Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 1 of 27 PageID 170
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No.: 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC. IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`(901) 537-1000
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. David Hadden
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Darren F. Donnelly
`ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ryan J. Marton
`rmarton@fenwick.com
`Clifford Web
`cweb@fenwick.com
`Justin Hulse
`jhulse@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 27 PageID 171
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 
`
`A. 
`
`The Parties ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`B.E. Technologies ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2 
`
`Amazon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Patents-In-Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 
`
`This Action ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 
`
`ARGUMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 
`
`I. 
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS VIOLATE THE FUNCTIONAL
`CLAIMING RULE AND ARE, THUS, INDEFINITE ------------------------------- 7 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Patent Law Prohibits Purely Functional Claiming ---------------------- 7 
`
`The Purely Functional Language of the Asserted
`Claim of the ’290 Patent Renders It Indefinite -------------------------------- 9 
`
`The Purely Functional Language of the Asserted
`Claim of the ’010 Patent Renders It Indefinite ------------------------------- 13 
`
`II. 
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS VIOLATE THE POSSESSION RULE
`AND ARE, THUS, INVALID ---------------------------------------------------------- 17 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Possession Rule ------------------------------------------------------------- 17 
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Not Supported by the Patent
`Specifications and Are, Thus, Invalid for Failing the
`Possession Rule ------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 
`
`CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 3 of 27 PageID 172
`
`Cases:
`
`Page(s):
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) --------------------------------------------------------- 17, 18, 19
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ---------------------------------------------------------- 9, 10, 12
`
`Asentinel LLC v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc.,
`Case No. 2:10-cv-02706, 2012 WL 1097336 (W.D. Tenn., Mar. 30, 2012) ------- 9, 16, 17
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc.,
`198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc.,
`574 F. 3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ------------------------------------------------------------- passim
`
`Brenner v. Manson,
`383 U.S. 519 (1966) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`541 F.3d 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Eplus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`No. 2011-1396, -1456, 1554 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2012) ------------------------- 11, 13, 14, 15
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Fiers v. Revel,
`984 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir.1993) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 19
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
`
`Fuller v. Yentzer,
`94 U.S. 288 (1876) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Glory Licensing LLC v. Toys “R” Us, Inc.,
`No. 09-4252, 2011 WL 1870591 (D.N.J. May 16, 2011) -------------------------------------- 6
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 4 of 27 PageID 173
`
`
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc.,
`91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 11
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC.,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7, 8
`
`Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co v. Walker,
`67 S. Ct. 6 (1946) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GMBH & Co., KG,
`667 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2012) --------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 13
`
`Jepson v. Coleman,
`314 F.2d 533 (Fed. Cir. 1963) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
`
`Kozam v. Phase Forward , Inc.,
`No. 04-1787, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46850 (D. Md., Aug. 29, 2005) ----------------------- 13
`
`Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 18
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 20
`
`Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software,
`462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
`
`MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp.,
`672 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 17
`
`NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Circ. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
`
`Noah v. Intuit,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012) --------------------------------------------------------------- 9, 14
`
`O’Reilly v. Morse
`56 U.S. 62 (1853) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7, 8, 17
`
`OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C-12-1233 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2012) ------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) --------------------------------------------------------- 18, 19, 20
`
`Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.,
`214 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 18
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 5 of 27 PageID 174
`
`
`Ex Parte Rodriguez
`Appeal 2008-000693 (BPAI 2009) -------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
`Ex Parte Roussi
`Appeal 2010-003169 (BPAI 2010) -------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
`Select Controls v. Am. Elec. Components, Inc.,
`No. 07-1306, 2008 WL 216612 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) ------------------------------------ 6
`
`Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`No. 09-6918, 2010 WL 3360098 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010) ---------------------------------- 6
`
`United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.,
`317 U.S. 228 (1942) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc.,
`358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ------------------------------------------------------------ 6, 17, 18
`
`In re Wilder,
`736 F.2d 1516 (Fed. Cir.1984) -------------------------------------------------------------- 18, 19
`
`Statutes and Rules:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`Rai, A. et al., United States Department of Commerce, PATENT REFORM:
`UNLEASHING INNOVATION, PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH & PRODUCING HIGH-
`PAYING JOBS (Apr. 13, 2010) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY EXAMINATION GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH 35
`U.S.C. 112 AND FOR TREATMENT OF RELATED ISSUES IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
`76 Fed. Reg. 7171 (Feb. 9, 2011) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`United States Federal Trade Commission, Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent
`Notice and Remedies With Competition (Mar. 2011) ------------------------------------------ 6
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 6 of 27 PageID 175
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A patent that purports to own all possible ways of achieving a result (even a new and use-
`
`ful result), while disclosing none, is invalid as a matter of law. This maxim, alone sufficient to
`
`decide this case, follows from two of the most important rules of our patent system—both essen-
`
`tial to maintaining the proper balance between an inventor's right to exploit his particular contri-
`
`bution to the public, on the one hand, and the public's right to create still better ways of achiev-
`
`ing the same result, on the other.
`
`The first rule is the prohibition against purely “functional claiming”—i.e., describing an
`
`invention not by what it is or how it achieves its result, but rather by the result itself independent
`
`of any particular structure or method. A purely functional patent is, by definition, not limited to
`
`an inventor’s actual contribution to the public, but rather seeks to own as private property all
`
`ways, both present and future, of solving a particular problem. Purely functional patents, there-
`
`fore, offend the patent system in at least two important ways. First, they award to private indi-
`
`viduals monopoly power over vast swaths of technologies that the named inventors never con-
`
`ceived, much less invented. And second, they deprive the public of all future incentives to create
`
`new and improved technologies, thereby stifling innovation and frustrating the progress of sci-
`
`ence and the useful arts—the sole object of our patent laws.
`
`The second rule, a corollary of the first, is the “possession rule,” which requires that an
`
`inventor describe in his patent his particular solution to a problem in sufficient detail to assure
`
`the public that the inventor has, in fact, invented what he claims. Patents that claim only the re-
`
`sult of a solution, but not the particular solution itself, offend the “possession rule” in at least two
`
`important ways. First, they result in numerous and disparate technologies owned by private par-
`
`ties who have not, in fact, invented anything. And second, they free-ride on others to do the
`
`heavy lifting of true invention only to burden such inventors with monopoly rents. Patents that
`
`offend the “possession rule” do not promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Rather,
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 7 of 27 PageID 176
`
`
`they simply tax the public for purely private benefits while creating additional social costs in the
`
`form of needless litigation.
`
`Here, the patents-in-suit offend both the “functional claiming rule” and the “possession
`
`rule.” Both patents claim a new and improved software program, and yet neither describes any
`
`particular software, system logic, algorithm, or programming. At the same time, the plaintiff
`
`seeks to appropriate a vast swath of modern American technologies, including the highly-
`
`sophisticated and disparate systems developed, owned and operated by the likes of Amazon,
`
`Google, Apple, Motorola, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Samsung, Sony, and others. The social
`
`costs of this massive patent litigation, involving as it does facially invalid patents, will be incal-
`
`culable unless interrogated vigorously at the very outset of this case, which this Court is empow-
`
`ered to do by our patent and procedural laws, and which, as a matter of sound public policy, this
`
`Court ought to do at the earliest possible juncture consistent with the plaintiff’s right to be heard.
`
`For these reasons, and for the reasons stated more fully below, Amazon moves, pursuant
`
`to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with
`
`prejudice.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`1.
`B.E. Technologies
`Plaintiff B.E. Technologies (“B.E.”) is a patent assertion entity (“PAE”) that registered to
`
`do business in Tennessee one day before filing this lawsuit. According to B.E.’s lead counsel,
`
`B.E.’s sole “business” is prosecuting lawsuits in this district. As a PAE, B.E. does not make or
`
`sell any products or services, much less make any beneficial use of the technologies that it claims
`
`to own. Nor has it ever notwithstanding that the patents-in-suit were filed in 1998 (Dkt. 9, Exs.
`
`A and B)—nearly 15 years ago.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 8 of 27 PageID 177
`
`
`2.
`Amazon
`Defendant Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (“Amazon”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Amazon.com, Inc.—a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in Seattle, Wash-
`
`ington. Widely known as the world’s largest online retailer, Amazon is also regarded as one of
`
`America’s most innovative technology companies. Through its online retail business, Amazon
`
`transformed the way the public acquires consumer products, and in the process dramatically
`
`expaned consumer choice while greatly reducing consumer costs—especially in remote regions
`
`of the nation where access to consumer products is often limited. Through its web-based and IT
`
`services, Amazon has helped launch countless American small businesses, and empowered still
`
`countless others, who today sell tens of millions of products to otherwise unknowable customers
`
`worldwide. And through its Kindle brand of e-readers, Amazon revolutionized the way the pub-
`
`lic acquires and relates to the printed word—once again, dramatically increasing consumer
`
`choice while greatly reducing consumer costs.
`
`B.
`
`The Patents-In-Suit
`
`B.E. alleges infringement of two related patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010 (the “’010 pa-
`
`tent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (the “’290 patent”), which is a continuation-in-part of the
`
`’010 patent. B.E. asserts claim 1 of the ’010 patent and claim 2 of the ’290 patent. (See Dkt. No.
`
`9, ¶¶ 14, 17.)
`
`The ’010 patent is entitled “Computer Interface Method and Apparatus with Targeted
`
`Advertising.” (Id., Exh. B.) As the title suggests, the ’010 patent is directed to a computer pro-
`
`gram that provides targeted advertisements over the Internet. (Id., Abstract.) The patent
`
`acknowledges that targeted Internet advertising was well-known and performed by numerous
`
`prior art systems. (See generally id. col. 1, l. 14 - col. 3, l. 29.) According to the patent, in these
`
`existing software systems, the details of how the advertisements were displayed on users’ com-
`
`puters, including “where on the screen the advertisement is displayed, the display size, [and] the
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 9 of 27 PageID 178
`
`
`duration of display,” were “built into the software [program] itself.” (Id. col. 2, ll. 6-21.) Thus,
`
`according to the patent, changing anything about the display of the advertisements required up-
`
`dating the entire program. (Id.) To solve this purported problem, the patent suggests breaking
`
`the program into two pieces or “modules,” which can be updated independently. The first pro-
`
`gram module “display[s] a graphical user interface.” (Id. col. 4, ll. 22-26.) The second program
`
`module selects specific banner advertisements based on the user’s interactions with the graphical
`
`user interface displayed by the first module. (Id. col. 4, ll. 41-49.) How the program modules
`
`perform these functions, or even communicate with each other, is never described in the patent.
`
`Instead, the program modules are described solely by their functions, i.e., what each
`
`module is “operable to perform.” For example, claim 1 recites that the first program module is
`
`“operable upon execution to display a graphical user interface,” and that the second program
`
`module is “operable upon execution to select informational data to be displayed.” (Id. col. 21, ll.
`
`38-39 and 50-51) (emphasis added). But nowhere does the patent explain how the modules gen-
`
`erate the claimed graphical user interface or select the informational data to be displayed. Nor is
`
`there a single figure or flowchart showing even a single step that this software performs to
`
`achieve either result. Rather, these purportedly novel software “modules” are described as mere
`
`black boxes defined, again, solely by their functions.
`
`The ’290 patent is no better. It envisions a software program that organizes user infor-
`
`mation, such as a list of favorite websites, by storing such information on a network server. Ac-
`
`cording to the patent, existing web browsers allowed users to store information “regarding visit-
`
`ed or favorite websites,” for example, by bookmarking a webpage of interest. (Id. col. 3, ll. 49-
`
`52.) Those web browsers, however, purportedly did not allow users to share that information
`
`across multiple browsers because “information within one browser [was] not easily transportable
`
`to the other browser.” (Id. col. 3, ll. 60-62.) To solve this problem, the patent suggests storing a
`
`user’s list of favorite websites and links (e.g., bookmarks) in a “user library” on a server instead
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 10 of 27 PageID 179
`
`
`of within the user’s browser. (Id. col. 13, ll. 7-11.) But, again, the patent does not explain
`
`how—even as it expressly concedes that storing user files on servers was known in the art when
`
`the patent was filed. (Id. col. 3, ll. 54-57.) Again, no new hardware or software is mentioned,
`
`much less any algorithms—novel or otherwise—for storing, selecting or retrieving information
`
`stored in a “user library.”
`
`Instead of describing how this mystery software works, the ’290 patent describes a sal-
`
`magundi of results that the software can somehow achieve: “The present invention can be used
`
`in a wide variety of applications and for a wide variety of uses … to store software, business
`
`presentations, blueprints, plans, movies, musical albums, games … to shop on line … [to record]
`
`radio … [and] communicate [with] … cellular telephones, walkmans, kiosks, personal digital
`
`assistants, refrigerator door screens, airplane set screens, car radios, televisions, video recorders,
`
`answering machines and the like.” (See generally id. col. 34, ll. 60-65; col. 35, l. 54 – col. 37,
`
`l. 43.) And again, the software is claimed purely by the desired result, e.g., it is “operable … to
`
`access the associated information resource over the network.” (Id. col. 39, ll. 17 & col. 40, ll. 2.)
`
`C.
`This Action
`On September 7, 2012, as part of a broad campaign of patent infringement lawsuits in
`
`this district,1 B.E. filed this lawsuit accusing Amazon’s popular Kindle® brand of tablets of in-
`
`fringing the ’290 patent. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Shortly thereafter, B.E. filed an amended complaint
`
`adding claims under the ’010 patent. (See Dkt. No. 9.) This motion is Amazon’s response to
`
`B.E.’s amended complaint.
`
`
`1 Case Nos. 12-cv-02830, 12-cv-02866, 12-cv-02767, 12-cv-02769, 12-cv-02772, 12-cv-
`02781, 12-cv-02782, 12-cv-02783, 2:12-cv-02823, 12-cv-02824, 12-cv-02825, 2:12-cv-02826,
`12-cv-02827, 12-cv-02828, 12-cv-02829, 12-cv-02831, 12-cv-02832, 12-cv-02833, and 12-cv-
`02834 naming as defendants Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC; Google Inc.; LinkedIn, Inc.; Fa-
`cebook, Inc.; Groupon, Inc.; Pandora Media, Inc.; Twitter, Inc.; Barnes & Noble, Inc.; Samsung
`Telecommunications America, LLC; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Sony Computer Enter-
`tainment; Sony Mobile Communications; Sony Electronics, Inc.; Microsoft Corp.; Apple, Inc.;
`Spark Networks, Inc.; People Media, Inc.; and Match.com LLC.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 11 of 27 PageID 180
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`“Low-quality patents—that is, patents that are obvious, overly broad, or unclear in the in-
`
`ventive territory that they cover—[] hinder innovation. This is because although patents may be
`
`low quality, they can nonetheless be profitably asserted against genuine innovators in litigation.”
`
`(Rai, A. et al., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Patent Reform: Unleashing Innovation, Promoting
`
`Economic Growth & Producing High-Paying Jobs (Apr. 13, 2010), attached hereto as Exhibit A,
`
`at p. 5.) Because of the time and cost of defending against even plainly invalid patents, “many
`
`invalid patents are never challenged in our current litigation system.” (Id.) Yet, invalid patents
`
`asserted by PAEs “deter innovation by raising costs and risks without making a technological
`
`contribution” to the public weal. (U.S. Fed. Trade Comm’n, Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning
`
`Patent Notice and Remedies With Competition, 2011 WL 838912, at *7 (Mar. 2011).) To avoid
`
`this, the Federal Trade Commission “urges that courts extend their recent focus on indefiniteness
`
`to address functional claiming.” (Id. at *10.)
`
`Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is a question of law. Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree
`
`Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A patent can be held invalid “based solely
`
`on the language of the patent specification.” Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358
`
`F.3d 916, 927 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Courts can and should dispense with facially invalid patents at
`
`the pleading stage. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Am-
`
`azon.com, Inc., No. C-12-1233 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2012) (Dkt. No. 50); Glory Licensing LLC v.
`
`Toys “R” Us, Inc., No. 09-4252, 2011 WL 1870591 at *4 (D.N.J. May 16, 2011); Ultramercial,
`
`LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 09-6918, 2010 WL 3360098 at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010); Select Con-
`
`trols v. Am. Elec. Components, Inc., No. 07-1306, 2008 WL 216612 at *2-5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22,
`
`2008).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 12 of 27 PageID 181
`
`
`I.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS VIOLATE THE FUNCTIONAL
`CLAIMING RULE AND ARE, THUS, INDEFINITE.
`A.
`The Patent Law Prohibits Purely Functional Claiming.
`Paragraph 2 of Section 112 (of Title 35) requires that a patent “particularly point[] out
`
`and distinctly claim[] … the invention.” (35 U.S.C. § 112(b).) The law “require[s] inventors to
`
`describe their work in ‘full, clear, concise, and exact terms’ … as part of the delicate balance the
`
`law attempts to maintain between inventors, who rely on the promise of the law to bring the in-
`
`vention forth, and the public, which should be encouraged to pursue innovations, creations, and
`
`new ideas beyond the inventor’s exclusive rights.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Ka-
`
`bushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 731 (2002) (citation omitted). This requirement “is met only when
`
`[the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly cir-
`
`cumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise.” United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.,
`
`317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC., 514 F.3d 1244,
`
`1253 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`It has long been the rule that “[p]atents for a machine will not be sustained if the claim is
`
`for a result.” Fuller v. Yentzer, 94 U.S. 288, 288 (1876). This is because a result, without more,
`
`is not an invention. Rather, an invention “consists in the means or apparatus by which the result
`
`is obtained.” Id. (emphasis added). The rule is a cornerstone of our patent system. Indeed,
`
`more than a century ago, the Supreme Court invalidated Samuel Morse’s claim to “electro-
`
`magnetism, however developed for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters at
`
`any distances” because it would impermissibly grant Morse “the exclusive right to every im-
`
`provement … it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.”
`
`O’Reilly v. Morse 56 U.S. 62, 62 & 112-113 (1853). In so holding, the Court explained the rule
`
`in terms that apply with equal force here, particularly with respect to the harm to innovation
`
`caused by purely functional claims:
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 13 of 27 PageID 182
`
`
`[S]ome future inventor, in the onward march of science, may dis-
`cover a mode of writing or printing at a distance by means of the
`electric or galvanic current, without using any part of the process
`or combination set forth in the plaintiff’s specification. His inven-
`tion may be less complicated—less liable to get out of order—less
`expensive in construction, and in its operation. But yet if it is cov-
`ered by this patent, the inventor could not use it, nor the public
`have the benefit of it, without the permission of this patentee.
`
`O’Reilly, 56 U.S. at 113.
`
`In Halliburton, the Supreme Court again invalidated functional claims where the claims
`
`described an invention “in terms of what it will do, rather than in terms of its own physical char-
`
`acteristics.” See Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co v. Walker, 67 S. Ct. 6, 10 (1946) (emphasis
`
`added). The Court explained that such claims are invalid because they would improperly cover
`
`all possible future devices that performed the same function. Id. at 12.
`
`Partly in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton, Congress amended the
`
`patent laws to prohibit purely functional claims unless the patent expressly discloses specific
`
`structures or steps for performing a claimed function, and limited the scope of such claims to the
`
`structures or steps disclosed:
`
`An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
`means or step for performing a specified function without the re-
`cital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such
`claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, ma-
`terial, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 112(f).) See also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1582
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Congress permitted the use of purely functional language in claims but limited
`
`the breadth of such claim language by restricting the scope to the structure disclosed in the speci-
`
`fication and equivalents thereof”).
`
`Accordingly, if a patent does not describe a specific way of achieving a claimed result—
`
`otherwise referred to as a specific “structure” for performing a claimed “function”—the claim is
`
`invalid. “Fulfillment of the § 112, ¶ 6 tradeoff cannot be satisfied when there is a total omission
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 14 of 27 PageID 183
`
`
`of structure. There must be structure in the specification.” Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage
`
`Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v.
`
`Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The point of the requirement that the
`
`patentee disclose particular structure in the specification and that the scope of the patent claims
`
`be limited to that structure is to avoid pure functional claiming”).
`
`Where, as here, a patent recites a software program, the required “structure” must be the
`
`specific algorithm or program logic used by the new software, not the processors, disks and other
`
`components found in general purpose computers. “Because general purpose computers can be
`
`programmed to perform very different tasks in very different ways, simply disclosing a computer
`
`as the structure designated to perform a particular function does not limit the scope of the claim
`
`to ‘the corresponding structure, material, or acts’ that perform the function.” Aristocrat Techs.,
`
`521 F.3d at 1333; see also Noah v. Intuit, 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (in computer-
`
`implemented inventions the required structure is “an algorithm for performing the claimed func-
`
`tion”) (citing NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).) An al-
`
`gorithm is a set of specific steps a computer is programmed to perform to achieve the claimed
`
`function. Id.
`
`B.
`
`The Purely Functional Language of the Asserted Claim
`of the ’290 Patent Renders It Indefinite.
`B.E. alleges that Amazon infringes claim 2 of the ’290 patent. Claim 2 recites a “com-
`
`puter-readable memory” with a “non-volatile storage device.” However, as standard computer
`
`hardware components—e.g., RAM and hard drives—these components cannot serve as the nec-
`
`essary structures for performing the functions of the invention. HTC Corp. v. IPCom GMBH &
`
`Co., KG, 667 F.3d 1270, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (an algorithm, not hardware is the required struc-
`
`ture); Asentinel LLC v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc., Case No. 2:10-cv-02706, 2012 WL 1097336 at *4
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 32-1 Filed 01/07/13 Page 15 of 27 PageID 184
`
`
`(W.D. Tenn., Mar. 30, 2012) (“Rather than relying on [computer hardware], [a patentee] ha[s] to
`
`identify an algorithm that the computer hardware execute[s]”).
`
`And what are those functions? There are four: (1) “display a graphical user interface
`
`comprising an application window having a number of user-selectable items”; (2) “in response to
`
`selection by a user of one of said items [] access the associated information resource over the
`
`network”; (3) “receive from server one of the user profiles and display a user-selectable item for
`
`user links contained within the user profile”; and (4) “in response to selection by a user of one of
`
`the user links [] access the file associated with the selected user link.” (’290 patent, claim 2,
`
`col. 39, l. 1 – col. 40, l. 11.) And yet the patent nowhere discloses any algorithm for performing
`
`even one, much less all four, of these functions.
`
`Rather, the specification consistently defines the invention solely as a computer program
`
`comprising an unidentified set of instructions. (’290 patent, col. 4, ll. 54-61.) But a “computer
`
`program,” so defined, necessarily includes any and all software and thus does not denote any
`
`specific structure or limitation on the scope of what is claimed. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334
`
`(“appropriate programming” does not denote required structure); Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV
`
`Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Simply reciting ‘software’ without
`
`providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function is not enough”); Altiris, Inc. v.
`
`Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[M]erely pointing out that the relevant
`
`structure is software rather than hardware is insufficient”); Ex Parte Roussi, Appeal 2010-
`
`003169 (attached as Exhibit B) at p. 5 (BPAI 2010) (reference to “software” in a claim denotes
`
`no particular structure and is simply a substitute for the word “means” in Section 112, paragraph
`
`6); Ex Parte Rodriguez, Appeal 2008-000693 (attached as Exhibit C) at p. 22 (BPAI 2009) (“sys-
`
`tem builder” and similar software components do not denote structure and are subject to Section
`
`112, paragraph 6). In short, the patent is drafted in purely functional terms, and, as such, the
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-0