App. 1
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`CARL M. BURNETT,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`V.
`PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Defendants-Appellees
`
`2018-1234
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for
`the District of Maryland in No. 8:17-cv-00236-PX,
`Judge Paula Xinis.
`
`Decided: July 16, 2018
`
`CARL M. BURNETT, Silver Spring, MD, pro se.
`JOSEPH CASINO, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New York,
`NY, for defendants-appellees. Also represented by MI-
`CHAEL J. KASDAN; BENJAMIN M. DANIELS, New Haven,
`CT.
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`CARL M. BURNETT,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`V.
`PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
`PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`Defendants-Appellees
`
`2018-1234
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for
`the District of Maryland in No. 8:17-cv-00236-PX,
`Judge Paula Xinis.
`
`Decided: July 16, 2018
`
`CARL M. BURNETT, Silver Spring, MD, pro se.
`JOSEPH CASINO, Wiggin and Dana LLP, New York,
`NY, for defendants-appellees. Also represented by MI-
`CHAEL J. KASDAN; BENJAMIN M. DANIELS, New Haven,
`CT.
`
`
`
`App. 2
`
`Before O'MALLEY, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`Carl M. Burnett ("Burnett") appeals an order of
`the United States District Court for the District of
`Maryland dismissing Burnett's amended complaint for
`failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
`granted. Burnett v. Panasonic Corp., No. 17-cv-0236 (D.
`Md. Nov. 1, 2017) ("District Court Decision"). Specifi-
`cally, because the district court held that claims 1 and
`9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,107,286 ("the '286 patent") are
`invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under
`35 U.S.C. § 101, it concluded that dismissal pursuant
`to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`was appropriate. Burnett argues that the asserted
`claims are patent-eligible, that the district court erred
`procedurally when it failed to construe five allegedly
`disputed claim terms, and that the district court vio-
`lated Burnett's due process rights when it failed to
`hold Rule 12(b)(6) and claim construction hearings. We
`affirm.
`
`I
`Burnett sued Panasonic Corporation ("Pana-
`sonic") for infringement of independent claims 1 and 9
`of the '286 patent, which recite:
`1. A geospatial media recorder, comprising:
`converting means for converting longitude
`and latitude geographic degree, minutes, and
`
`
`
`App. 3
`
`seconds (DMS) coordinate alphanumeric rep-
`resentations or decimal equivalent geographic
`coordinate alphanumeric representations
`and altitude alphanumeric representations
`into individual discrete all-natural number
`geographic coordinate and measurement rep-
`resentations; and combining means for con-
`catenating the individual discrete all-natural
`number geographic coordinate and measure-
`ment representations into a single discrete
`all-natural number geospatial coordinate
`measurement representation for identifica-
`tion of a geospatial positional location at, be-
`low, or above earth's surface allowing user to
`geospatially reference entities or objects
`based on the identified geospatial positional
`location and point identification.
`*
`*
`9. A geospatial information processing
`method comprising:
`converting latitude and longitude geographic
`degree, minutes, and seconds (DMS) coordinate
`alphanumeric representations or decimal
`equivalent geographic coordinate alphanu-
`meric representations and altitude alphanu-
`meric representations into individual discrete
`all-natural number geographic coordinate
`and measurement representations; and
`concatenating the individual discrete all-
`natural number geographic coordinate and
`measurement representations into a single
`
`
`
`App. 4
`
`discrete all-natural number geospatial coordi-
`nate measurement representation for identi-
`fication of a geospatial positional location at,
`below, or above earth's surface allowing a user
`to geospatially reference entities or objects
`based on the identified geospatial positional
`location and point identification.
`'286 patent, col. 13, 1. 60—col. 14, 1. 9; id. at col. 15,
`11.5-21.
`Panasonic moved to dismiss for failure to state a
`claim upon which relief can be granted. In his response
`to Panasonic's motion to dismiss, Burnett proposed
`constructions of certain claim terms, which Panasonic
`did not dispute, Suppl. J.A. 671-672. First, Burnett
`proposed construing the preamble of claim 1, "geospa-
`tial media recorder," as limiting and to mean "[a] video
`camcorder that has a receiving station to receive geo-
`spatial information and a video encoder to encode geo-
`spatial information, the GEOCODE®, onto video at the
`time of video acquisition." Suppl. J.A. at 654. Burnett
`also proposed construing at least a portion of the pre-
`amble of claim 9, "geospatial information," as limiting
`and to mean "[s]atellite navigation systems data con-
`cerning geospatial entities obtained through a variety
`of methods. . . ." Suppl. J.A. at 653. Next, Burnett pro-
`posed construing "concatenating," which appears in
`both claims, as "[a] programming process that is the
`operation of joining two strings together. . . ." Suppl.
`J.A. at 653. Burnett also proposed construing "convert-
`ing," which appears in both claims, as "[t]he computer
`
`
`
`App. 5
`
`process of taking geospatial positioning representa-
`tions in Degree-Minute-Second, or Decimal Degree,
`and altimetric format and other geospatial infor-
`mation and changing these geospatial positioning en-
`tities into an all-natural number that can be used to
`create a geospatial coordinate, the GEOCODE® for use
`as a data segment or object in geospatial information
`system processing operations and analysis." Suppl.
`J.A. at 654. Finally, Burnett proposed construing "geo-
`spatial positional location and point identification" as
`"[t]he vertex of the planular geospatial measurement
`representations of longitude and/or latitude and/or al-
`titude and/or other measurement representations."
`Pl.'s Sur-reply in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Bur-
`nett v. Panasonic Corp., No. 17-cv-0236, at 15 n. 1 (D.
`Md. Apr. 21, 2017), ECF No. 23-1.
`In its decision, the district court first found that
`the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible mathe-
`matical methodology "for converting geographic coor-
`dinates into alphanumeric representations." District
`Court Decision, at 10. Next, the district court found
`that any additional features of the asserted claims,
`such as limitations directed to using a computer to im-
`plement the mathematical methodology, do not trans-
`form the nature of claims into patent-eligible concepts.
`Id. at 11-13. In its analysis, the district court acknowl-
`edged and implicitly accepted Burnett's proposed
`claim constructions. Id. at 9 n.6. The district court con-
`cluded that the asserted claims are patent-ineligible
`and dismissed Burnett's amended complaint pursuant
`to Rule 12(b)(6). Burnett appeals. We have jurisdiction
`
`
`
`App. 6
`
`pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1295(a)(1). For the reasons
`stated below, we find that, even accepting Burnett's
`proposed constructions, the asserted claims are patent-
`ineligible.
`
`II
`The Fourth Circuit reviews de novo a dismissal
`under Rule 12(b)(6). Monroe v. City of Charlottesville,
`Va., 579 F.3d 380, 385 (4th Cir. 2009). "We have held
`that patent eligibility can be determined at the Rule
`12(b)(6) stage," but "only when there are no factual al-
`legations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the el-
`igibility question as a matter of law." Aatrix Software,
`Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the district court appropriately
`assessed eligibility at the pleading stage because the
`asserted claims are patent-ineligible even when ac-
`cepting as true all factual allegations pled in Burnett's
`amended complaint.'
`
`1 Burnett's factual allegations include allegations under step
`two of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
`2355 (2014), and extrinsic evidence supporting his proposed claim
`constructions. When applying step two of Alice, we have said that
`the question of "Whether the claim elements or the claimed com-
`bination are well-understood, routine, conventional is a question
`of fact." Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128. Here, Burnett does not contest
`that each element of the asserted claims is well-understood, but
`rather argues that the elements from each claim form new com-
`binations. Appellant Br. 48-53. Burnett also submits extrinsic ev-
`idence in the form of dictionary definitions in support of his
`proposed claim constructions, which the Supreme Court has held
`can give rise to a factual dispute. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v.
`Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 837-38 (2015). None of these factual
`
`
`
`App. 7
`
`Patent-eligible subject matter, as defined in § 101,
`includes "any new and useful process, machine, manu-
`facture, or composition of matter, or any new and use-
`ful improvement thereof. . . ." The Supreme Court has
`long held that "[flaws of nature, natural phenomena,
`and abstract ideas" are exceptions to § 101. Alice Corp.
`Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)
`(quoting Assn for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Ge-
`netics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). These exceptions
`render ineligible, for example, mathematical formulas.
`Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (2012).
`We apply a two-step test to determine whether a
`claim is directed to eligible subject matter. Alice, 134
`S. Ct. at 2355; Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012). First, we deter-
`mine whether the claim is directed to a law of nature,
`a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. Alice, 134
`S. Ct. at 2355. If so, then we proceed to step two and
`consider the elements of the claim "both individually
`and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether
`the additional elements 'transform the nature of the
`claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id. (quoting
`Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79).
`
`allegations precludes resolution of the eligibility question at the
`pleading stage because Panasonic does not dispute these allega-
`tions, and because we conclude that the asserted claims are pa-
`tent-ineligible even when accepting the allegations as true.
`
`
`
`MM
`
`A
`
`Starting at step one, we agree with the district
`court's conclusion that the claims at issue are directed
`to an abstract idea. Both claims 1 and 9 are directed
`to, first, converting longitude and latitude coordinates
`into natural numbers—i.e. removing the decimal
`points and replacing any "+" signs with a "1" and any
`"-" signs with a 0—and second, concatenating the re-
`suiting natural numbers - i.e. joining the strings of re-
`sulting numbers together. See, e.g., '286 patent, at col.
`12, 1. 50—col. 13, 1. 14; id. at Figure 26. In sum, the
`claims apply a mathematical methodology to convert
`geospatial coordinates into a single string of natural
`numbers.
`Like the concept of using a formula to convert bi-
`nary-coded decimals into pure binary numerals, which
`the Supreme Court found to be an abstract idea in
`Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 72, the concept of using a for-
`mula to convert geospatial coordinates into natural
`numbers, if found eligible, "would wholly pre-empt the
`mathematical formula and in practical effect would be
`a patent on the algorithm itself." Claims 1 and 9 are
`both directed to a similarly abstract idea.
`Burnett contends that the asserted claims, con-
`strued as Burnett proposes, are not directed to a math-
`ematical methodology. For example, Burnett contends
`that, because his proposed construction of "concatenat-
`ing" begins with "programming process," it is not a
`mathematical methodology, but rather a "data pro-
`gramming process." Appellant Br. at 26. We disagree
`
`
`
`because each claim, at its core, is directed to an ab-
`stract idea. Accepting that the "concatenating" limita-
`tion is directed to a "programming process" does not
`change this result. We have held that a process that
`starts with data, applies an algorithm, and ends with
`a new form of data is directed to an abstract idea. Dig-
`itech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758
`F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Similarly, here, the
`"concatenating" programming process merely joins a
`string of numbers together, constituting the final algo-
`rithmic step of converting the geospatial coordinate
`data into a new form of data. Thus, Burnett's proposed
`construction of "concatenating" does not change the
`fact that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`Next, Burnett argues that his proposed construc-
`tion of "converting" identifies the term as "a prescrip-
`tive step required for data programming process of
`concatenation." Appellant Br. at 28. That the "convert-
`ing" step necessarily precedes the "concatenating" step
`does not change the fact that the claims are directed to
`an abstract idea. The "converting" step is merely an
`earlier step in the process of mathematically convert-
`ing the data into a new form. Thus, the "converting"
`step also does not transform the mathematical meth-
`odology into eligible subject matter because the step
`amounts to routine data processing.
`
`The remainder of Burnett's arguments related to
`his proposed claim constructions stand for the proposi-
`tion that "the claims recite significantly more than the
`purported idea of a 'mathematical methodology." Ap-
`pellant Br. at 46. But that a claim allegedly contains
`
`
`
`App. 10
`
`more than an abstract idea does not mean the claim
`survives step one, because, under that inquiry, it is
`enough that the claims are directed to a mathematical
`methodology at all; rather, Burnett's argument is more
`appropriately assessed under our inquiry in step two.
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (assessing under step two
`whether additional features in a claim transform an
`otherwise a patent-ineligible concept into a patent-
`eligible concept).
`
`I-.]
`
`Turning to step two, we ask "[w]hat else is there
`in the claims before us" and whether those "additional
`features . . . provide practical assurance that the
`[claims are] more than a drafting effort designed to
`monopolize [the abstract idea] ." Mayo; 566 U.S. at 77,
`78. Here, we agree with the district court that the ad-
`ditional features, viewed individually and as an or-
`dered combination, are not "sufficient to transform the
`nature of the claim [s]." Id. at 78.
`The only additional features recited in claim 1 are
`the preamble providing for "[a] geospatial media re-
`corder," '286 patent, at col. 13, 1. 60, and the limitation
`of "allowing user to geospatially reference entities or
`objects based on the identified geospatial positional lo-
`cation and point identification," id. at col. 14, 11. 7-9.
`Similarly, the only additional features recited in claim
`9 are the preamble providing for "[a] geospatial infor-
`mation processing method," id. at col. 15, 11. 5, and the
`limitation of "allowing a user to geospatially reference
`
`
`
`App. 11
`
`entities or objects based on the identified geospatial
`positional location and point identification," id. at col.
`15, 11. 19-21.
`As the district noted, these additional features ef-
`fectively do no "more than simply state the [abstract
`idea] while adding the words 'apply it.' "Mayo, 566 U.S.
`at 72. The preambles of both claims, as construed by
`Burnett, instruct a user to implement the mathemati-
`cal methodology or instruct using a "geospatial media
`recorder" to do the same. Such "wholly generic com-
`puter implementation is not generally the sort of
`'additional featur[el' that provides any 'practical assur-
`ance that the process is more than a drafting effort de-
`signed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.' "Alice,
`134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, U.S. at 77); accord
`Gottschalk, 409 U.S at 70-72.
`The remaining additional feature, "allowing [a]
`user to geospatially reference entities or objects based
`on the identified geospatial positional location and
`point identification," recited in both claims, similarly
`does not transform the nature of the claim, and merely
`recites a potentially useful result of the invention. '286
`patent, at col. 14,11. 7-9, col. 15, 11. 19-21. The prosecu-
`tion history of the '286 patent is particularly relevant
`here. During prosecution, the examiner amended claim
`1 and claim 12 (renumbered as claim 9 before issuance)
`by adding the additional feature to bring the claims in
`compliance with the § 101 standard applied at that
`time. Suppi. J.A. 24; see also id. at 20-23. Under this
`previous standard, courts and examiners considered
`whether the claims had a "useful, concrete and
`
`
`
`App. 12
`
`tangible result." In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 959 (Fed.
`Cir. 2008) (en bane). This standard no longer governs.
`Id. at 959-60 (concluding "that the 'useful, concrete
`and tangible result' inquiry is inadequate. . . ."); see
`also Bilski v. Kappos,' 561 U.S. 593, 659 (2010)
`(Breyer, J., concurring) ("[Alithough the machine-or-
`transformation test is not the only test for patentabil-
`ity, this by no means indicates that anything which
`produces a 'useful, concrete, and tangible results,' is
`patentable. This Court has never made such a state-
`ment and, if taken literally, the statement would cover
`instances where this Court has held the contrary" (in-
`ternal quotations and citations omitted)). While this
`additional feature may demonstrate that the invention
`produces a useful result, it does not transform the ab-
`stract idea into patent-eligible subject matter under
`the Supreme Court's decision in Alice.
`Burnett argues that claim 1 "cover[s] a 'combina-
`tion of elements' that form a new machine, a Geospa-
`tial Media Recorder," and that claim 9 covers a "new
`data programming process.. . ." Appellant Br. at 48.
`Burnett points to the Supreme Court's decision in
`Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188 (1981), for the
`proposition that "a new combination of steps in a pro-
`cess may be patentable even though all the constitu-
`ents of the combination were well known and in
`common use before the combination was made." Bur-
`nett argues that, similarly, here, "a media recorder
`that encode[s] geospatial information as a[n] item of
`metadata to solve geospatial data communication
`
`
`
`App. 13
`
`problems in video production environments had never
`before been invented." Appellant Br. at 53.
`
`Burnett is correct that a new combination of steps,
`though individually ineligible or well-known, can give
`rise to a patent-eligible claim, but this purportedly new
`combination must still survive the step two inquiry. As
`stated above, claim 9 does no more than instruct a user
`to implement the abstract idea of converting geospatial
`coordinates into natural numbers, and claim 1 merely
`provides for a "Geospatial Media Recorder" to imple-
`ment the same abstract idea. Thus, these purportedly
`new combinations do not transform the abstract idea
`into a patent-eligible concept under our precedent.
`We have reviewed Burnett's remaining arguments
`regarding eligibility, and we reject them as both unper-
`suasive and applying legal standards that no longer
`govern or that govern outside of the context § 101. See,
`e.g., Appellant Br. at 32, 51 (citing this court's decision
`in In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994), which
`was superseded by Bilksi v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593
`(2010) and Alice.); Appellant Br. at 34, 51 (citing this
`court's decision in WMS Gaming Inc. v. International
`Game Technology., 184 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1999),
`which does not address patent eligibility).
`
`III
`Burnett also argues that the district court erred
`when it failed to construe allegedly disputed claim
`terms, and that it violated Burnett's due process rights
`when it failed to hold claim construction and 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`App. 14
`
`hearings prior to dismissing Burnett's amended com-
`plaint. The district court did not need to hold a claim
`construction hearing or issue a claim construction or-
`der because Panasonic did not dispute Burnett's pro-
`posed constructions, Suppi. J.A. 671-672, and because
`the asserted claims are patent-ineligible even in view
`of Burnett's proposed constructions. Moreover, "[tihere
`is no requirement. . . that a district judge hold a hear-
`ing prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss." Pueschel v.
`United States, 369 F.3d 345, 354 (4th Cir. 2004). There-
`fore, the district court did not err procedurally, nor did
`it violate Burnett's due process rights.
`
`Iv
`For the reasons stated above, we affirm the dis-
`trict court's order dismissing Burnett's amended com-
`plaint, holding that claims 1 and 9 of the '286 patent
`are ineligible.
`
`AFFIRMED
`COSTS
`
`No costs.
`
`
`
`App. 15
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`*
`
`CARL M. BURNETT
`Plaintiff,
`V.
`PANASONIC CORPORATION
`OF NORTH, AMERICA, and
`PANASONIC INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY CORPORATION
`OF AMERICA
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No.
`PX 17-00236
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`(Filed Nov. 1, 2017)
`Pending in this patent infringement suit is Pana-
`sonic Corporation of North America and Panasonic
`Intellectual Property Corporation of America's ("De-
`fendants") Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
`Claim filed March 9, 2017. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff Carl
`M. Burnett ("Plaintiff") opposed the Motion on March
`24, 2017 (ECF No. 17) to which Defendant replied on
`April 10, 2017. ECF No. 20. Given the complexity of the
`issues involved, Plaintiff was given leave to file a sur-
`reply, ECF No. 23, as were Defendants, ECF No. 28.
`The issues are fully briefed, and the Court now rules
`pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 because no hearing is
`necessary. For the reasons stated below, the Defend-
`ants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.
`
`
`
`App. 16
`
`I. Background
`The following facts are drawn from the Amended
`Complaint and taken as true for purposes of this opin-
`ion. Plaintiff is an information technologist and owner
`of two patented "geospatial technologies," U.S. Patent
`No. 6, 681,231 (the "231 Patent") and U.S. Patent No.
`7,107,286 (the "286 Patent"). ECF No. 12-2 at 1-2.
`Since the '286 Patent was issued by the USPTO in Sep-
`tember 2006, ownership of the '286 Patent has been
`transferred four or more times, but at all times both
`patents were retained by the Plaintiff or corporations
`controlled by Plaintiff as CEO and President. ECF No.
`18-2 at 4. Defendants are manufacturers of electronic
`products, including cameras and camcorders. ECF No.
`12-2 at 2.
`Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' video cameras
`and camcorders incorporate the use of Plaintiff's pa-
`tented technology and that Panasonic's manufacture,
`use, and that the sale of these products infringe upon
`claims 1 and 9 of the '286 Patent. ECF No. 12-2 at 16.
`Plaintiff further avers that through Defendants' con-
`tinued sale of products using Plaintiff's technology,
`Defendants are "actively inducing" continued infringe-
`ment of Plaintiff's Patent. ECF 12-2 at 18.
`
`Although Plaintiff is the present owner of both the
`'231 Patent and the '286 Patent, only infringement of
`the '286 Patent is alleged. The '286 Patent is an "inte-
`grated system of hardware and software modules for
`processing visual, audio, textual, and geospatial infor-
`mation" and includes seventeen (17) claims. ECF No.
`
`
`
`App. 17
`
`1-2 at 56. Plaintiff asserts patent infringement for two
`of these claims, claim one (1) and claim nine (9).' ECF
`No. 18-2.
`
`a. SMPTE Standards 330M and 373M
`The Society of Motion Picture and Television En-
`gineers (SMPTE) is an organization that, among other
`responsibilities, recommends specific formats for mo-
`tion-imaging content through the publication of "Rec-
`ommended Practices," "Standards," and engineering
`guidelines for the motion picture industry. In January
`2010, Plaintiffs' affiliated corporation and then-owner
`of the '286 Patent, Global Findability, Inc. (GFI), dis-
`covered an intellectual property statement in an
`SMPTE Recommended Practice. ECF No. 18-2 at 1 48.
`The document, Recommended Practice: SMPTE RP
`204-2009-Application of Unique Identifiers in Produc-
`tion and Broad Environments, announced that "no no-
`tice had been received by SMPTE claiming patent
`rights essential to the implementation of this Stand-
`ard," but that "attention is drawn to the possibility
`that some of the elements of this document may be the
`subject of patent rights." Id. In response, GFI filed a
`voluntary patent licensing declaration to license the
`'286 Patent for the technology implemented in SMPTE
`330M: 2004 ("330M Standard"). Id. at 1 49. The 330M
`
`'Although Plaintiff's arguments frequently rely upon the
`'231 Patent and other claims of the '286 Patent, the Court's dis-
`cussion and analysis is limited to the specific claims for which
`Plaintiff actually alleges patent infringement, claims 1 and 9 of
`the '286 Patent. See ECF No. 17-2.
`
`
`
`App. 18
`
`Standard specifies the format of Unique Material Iden-
`tifiers (UMID), which are unique identifiers for pic-
`ture, audio, and data material that is automatically
`generated or manually created and encrypted into a
`media file. Id. at 1 56. The metadata of a UMID may
`include date and time, spatial co-ordinates, country
`code, organization code, and user code. Id.
`
`On November 5, 2013, Geocode-LA Inc. (GLA),
`who acquired the '286 Patent in July 2013,2 see id. at
`1 27, submitted an updated patent licensing declara-
`tion to cover additional SMPTE standards, including
`SMPTE 337M-2004 Material Exchange Format File
`Format Specification Standard ("337M Standard").
`ECF No. 18-2 at 1 52. The 337M Standard defines the
`data structure of Material Exchange Format (1VIXF) for
`network transport and storage of audiovisual material.
`Id. at 1 57. One of the specifications of the 337M
`Standard includes a UMID metadata identifier. Id. On
`January 24, 2017, Plaintiff, now the assigned owner
`of Patent '286, notified SMPTE that Plaintiff's patents
`would no longer be offered for implementation of
`
`2 Ownership of the '286 Patent has transferred several times,
`but Plaintiff was CEO and President of all corporate entities. The
`original owner of the '286 Patent was GeoQwest International,
`Inc. (GQI). GQI merged into Global Findability, Inc., in May 2007.
`GFI was rebranded as BWGM, Inc., in January 2012. On January
`12, 2012, BWGM incorporated Geocode, Inc. as a wholly owned
`subsidiary. From May 12, 2012 through July 28, 2013, Geocode,
`Inc., owned the '286 Patent. Another BWGM subsidiary. Geocode-
`LA, Inc. (GLA), was assigned the patent on July 28, 2013, and
`owned the '286 Patent until its assignment to the Plaintiff on Feb-
`ruary 2, 2016. See ECF No. 18-2 at 4.
`
`
`
`App. 19
`
`SMPTE standards, including 330M and 337M. ECF
`No. 18-2 at 1 55; see also ECF No. 1-9 at 2.
`
`b. Defendants' Alleged Infringement of the
`'286 Patent
`Defendants manufacture and sell media equip-
`ment that incorporates the 330M and 337M SMPTE
`Standards. ECF No. 18-2 at 191 58-63. By Plaintiff's ap-
`proximation, twenty-seven (27) Panasonic models con-
`form to these Standards. Id. at 1 83. Defendants also
`sell or have sold six (6) cameras or camcorders that in-
`corporate a Global Positioning System ("GPS") receiver
`and the 330M or 337M Standard, id. at 1 85, and five
`(5) models that incorporate a GPS receiver, but not the
`330M or 337M Standard, id. at 1 86. In 2012 and 2014,
`the previous owner of the '286 patent, Geocode, Inc. no-
`tified SMPTE-compliant manufacturers, including De-
`fendants, of the SMPTE patent licensing agreement.
`Id. at ¶91 64-66. Throughout 2012 through 2014, the re-
`spective '286 Patent owners3 engaged Defendants in
`discussions for a potential licensing agreement for the
`'286 Patent, but the parties were unable to reach an
`agreement. Id. at 11 66-82.
`Subsequently, on January 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed
`this Complaint alleging that Defendants' infringed on
`Plaintiff's patent. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff submitted an
`Amended Complaint, naming the present Defendants
`and asserting specifically that Defendants' products,
`by employing the 330M and 337M SMPTE standards,
`
`See supra n.2.
`
`
`
`App. 20
`
`integrate the technology protected by Claim 1 and
`Claim 9 of the '286 Patent .4 ECF No. 18-2 at 11 91-93.
`Claim 1 asserts ownership of:
`1. A geospatial media recorder, comprising:
`converting means for converting longi-
`tude and latitude geographic degree,
`minutes, and second (DMS) coordinate al-
`phanumeric representations or decimal
`equivalent geographic coordinate alpha-
`numeric representations and altitude
`alphanumeric representations into indi-
`vidual discretion all-natural number-' ge-
`ographic coordinate and measurement
`representations; and
`combining means for concatenating the
`discrete all-natural number geographic
`coordinate and measurement representa-
`tions into a single discrete all-natural
`number geospatial coordinate measure-
`ment representation for identification of
`a geospatial positional location at, below,
`or above earth's surface allowing user to
`geospatially reference entities or objects
`
`' While Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that "Panasonic has in-
`fringed on at least Claim 1 and Claim 9 of the '286 Patent," ECF
`No. 18-2, implying a broader patent infringement claim, Plaintiff
`only argue Defendants' alleged infringement on Claims 1 and 9.
`See ECF Nos. 18-2 & 23-1.
`In contrast to alphanumeric representations, which are
`comprised of both letters and numbers, "natural numbers" are
`positive integers (whole numbers).
`
`
`
`App. 21
`
`based on the identified geospatial posi-
`tional location and point identification.
`
`ECF No. 1-2 at 59.
`
`And claim 9 asserts ownership of:
`9. A geospatial information processing method
`comprising:
`converting latitude and longitude geographic
`degree, minutes, and seconds (DMS) coor-
`dinate alphanumeric representations or
`decimal equivalent geographic coordinate
`alphanumeric representations and lati-
`tude alphanumeric representations into
`individual discrete all-natural number
`geographic coordinate and measurement
`representations; and
`concatenating the individual discrete all
`natural number geographic coordinate
`and measurement representations into a
`single discrete all-natural number geo-
`spatial coordinate measurement repre-
`sentation for identification of a geospatial
`positional location at, below, or above
`earth's surface allowing user to geospa-
`tially reference entities or objects based
`on the identified geospatial positional lo-
`cation and point identification.
`
`ECF No. 1-2 at 60.
`
`Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended
`Complaint, arguing that each of the claims asserted by
`Plaintiff are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ECF No. 15.
`
`
`
`App. 22
`
`Specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims
`fall into the section 101's "abstract ideas" exception, as
`they are directed solely to the abstract concept of "per-
`forming mathematical operations on a computer to ar-
`rive at a particular data format." ECF No. 20 at 15. As
`discussed below, the Court agrees.
`
`II. Legal Standard
`When ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the
`court must "accept the well-pled allegations of the com-
`plaint as true" and "construe the facts and reasonable
`inferences derived therefrom in the light most favora-
`ble to the plaintiff." Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d
`472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff is proceeding pro Se,
`and his Complaint is to be construed liberally.
`See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
`However, liberal construction does not absolve Plain-
`tiff from pleading plausible claims. See Holsey v. Col-
`lins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 128 (D. Md. 198 1) (citing Inmates v.
`Owens, 561 F.2d 560, 562-63 (4th Cir. 1977)). "The mere
`recital of elements of a cause of action, supported only
`by conclusory statements, is not sufficient to survive a
`motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)." Walters v.
`McMahen, 684 F.3d 435,439 (4th Cir. 2012) (citingAsh-
`croft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). A complaint's
`factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to
`relief above the speculative level on the assumption
`that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even
`if doubtful in fact)." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal citations omitted). "To
`
`
`
`App. 23
`
`satisfy this standard, a plaintiff need not 'forecast' ev-
`idence sufficient to prove the elements of the claim.
`The complaint must allege sufficient facts to establish
`those elements." Walters, 684 F.3d at 439 (citation
`omitted). "Thus, while a plaintiff does not need to
`demonstrate in a complaint that the right to relief is
`'probable,' the complaint must advance the plaintiff's
`claim 'across the line from conceivable to plausible."
`Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
`Moreover, it is well established is that a defendant
`in a patent infringement suit may move for dismissal
`under Rule 12(b)(6) because the patent in question
`concerns abstract ideas or the basic tools of scientific
`and technological work. See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`Ultramercial, Inc., v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
