Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 1 of 9
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-2165-WSH
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`EAT'N PARK RESTAURANTS, LLC, and
`EAT'N PARK HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC'S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXTEND
`RESPONSIVE PLEADING DEADLINE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vincent A. Coppola
`PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC
`513 Court Place
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`Telephone: (412) 281-8844
`
`Richard C. Weinblatt (pro hac vice)
`Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
`800 N. West Street, Third Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 999-1540
`Facsimile: (302) 762-1688
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ameranth, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 2 of 9
`
`Defendants' Motion to Extend Responsive Pleading Deadline (the "Motion") is in fact an
`
`attempt to thwart the timely enforcement of Ameranth's patent rights. (Dkt. 18.) Defendants'
`
`Motion is tantamount to a stay of this case pending the Court's decision of DoorDash's Motion to
`
`Dismiss for Improper Venue, or Alternatively, to Transfer, and Failure to State a Claim as to
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. DoorDash, Inc., C.A. No. 2:22-cv-01776-WSH ("Ameranth I"),1 which has been
`
`fully briefed since July 31, 2023. Compared to Ameranth I, this case involves different Ameranth
`
`patents, different claims, different parties, different DoorDash copycat patents, and different
`
`complaints and allegations. Indeed, there is nothing in Defendants' Motion that states they would
`
`not seek an additional extension after July 16, 2024, and the correspondence evidences their intent
`
`to do so should the Court not rule in Ameranth I by that date. (Dkt. 18-1 at 2 ("As discussed
`
`previously, we believe that a ruling from the court on the motion to dismiss in the original action
`
`(2-22-cv-01776) will streamline the issues in this case. Accordingly, DoorDash intends to seek
`
`another extension of time to respond to the complaint.").) As explained below, with its patents
`
`expiring soon, Ameranth would be highly prejudiced by indefinite extensions of time or the
`
`alternative pseudo stay Defendants' seek.2 Moreover, Defendants' Motion misstates and
`
`mischaracterizes caselaw (as DoorDash also did in Ameranth I ) in their attempt seeking to tie the
`
`cases together. The Court should deny this Motion and order the Defendants' to respond to the
`
`complaint.
`
`1.
`
`Defendants' Motion does not contest that venue is proper in this District with
`
`
`1 Ameranth I was filed December 9, 2022.
`2 Due to the complex and disputed factual matters in Ameranth I, and with venue discovery
`requested "to the extent the Court concludes that venue may not be proper" (Ameranth I, Dkt. 28
`at 3; see also id. at 12 ("If the Court determines that venue may be improper, Ameranth requests
`venue discovery."), the venue ruling in Ameranth I could be further delayed, which in turn would
`further delay this case pursuant to Defendants' position.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`respect to Defendants Eat'N Park Restaurant, LLC and Eat'N Park Hospitality Group, Inc.
`
`(collectively, "Eat'N Park"). Nor could it since both of these Eat'N Park entities are Pennsylvania
`
`companies located in Homestead, Pennsylvania, (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 6-7) and their infringement of
`
`Ameranth's patents occurs within this District. (Id. at ¶ 12.)
`
`2.
`
`DoorDash builds a straw man in ¶ 7 of the Motion when arguing that Eat'N Park is
`
`not a place of business of DoorDash. Nowhere does the complaint make such an allegation.
`
`Ameranth's complaint sets forth several new factual allegations (not found in the amended
`
`complaint in Ameranth I) that further confirm venue is proper in this Court with respect to
`
`DoorDash itself due to DoorDash's conduct in this District. (See, e.g., Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 2-5, 12-20.)
`
`If DoorDash believes venue is improper in this case, then it should be filing a venue motion
`
`challenging this complaint's allegations, such as, but notwithstanding the new allegations at ¶¶ 3-
`
`5, 17-19, not seeking to further delay the case3 based on the different facts in Ameranth I.4
`
`3.
`
`Here, the claims of U.S. Patents Nos. 11,842,415 (the "'415 patent") and 11,847,587
`
`(the "'587 patent") on their face materially differ from the claims of the '130 patent in Ameranth I
`
`and claim entirely different inventive concepts. For example, compare claim 1 of the '130 patent
`
`to claim 9 of the '415 patent or claim 7 of the '587 patent. More specifically, claim 9 of the '415
`
`patent recites "[a] network of interconnected, intelligent and improved web server computers,"
`
`claim 7 of the '587 patent recites "[a]n intelligent backoffice and handheld/mobile distributed
`
`
`3 Defendants already obtained a 60-day extension of time to respond to the complaint, which is
`more than the 45 days specified in LCvR 7.E. (Dkt. 11.)
`4 Eat'N Park has no basis to challenge venue in this case, and even if the Court were to grant
`DoorDash's motion in Ameranth I (it should not grant the motion) and transfer Ameranth I to the
`District of Delaware (which could add further delays and prejudice Ameranth as explained herein),
`a separate analysis of venue is needed in this case due to the different facts. The same likely is true
`if the Court were to deny DoorDash's venue motion in Ameranth I because DoorDash has not
`represented that it would not challenge venue here should it lose its Ameranth I venue motion.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`
`computing network" and claim 1 of the '130 patent recites "[a]n intelligent web server computer,"
`
`which is not a network.
`
`4.
`
`Ameranth's complaint includes claim constructions for terms in the '415 and '587
`
`patents not found in claims of the '130 patent or the Ameranth I amended complaint, such as for
`
`the terms "intelligence," "learning and rule based intelligence," "network of said interconnected
`
`web server computers," "a network of distributed and linked backoffice servers," and "distributed
`
`computing network." (Compare Dkt. 1 at ¶ 29 to Ameranth I, Dkt. 14 at ¶ 18.) Without a claim
`
`construction order, Ameranth's claim constructions are to be applied in the patent ineligibility
`
`analysis. See BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (adopting the non-moving party's constructions when conducting patent
`
`ineligibility analysis).
`
`5.
`
`The complaint's allegations concerning the '415 and '587 patents and the
`
`declarations and exhibits attached thereto also differ significantly from the amended complaint's
`
`allegations, declarations, and exhibits in Ameranth I. (Compare Dkt. 1 to Ameranth I, Dkt. 14.)
`
`6.
`
`The Federal Circuit has made clear that merely sharing a specification is not the
`
`test when determining patent-eligibility. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084,
`
`1095 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("Eligibility depends on what is claimed, not all that is disclosed in the
`
`specification." (citing Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1011-12 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (holding a claim from one patent ineligible and claims from other patents that shared a
`
`specification eligible))); Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ("At step
`
`one, the district court erred by failing to separately analyze these patents. Although the
`
`specifications in all four patents are the same, the claims of the '905 and '911 patents are not
`
`directed to the same subject matter as the '202 and '910 patents.").
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Notwithstanding that blackletter Federal Circuit caselaw, the vastly different claims
`
`as detailed in ¶ 3 above, and the claim constructions identified in ¶ 4 above, Defendants incorrectly
`
`assert that "a ruling by the Court on the patent ineligibility issue in Ameranth I would simplify the
`
`issues with regard to patent eligibility in this case as well" because "the '415 and '587 patents issued
`
`from divisional and continuation applications claiming priority to and sharing the same
`
`specification as the '130 patent asserted in Ameranth I." (Dkt. 17 at ¶ 8; see also id. at ¶ 11 ("[T]he
`
`patents asserted here are in the same family and derive from the patent asserted in Ameranth I . . .
`
`.".)
`
`8.
`
`Ameranth is a recognized innovator in the hospitality market and it has won
`
`multiple technology awards for its innovations. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 30-31; see also Dkt. 1-6 at ¶ 9.)
`
`Ameranth has also licensed its patents to many of the world’s largest restaurant, hotel, and ticketing
`
`companies, including more than 70 licensees, and many within the timeframe since the filing of
`
`the Ameranth's complaint.
`
`9.
`
`While alleging that Ameranth's patents claim patent ineligible subject matter in ¶ 8
`
`of the Motion, DoorDash, contradictorily, has continued to seek and obtain patents for itself that
`
`copied systems and inventions conceived, created, and deployed by Ameranth much earlier in time
`
`than DoorDash, and DoorDash advised the USPTO when obtaining these copycat patents that
`
`these same concepts claim patent eligible subject matter. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 87-91; see also Ameranth
`
`I, Dkt. 14 at ¶¶ 78-82 (identifying different DoorDash copycat patents compared to the patents
`
`identified in Ameranth's complaint in this case).) DoorDash's antithetical arguments create
`
`multiple factual disputes in this case (and Ameranth I).
`
`10.
`
`Because Ameranth and DoorDash have been and are competing in the same market
`
`to obtain patents for the same subject matter in the same inventive fields, they innately are
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`competitors.
`
`11.
`
`Notwithstanding their direct competitiveness, Judge Fischer has held:
`
`[I]t is not necessary that the parties be direct competitors for prejudice to inure
`to the patentee. A patent grants 'to the patentee ... the right to exclude others from
`making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention.' 35 U.S.C. § 154 (2012).
`As one court has noted, "[t]he right to exclude, even for a non-practicing entity,
`may be the only way to fully vindicate the patentee's ownership in the patent."
`BarTex, 611 F.Supp.2d at 652 (emphasis added) (citing Acumed LLC v. Stryker
`Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1327–28 (Fed.Cir.2008)). If a non-practicing entity may
`overcome a stay based on the fact that its rights are not being vindicated, it is surely
`not critical that the parties be in direct competition.
`
`Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v. Thorley Industries, LLC, 858 F.Supp.2d 461 (W.D. Pa.
`
`2012) (emphasis added).
`
`12.
`
`The '587 patent expires July 26, 2025 and the '415 patent expires February 20, 2026,
`
`which means they both have very limited life remaining and consequently, further delay would be
`
`prejudicial to Ameranth.
`
`13.
`
`Courts have denied stays and held that whether or not patent owners and defendants
`
`are direct competitors, patent owners are prejudiced when they are unable to assert their patents
`
`during the limited patent life they have left as here.5 For example, in Carl Zeiss A.G. v. Nikon
`
`Corp., Case No. 2:17-CV-07083-RGK-MRW, 2018 WL 5081479 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018), the
`
`court held
`
`Plaintiffs may also be at a tactical disadvantage with a stay. Defendants note that
`both the '335 and the '163 patents expire in 2019. But Plaintiffs contend that the
`impending expiration date weighs against a stay, because "Plaintiffs will lose their
`chance to obtain exclusivity over the inventions claimed in those patents." (Pls.'
`Opp'n, 16:16-18, ECF No. 249-2.) Placing an asserted patent "in limbo for the
`majority of its remaining life would create a clear tactical disadvantage for
`[p]laintiffs." Biomet Biologies, LLC v. Bio Rich Medical, Inc., No. SACV 10-1582
`DOC (PJWx), 2011 WL 4448972, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2011).
`
`
`5 "A patentee has an interest in the timely enforcement of its patent rights." Datanet LLC v.
`Dropbox Inc., CIVIL NO. 6:22-CV-01142-OLG-DTG, 2023 WL 9005604, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec.
`28, 2023)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`Id. at *4; see also Ravgen, Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-09011-RGK-GJS,
`
`2022 WL 2047615, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2022) ("[T]he Court finds that Plaintiff would be
`
`prejudiced by a stay. The Patents-in-Suit expire in March 2023, five months after the PTAB's
`
`ruling on the IPR proceedings is due. As this Court has previously held, 'placing an asserted patent
`
`'in limbo for the majority of its remaining life would create a clear tactical disadvantage for
`
`[p]laintiffs.' ' Carl Zeiss A.G. v. Nikon Corp., 2018 WL 5081479, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018)
`
`(quoting Biomet Biologies, LLC v. Bio Rich Medical, Inc., 2011 WL 4448972, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Sep. 26, 2011))). . . Accordingly, whether or not the parties directly compete, this factor weighs
`
`against granting a stay.").
`
`As discussed above, neither judicial economy will be preserved nor issues simplified by
`
`further delaying this case pending the outcome of the Court's decision in Ameranth I. Compared
`
`to Ameranth I, the defendants in this case are different, the patents are different, the claims are
`
`different, the DoorDash copycat patents are different, and the factual allegations in the complaints
`
`are different. Ameranth also would be unduly prejudiced, as confirmed by courts in this District
`
`and the Central District of California, and Defendants identified no harm, hardship, or inequity
`
`they would endure should the Court deny their Motion. For the reasons set forth herein, Ameranth
`
`respectfully requests Defendants' Motion be denied and Defendants be ordered to respond to the
`
`complaint.
`
`
`Dated: May 13, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Vincent A. Coppola
`Vincent A. Coppola
`PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC
`513 Court Place
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219
`Telephone: (412) 281-8844
`Facsimile: (412) 281-474
`
`Richard C. Weinblatt (pro hac vice)
`Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`800 N. West Street, Third Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 999-1540
`Facsimile: (302) 762-1688
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Ameranth, Inc.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-02165-WSH Document 20 Filed 05/13/24 Page 9 of 9
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on May 13, 2024, I electronically filed the above document(s) with the
`
`Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing(s) to all
`
`registered counsel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Vincent A. Coppola
`Vincent A. Coppola
`
`
`
`