pre- or post-solution activity—such
`
`as identifying a relevant audience, category of use, field of use, or technological environment.
`
`Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297–98, 1300–01; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,
`
`191–92 & n.14 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 n.18 (1978). Finally, “simply
`
`appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.”
`
`6
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 10 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 11 of 26
`
`Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300; see also Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317,
`
`1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Such a broad and general limitation does not impose meaningful limits
`
`on the claim’s scope.”).
`
`B.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Ubiquitous’ Complaint should be dismissed. The claims of the Asserted Patents are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they fail both prongs of the Alice test. Each of the claims
`
`is directed to the abstract idea of monitoring and controlling appliances. Abstract ideas are not
`
`eligible for patenting. None of the claims contains an “‘inventive concept’ . . . sufficient to
`
`ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible
`
`concept itself.” See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (emphasis added). Because Ubiquitous has failed to
`
`state a claim upon which relief may be granted, CPS Energy respectfully requests that the Court
`
`grant its motion and dismiss this case with prejudice. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`1.
`
`Alice Step 1: The asserted patents are directed to the abstract idea of
`monitoring and controlling appliances
`
`In determining patent eligibility under § 101, the Court must first determine whether the
`
`claims are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Under any plausible reading, the
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit are directed to an unpatentable, abstract idea because they claim
`
`nothing more than the “longstanding,” “routine,” and “conventional” concept of monitoring and
`
`controlling appliances. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-59; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611.
`
`7
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 11 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 12 of 26
`
`(a)
`
`The independent claims are directed to the abstract idea of
`monitoring and controlling appliances.
`
`Claim 19 of the ’935 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’655 patent are representative of the
`
`asserted claims.1 See, e.g., Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cellular, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-
`
`152-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1065938, at *8–9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2017) (invalidating 974 claims
`
`after analyzing only a few “representative claims” where the other claims were “substantially
`
`similar” and “linked to the same abstract idea.”). In assessing whether the claims are directed to
`
`an abstract idea, the Court must look past the claim language for the purpose of the claims to
`
`determine what the invention is trying to achieve. Morales v. Square, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 3d. 716,
`
`725 (W.D. Tex. 2014), aff’d, 621 F. App’x 660 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1461
`
`(2016). All the claims explain is monitoring and controlling appliances, consisting of nothing
`
`more than a set of basic functional components like a base unit, a transmitter, a receiver, a
`
`controller, a remote unit, and an environmental device:
`
`CLAIM LANGUAGE
`
`CLAIMED IDEA
`
`19. A communication system having wireless connectivity, the
`communication system comprising:
`
`
`
`a base unit operatively interfaced with an environmental device,
`and configured to receive a current status of an
`environmental device;
`
`generic device capable
`of interfacing with an
`environmental device
`
`a transmitter associated with said base unit, and configured to
`send a first message to a remote unit having wireless
`connectivity, wherein the first message is a wireless
`message including the current status of the environmental
`device;
`
`a transmitter that
`transmits messages to a
`remote device
`
`
`
`1 Where claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea,” courts may look
`to representative claims in a § 101 analysis. Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells
`Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`8
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 12 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 13 of 26
`
`CLAIM LANGUAGE
`
`CLAIMED IDEA
`
`a receiver associated with said base unit, and configured to
`receive a second message from the remote unit, wherein the
`second message is a wireless message including a command
`for the environmental device; and
`
`a receiver that receives
`messages from a remote
`device
`
`a controller operatively associated with the base unit and
`operatively connected with the environmental device, and
`configured to send the command to the environmental
`device.
`
`a controller that controls
`the environmental
`device
`
`
`
`CLAIM LANGUAGE
`
`CLAIMED IDEA
`
`1. A base unit configured to communicate with an environmental
`device and to communicate with a cellular remote unit having
`wireless connectivity capable of communicating from a
`geographically remote location, the base unit comprising:
`
`generic device capable
`of interfacing with
`environmental device
`(e.g., thermostat)
`
`a first communication interface configured to receive
`environmental information from the environmental device
`and to send a control instruction to the environmental device;
`
`generic computer
`interface for receiving
`and sending data
`
`a wireless communication interface configured to send a first
`message to the cellular remote unit via a cellular
`communications network and to receive a second message
`from the cellular remote unit via the cellular communications
`network,
`
`generic wireless
`interface for sending
`data to a remote
`device and receiving
`data from the remote
`device
`
`wherein the first message is a first digital communications
`message including a representation of the environmental
`information, and
`
`data representing the
`status of the
`environmental device
`
`wherein the second message is a second digital communications
`message including a command regarding the environmental
`device; and
`
`data representing a
`command for the
`environmental device
`
`a microcontroller configured to process the second message, to
`provide the control instruction based on the command, and to
`send the control instruction to the environmental device via
`the first communication interface, and
`
`generic processor
`
`wherein the command is for the base unit initiated by a user from
`the cellular remote unit, and
`
`user entering a
`command via
`cellphone
`
`9
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 13 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 14 of 26
`
`CLAIM LANGUAGE
`
`CLAIMED IDEA
`
`wherein the control instruction to the environmental device is
`associated with the command for the base unit, wherein the
`cellular remote unit is configured to determine position data
`of the cellular remote unit, and determine when the cellular
`remote unit is outside a geo-fence, wherein the cellular
`remote unit is configured to transmit a notification via a
`simple message service responsive to determining that the
`cellular remote unit is outside of the geo-fence.
`
`sending notification if
`the remote device gets
`too far from the base
`unit
`
`
`
`At a high level, Claim 19 describes the most generic functional components of a system
`
`for remotely monitoring and controlling appliances. Such a broad concept is not patent eligible
`
`because it “recite[s] an abstraction—an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form.”
`
`Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. That the claim purports to implement the system with
`
`conventional components like “base unit,” “remote unit,” “receiver,” “transmitter,” “controller,”
`
`and “environmental device” does not make it any less abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
`
`Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir 2016) (“Claims that ‘amount to nothing
`
`significantly more than an instruction to apply [an] abstract idea . . . using some unspecified,
`
`generic computer’ and in which ‘each step does no more than require a generic computer to
`
`perform generic computer functions’ do not make an abstract idea patent-eligible” (citing Alice,
`
`134 S. Ct. at 2359-60).).
`
`Claim 1 of the ’655 Patent recites an additional limitation regarding the location of the
`
`remote unit. Specifically, the claim states that the “remote unit [sends] a notification via a simple
`
`message service [when it is] outside of the geo-fence.” This additional limitation does not proffer
`
`any idea that was not routine, well-known, or conventional at the time of the invention. The
`
`specification explains that the claimed “geo-fencing” refers to the scenario in which “the remote
`
`control unit travels a distance that exceeds the programmed distance from the base control unit[;]
`
`the remote control unit reports this information to the base control unit.” ’655 Patent at 8:59-62.
`
`10
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 14 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 15 of 26
`
`The purported solution to this problem is to “program” the “[g]eographic location
`
`information . . . into the base control unit through a keypad” and “program” the “user-determined
`
`distance . . . into the remote control unit.” Id. at 8:54-59. The “remote unit” uses the existing
`
`GPS technology to determine its own location (id. at 6:44-60), and if located outside the
`
`predefined distance, it sends a notification to the base unit. The applicants describe the system
`
`only at a high level of generality—that is, the claims cover only the resulting system the
`
`applicants envisioned, not how to implement it, much less how to do so in any non-conventional
`
`manner. See Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348. There is no explanation as to how to “program”
`
`the units to effect this system. A patent may not claim a result, stripped of any application or
`
`implementation to achieve that result. See id.
`
`The specification admits that systems for remotely controlling appliances were routine
`
`and well-known at the time of the invention. ’935 Patent at Background. The purported problem
`
`the applicants wanted to resolve was to “allow the end-user to finally realize true global
`
`connectivity to and control of the home.” Id. at 3:26-28. But performing a task remotely does not
`
`confer patent eligibility. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further
`
`specification—[does not make the patent eligible].”). Moreover, the applicants failed to disclose
`
`the details of how to achieve such “global connectivity” and instead describe the system only at a
`
`high level of generality—that is, the claims cover only the resulting system the applicants
`
`envisioned, not how to implement it, much less how to do so in any non-conventional manner.
`
`See Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348 (concluding that claim not directed to patent-eligible
`
`subject matter where “[t]he mechanism for maintaining the state is not described, although this is
`
`stated to be the essential innovation.”). For example, the specification’s explanation of how the
`
`11
`
`RESIDEO-999
`EX1012
`Page 15 of 27
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-00718-XR Document 17 Filed 09/20/18 Page 16 of 26
`
`remote unit controls the thermostat is that the user presses an icon on his/her cellphone, which
`
`causes “[t]he applications software [to] communicate the command to the base [unit] through the
`
`cellular telephone network,” and upon receiving the command, the base unit “adjusts” the
`
`thermostat. ’935 Patent at 6:52-65. This describes the desired idea as an end-result, not any
`
`implementation of the idea. A patent may not claim a result, stripped of any application or
`
`implementation to achieve that result. See Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348.
`
`These claims recite the use of known components, performing basic functions, to allow
`
`remotely monitoring and controlling appliances. For example, a person who has a thermostat at
`
`home wants to control the thermostat remotely. A control unit interfaces with the thermostat to
`
`monitor and contro