Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 12527
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`No. 2:15-cv-01275-JRG-RSP
`No. 2:15-cv-01278-JRG-RSP
`
`CONSOLIDATED INTO
`
`No. 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO
`TITLE 35 U.S.C. SECTION 101
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 12528
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iii
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ...................................................................... v
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Rule 12 Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings ............................................................. 2
`Patent Eligibility Under Section 101 ................................................................................. 2
`
`THE BLITZSAFE PATENTS ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`B.
`
`The Claimed Blitzsafe Systems ......................................................................................... 3
`The Court’s Claim Construction Order .............................................................................. 5
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Blitzsafe Patents Claim Only The Abstract Idea Of Converting Data From
`One Format To Another ..................................................................................................... 7
`The ’786 And ’342 Patents Describe And Claim Conventional Systems And
`Components That Do Not Embody Any Inventive Concepts ............................................ 9
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 11
`
`APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................. i
`
`APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... iv
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 12529
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`No. 2015–2080, 2016 WL 5335502 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)........................................ 10
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`Nos. 2015-1845, -1846, -1847, -1848, 2016 WL 5335501
`(Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`Clear with Computers, LLC v. Altec Industries, Inc.,
`Nos. 6:14–cv–79, –89, 2015 WL 993392 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015) .............................. 2, 5
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................... 2, 5
`
`Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc.,
`558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 8
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 8
`
`eDekka LLC v 3Balls.com Inc.,
`Nos. 2:15-CV-541 JRG, -585 JRG, 2015 WL 5579840
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2015) .............................................................................................. 2, 5
`
`Elec. Power Group v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................. 7, 8, 11
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`In re TLI Comms. LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................. 9, 10, 11
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`Nos. 2015-1769, -1770, -1771, 2016 WL 5539870 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016) .................. 9
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 12530
`
`MCRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1080, 2015-1101, 2016 WL 4759200 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) ..................... 9
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 11
`
`Novo Transforma Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`Nos. 14-612-RGA, -613-RGA, -614-RGA, -615-RGA, -616-RGA,
`2015 WL 5156526 (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2015) ......................................................................... 8
`
`Novo Transforma Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`Nos. 2015-2012, -2013, -2014, -2015, -2016, 2016 WL 5335040 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23,
`2016) ................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc.,
`No. 13–1703–LPS, 2015 WL 1927696 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2015) ........................................ 8
`
`TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc.,
`No. 13–1703–LPS, 2015 WL 4730907 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2015) ....................................... 9
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Yodlee Inc v. Plaid Technologies Inc.,
`No. 14-1445-LPS, 2016 WL 2982503 (D. Del. May 23, 2016) ......................................... 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................................................... v, 2, 7
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ............................................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 12531
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`
`Should the court grant judgment on the pleadings that the asserted claims of plaintiff
`
`Blitzsafe’s ’786 and ’342 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming subject matter
`
`ineligible for patenting?
`
`Defendants’ answer: Yes.
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 12532
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`
`The ’786 and ’342 patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,489,786 and 8,155,342) asserted by
`
`plaintiff (“Blitzsafe”) describe and claim systems for integrating portable audio/video devices,
`
`such as a Smartphone and MP3 music players, with an automobile stereo/video system. The
`
`claimed improvement is allegedly the use of a microcontroller programmed to receive signals in
`
`one proprietary format (e.g., that used by an audio system) and convert those signals to another
`
`format (e.g., that used by a smartphone or portable music player) so that otherwise incompatible
`
`devices are able to communicate and be integrated with each other.
`
`In the particular application claimed in Blitzsafe’s patents, a microprocessor is
`
`programmed to convert data generated by a car stereo into a format compatible with the
`
`protocols of a portable media device, and vice versa, so that the devices are able to communicate
`
`and the portable device can be integrated into the stereo system. But the concept of processing
`
`information to convert that information from one format to another, as described and claimed by
`
`Blitzsafe, is an abstract idea that in and of itself is non-statutory and ineligible for patenting. The
`
`claims of the Blitzsafe patents describe only the application of the abstract functions of sending,
`
`receiving, and transforming signal data from one format to another to the integration of
`
`incompatible portable media devices and automobile audio and video systems, implemented
`
`using nothing more than conventional computer and software technology.
`
`Defendants accordingly respectfully move for judgment on the pleadings finding that the
`
`claims asserted by Blitzsafe are ineligible for patenting, and are invalid.1
`
`
`1 The moving defendants are Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen Group of
`America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor
`Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors Manufacturing
`Georgia, Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 12533
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Rule 12 Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not
`
`to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “The ultimate question for the
`
`court in deciding a Rule 12(c) motion is whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the
`
`plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief.” Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am.
`
`Airlines, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 3d 829, 834 (E.D. Tex. 2014).
`
`Whether a patent is invalid as claiming subject matter ineligible for patenting may be
`
`decided on a Rule 12 motion. See, e.g., Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
`
`Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
`
`F.3d 709, 713–23 (Fed. Cir. 2014); eDekka LLC v 3Balls.com Inc., Nos. 2:15-CV-541 JRG, -585
`
`JRG, 2015 WL 5579840, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2015) (Gilstrap, J.); Clear with Computers,
`
`LLC v. Altec Industries, Inc., Nos. 6:14–cv–79, –89, 2015 WL 993392, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3,
`
`2015) (Gilstrap, J.).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Eligibility Under Section 101
`
`“[35 U.S.C.] § 101 defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection and contains
`
`an exception for ‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.’” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
`
`v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citation omitted). To distinguish such patents
`
`from those that claim eligible subject matter the Supreme Court has established a two-part test,
`
`Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, according to which the patent claims are to be considered in their
`
`entirety to determine if they are directed to excluded subject matter, Internet Patents Corp. v.
`
`Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and if so, to determine if there
`
`is anything additional claimed that goes beyond the ineligible concept itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 12534
`
`2355. In other words, the court must determine if the patent also claims an “inventive concept.”
`
`Id..
`
`THE BLITZSAFE PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`The Claimed Blitzsafe Systems
`
`Blitzsafe’s ’786 and ’342 patents describe an “integration system” that is intended to
`
`permit a CD player, CD changer, MP3 player, satellite receiver, and other similar devices to
`
`connect to and operate with an incompatible automobile stereo system.2 The patents admit that
`
`such integration systems were previously known, and characterize the advance of the claimed
`
`invention as a microcontroller that acts as an interface and is programmed to convert control
`
`signals from one format into another:
`
`[I]t would be desirable to provide an integration system that allows
`any audio device of any manufacture to be integrated with any
`OEM or after-market radio system. . . . Accordingly, the present
`invention addresses these needs by providing an audio integration
`system that allows a plurality of audio devices, such as CD players,
`CD changers, MP3 players, satellite receivers, DAB receivers,
`auxiliary input sources, or a combination thereof, to be integrated
`into existing car stereos while allowing information to be displayed
`on, and control to be provided from, the car stereo. . . . Commands
`generated at the control panel are received by the present invention
`and converted into a format recognizable by the after-market audio
`device. The formatted commands are executed by the audio device,
`and audio therefrom is channeled to the car stereo. Information
`from the audio device is received by the present invention,
`converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo, and
`forwarded to the car stereo for display thereby.3
`
`Regarding the ’786 patent, Blitzsafe asserts that defendants are infringing claims 5, 6, 7,
`
`2 See Case No. 2:15-cv-01278, D.E. 22 (Blitzsafe’s First Amended Complaint), Ex. A (the ’786
`patent), Abstract, col. 1:6–12, 2:20–29; id., Ex. B (the ’342 patent), Abstract, col. 1:18–28, 2:56–
`67. The ’342 patent claims the priority of the ’786 patent through a chain of a continuation-in-
`part patent applications.
`3 See ’786 patent, col. 1:36–2:18, 2:35–42, 4:47–52, 5:1–14, 8:16–27; ’342 patent, col. 1:54–
`2:54, 3:7–14, 8:64–9:3, 9:21–36, 12:43–54 (same as to a “multimedia device integration
`system”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 12535
`
`8, 10, 14, 57, 61, 62, and 65. See Ex. 1 (Blitzsafe election of asserted claims) at 1. As shown in
`
`attached Appendix A, these claims describe an interface connected to a car stereo, portable audio
`
`device, and auxiliary input source (claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 14), and a car stereo in combination with
`
`a portable audio device (claims 57, 61, 62, and 65). The system includes a processor
`
`programmed to:
`
`1. receive control data from the car stereo, process the data into a format compatible with
`the portable device, and transmit the formatted data to the portable device;
`
`2. receive data from the portable device, process the data into a format compatible with the
`car stereo, and transmit the formatted data to the car stereo; and
`
`3. receive an audio or video signal from the portable device or auxiliary input source and
`transmit the signal to the car stereo.
`
`This system may also generate data intended to indicate that a portable device is present and
`
`ready to transmit data to the car stereo.
`
`Regarding the ’342 patent, Blitzsafe asserts that defendants are infringing claims 49, 53,
`
`54, 56, 57, 62, 70, 73, 77, and 78. See Ex. 1 (Blitzsafe preliminary election) at 1. The asserted
`
`claims of the ’342 patent, as shown in attached Appendix B, describe an integration system using
`
`a wireless interface that:
`
`1. receives information regarding an audio file from a portable device and transmits that
`information to a car audio/video system,
`
`2. receives control data from an audio/video system and transmits the data to a portable
`device, and
`
`3. receives an audio signal from the portable device and transmits it to the car audio/video
`system.
`
`Again, the claimed system may generate and transmit data to the audio/video system indicating
`
`that a portable device is present.
`
`The ’786 and ’342 patents explain that audio/video device integration systems of the type
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:
` 12536
`
`being claimed were already known in the art, and that the components of the systems claimed by
`
`Blitzsafe are merely exemplary, conventional, and interchangeable. See, e.g.,’786 patent, col.
`
`1:45–59, 8:65–9:7; ’342 patent, col. 1:64–2:15, 13:25–34 (“Of course, any suitable
`
`microcontroller known in the art can be substituted for microcontroller U1 without departing
`
`from the spirit or scope of the present invention.”); ’786 patent, col. 8:33–39; ’342 patent, col.
`
`12:60–66 (“Each of these ports could be embodied by any suitable electrical connector known in
`
`the art.”); ’342 patent, col. 38:15–18 (“As discussed above, the wireless link could be any
`
`suitable wireless communications link. . . . .”); ’786 patent, col. 18:63–19:3; ’342 patent, col.
`
`24:38–47 (“It will be appreciated that various other code portions can be developed for
`
`converting signals from any after-market or OEM car stereo for use by an after-market external
`
`audio device, and vice versa.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit has ruled that representative claims may be relied on by a district
`
`court when conducting the Alice analysis, so that analysis focuses on whether the patent in issue
`
`describes and claims a new, inventive apparatus or method beyond the abstract idea.4 Here, the
`
`claims do not, as the patents themselves in essence admit, and therefore they are ineligible for
`
`patenting.
`
`B.
`
`The Court’s Claim Construction Order
`
`On September 13, 2016, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
`
`construing the claim terms of Blitzsafe’s ’786 and ’342 patents. See generally D.E. 146.
`
` Consistent with the Blitzsafe patent specifications, the Court construed the “interface” of
`
`the ’786 patent claims and “integration subsystem” of the ’342 patent claims as implemented
`
`
`4 All the asserted claims of the Blitzsafe patents are “substantially similar and linked to the
`same abstract idea.” See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (citation omitted); see also
`eDekka, 2015 WL 5579840, at *1–2; Clear with Computers, 2015 WL 993392, at *1–2.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:
` 12537
`
`simply by a generic “microcontroller” which processes signals, audio, and/or video information
`
`so that data from portable devices can be processed into a format that can be displayed on a car
`
`stereo/video system, and control signals from the car stereo/video system can be processed into a
`
`format that can be used to control the external devices.5 Notably, none of the constructions
`
`describes the interface or integration system as including any specific, non-conventional software
`
`or other component for implementing the described data conversion functions and audio/video
`
`device integration. To the contrary, as the Court noted, the claimed “interface” of the ’786
`
`patent is merely “a device that includes a microcontroller . . . which integrates an external
`
`aftermarket device with a car stereo.” Id. at 18–19, 22–23. That “interface” is not limited to any
`
`particular configuration, but can be installed behind the vehicle dashboard, “either at production
`
`time or thereafter,” or can be external to the “car stereo,” or also physically separate from the
`
`“physical devices” that make-up the “car stereo,” and “the claims do not require a specific type
`
`of connector or connection between the interface and the car stereo.” Id. at 21. The “interface”
`
`is only required by the Court’s construction to include a microcontroller that “contains
`
`processing logic.” Id. at 22.
`
`Similarly, the Court noted that the claimed “integration subsystem” of the ’342 patent is
`
`merely a “subsystem configured to integrate an external device with a car audio/video system” that
`
`may include any suitable microcontroller, regardless of whether it is part of or separate from the car
`
`stereo. Id. at 30–31 (“The integration subsystem 932 contains circuitry similar to the circuitry
`
`disclosed in the various embodiments of the present invention discussed herein, and could include a
`
`
`5 The terms “integration” and “integrating” were construed as “[c]onnecting one or more
`external devices or inputs to an existing [car radio or stereo or car stereo or video system] via an
`interface, processing and handling [signals and audio channels or signals, audio, and/or video
`information], allowing a user to control the devices via the [car stereo or car stereo or video
`system], and displaying data from the devices on the [radio or car stereo or video system].” See
`id. at 10.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:
` 12538
`
`PIC16F872 or PIC16F873 microcontroller manufactured by Microchip, Inc. and programmed in
`
`accordance with the flowchart discussed below with respect to FIG 24.” (quoting ’342 Patent, col.
`
`34:63–35:1)).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Blitzsafe patents claim nothing more than the abstract idea of converting data from
`
`one format into a different format to permit incompatible devices, such as Smartphones and MP3
`
`music players and automobile audio/video systems, to communicate and be integrated with each
`
`other. And the claimed components that implement this abstract idea are described in the patents
`
`themselves as conventional, are not otherwise limited in the claims to specific, non-conventional
`
`means of accomplishing this result, and accordingly are invalid.
`
`A.
`
`The Blitzsafe Patents Claim Only The Abstract Idea Of Converting Data
`From One Format To Another
`
`In Gottschalk v. Benson, the Supreme Court ruled that claims such as those asserted by
`
`Blitzsafe for a method of programming a general-purpose digital computer to convert signals
`
`from one format to another are abstract, and not statutory. 409 U.S. 63, 64–72 (1972). The
`
`Federal Circuit has similarly noted that such claims are “‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible
`
`concept.” Elec. Power Group v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he
`
`claims do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information
`
`in a particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical
`
`means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer
`
`and network technology. The claims, defining a desirable information-based result and not
`
`limited to inventive means of achieving the result, fail under 101.”).
`
`The specifications of Blitzsafe’s patents describe the claimed invention as an “integration
`
`system” that receives data in a known format (e.g., that used by a car audio/video system),
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:
` 12539
`
`processes the data into a second known format (e.g., that used by a portable device), and
`
`transmits the converted data so that a portable media device can be integrated with an automobile
`
`audio/video system. See supra The Blitzsafe Patents, Part A (“Commands generated at the
`
`control panel are received by the present invention and converted into a format recognizable by
`
`the after-market audio device. The formatted commands are executed by the audio device, and
`
`audio therefrom is channeled to the car stereo. Information from the audio device is received by
`
`the present invention, converted into a format recognizable by the car stereo and forwarded to the
`
`car stereo for display thereby.” (citing, e.g., ’786 patent, col. 1:36–2:18, 2:35–42, 4:47–52, 5:1–
`
`14, 8:16–27; ’342 patent, col. 1:54–2:54, 3:7–14, 8:64–9:3, 9:21–36, 12:43–54)).
`
`The Blitzsafe patent claims merely describe systems that use a microprocessor for
`
`transforming information from one format to another format. This is an abstract idea that is non-
`
`statutory and the claims are accordingly ineligible for patenting under Alice. See Benson, 409
`
`U.S. at 64–72; Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351–54; Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d
`
`1315, 1317, 1319–20, 1330–33 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (claims describing a central processor receiving
`
`data and “processing information through a clearinghouse”); Novo Transforma Technologies,
`
`LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., Nos. 14-612-RGA, -613-RGA, -614-RGA, -615-RGA, -616-RGA,
`
`2015 WL 5156526, at *1, *3 (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2015) (claims describing a “process for delivering
`
`messages from a sender to recipient over a communication network where the message is
`
`converted as necessary to an alternate format”), aff’d, Nos. 2015-2012, -2013, -2014, -2015,
`
`-2016, 2016 WL 5335040, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016).6
`
`
`6 See also Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 990–
`92 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims describing “obtaining data transaction information,” “forming a
`plurality of different exploded data transactions,” and “sending said different exploded data
`transactions over a channel”); TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., No. 13–1703–LPS, 2015 WL
`1927696, at *8–13 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2015) (claims describing “receiving a message from one
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:
` 12540
`
`B.
`
`The ’786 And ’342 Patents Describe And Claim Conventional Systems And
`Components That Do Not Embody Any Inventive Concepts
`
`Limiting patent claims, as both Blitzsafe patents do, to a particular technological
`
`environment that is not otherwise inventive, does not transform the claims into a patentable
`
`application of an otherwise abstract idea. Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351–54; In re TLI
`
`Comms. LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MCRO, Inc. v.
`
`Bandai Namco Games America Inc., Nos. 2015-1080, 2015-1101, 2016 WL 4759200, at *8
`
`(Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) (“We therefore look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a
`
`specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result
`
`or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.”).
`
`Following the second part of the Alice analysis requires the court to identify a system or method
`
`that encompasses an “inventive advance.” 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If a claim is essentially directed to
`
`an abstract idea, in this case to converting signals from one format to another, but uses a
`
`conventional system and components to implement the abstract idea, it is ineligible for
`
`patenting. Here, the patents themselves state that only conventional components are used, and
`
`applying the step two analysis of Alice confirms that the subject matter claimed is ineligible.
`
`The claims of the Blitzsafe patents are directed to an abstract idea implemented by conventional
`
`and generic systems, functions, and components, and are accordingly non-statutory and invalid.
`
`The specification of a patent is particularly useful to determine what is well-known or
`
`conventional, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., Nos. 2015-1769, -1770, -1771,
`
`2016 WL 5539870, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016), and here, both patent specifications
`
`device, converting its layout to ensure compatibility with the destination device, and then
`sending it to the destination device”), adopted in relevant part, 2015 WL 4730907, at *1–2 (D.
`Del. Aug. 10, 2015); Yodlee Inc. v. Plaid Technologies Inc., No. 14-1445-LPS, 2016 WL
`2982503, at *25 (D. Del. May 23, 2016) (claims describing “transforming data from one form to
`another”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:
` 12541
`
`expressly state that the systems are made up of nothing more than conventional computer
`
`components and technologies. Those specifications state, for example, that the claimed systems
`
`may use “any suitable microcontroller,” “any suitable electrical connector,” “any suitable
`
`wireless communications link,” and any data conversion software “for converting signals from
`
`any after-market or OEM car stereo for use by an after-market external audio device, and vice
`
`versa.” See supra The Blitzsafe Patents, Part A (citing ’786 patent, col. 1:45–59, 8:65–9:7,
`
`8:33–39, 18:63–19:3; ’342 patent, col. 1:64–2:15, 12:60–66, 13:25–34, 24:38–47, 38:15–18).
`
`Both specifications acknowledge in no uncertain terms that the claimed systems can be
`
`rearranged and reconfigured as desired to accomplish the integration of any stereo or video
`
`system (“all presently existing car stereos and radios”) with any portable media device (“any
`
`conceivable audio device or input source, in any desired combination”), and that the claims are
`
`not limited to any specific, non-conventional method or configuration for accomplishing the
`
`claimed result. See, e.g., ’786 patent, col. 5:1–14, 8:16–27; ’342 patent, col. 9:21–36, 12:43–54.
`
`This Court has in fact expressly declined to construe the claims of either patent as being limited
`
`to any specific data format or component design. See supra The Blitzsafe Patents, Part B.
`
`The claimed “interface” and “integration subsystem” are, in fact, indisputably
`
`conventional and interchangeable, and accordingly do not describe an inventive concept that
`
`transforms them into statutory subject matter. See In re TLI Comms., 823 F.3d at 612–13 (“The
`
`specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead
`
`predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms. . . .”); Affinity Labs
`
`of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015–2080, 2016 WL 5335502, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23,
`
`2016) (“Affinity makes no claim that it invented any of those components or their basic
`
`functions, nor does it suggest that those components, at that level of generality, were unknown in
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:
` 12542
`
`the art as of the priority date of the ’085 patent.”). “Nothing in the claims, understood in light of
`
`the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and
`
`display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information.” Elec. Power
`
`Group, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d
`
`1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims ‘add’ only generic computer components such as
`
`an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and ‘database.’ These generic computer components do not satisfy the
`
`inventive concept requirement.”); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, Nos. 2015-
`
`1845, -1846, -1847, -1848, 2016 WL 5335501, at *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) (“The ’379
`
`patent claims the function of wirelessly communicating regional broadcast content to an out-of-
`
`region recipient, not a particular way of performing that function. . . . There is nothing in claim 1
`
`that is directed to how to implement out-of-region broadcasting on a cellular telephone. Rather,
`
`the claim is drawn to the idea itself.”); In re TLI Comms., 823 F.3d at 611–13 (“[T]he claims
`
`here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are
`
`directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known
`
`environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem
`
`presented by combining [a conventional telephone and computer server].”).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Defendants respectfully submit that the court should, accordingly, grant judgment on the
`
`pleadings finding that the claims asserted in this litigation by Blitzsafe as infringed are not
`
`directed to subject matter eligible for patenting, and are invalid.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 230 Filed 11/07/16 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:
` 12543
`
`Dated: November 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`Texas State Bar No. 00790553
`Peter A. Kerr
`Texas State Bar No. 24076478
`The Dacus Firm, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323
`Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 7