Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1159
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ADP, LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-741-JRG
`(Lead)
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-744-JRG
`(Consolidated)
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`SALESFORCE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THE
`COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 1160
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE ABSTRACT AND UNINVENTIVE ............................ 1
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS DO NOT CLAIM THE PURPORTED
`SOLUTIONS THAT UNILOC IDENTIFIES IN ITS OPPOSITION ................................. 5
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE EVEN UNDER
`UNILOC’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS ...................................................................... 7
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS LACK AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT SUFFICIENT
`TO CONFER PATENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER STEP TWO OF ALICE .......................... 9
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 1161
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Grandstream Networks, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-0110-RCJ-PAL, 2016 WL 6090726 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) ................................ 4
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................................................................................................... 1, 4, 9
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`Appeal No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) ........................................ 5
`
`Audio MPEG, Inc. v. HP Inc.,
`Nos. 2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK & 2:16-cv-00082-HCM-RJK, 2016 WL 7010947 (E.D. Va.
`July 1, 2016) ................................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Clear with Computers LLC v. Altec Indus.,
`Nos. 6:14-cv-79 & 6:14-cv-89, 2015 WL 993392 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015)............................. 6
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. LG Elecs, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 1106438 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2016) .............................. 2
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`Nos. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP & 2:14-cv-912-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4768827 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8,
`2016)................................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Cunningham v. Tennessee Cancer Specialists, PLLC,
`957 F. Supp. 2d 899 (E.D. Tenn. 2013) ........................................................................................ 5
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotel.com, Inc.,
`954 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .................................................................................. 2, 4, 7
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ 1, 2, 4, 7
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 1, 2, 4, 7
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd,
`No. 2:14-cv-33-JRG, 2016 WL 5422737 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) ........................................ 4
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 1162
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
`Appeal nos. 2014-1435, 2014-1531, & 2015-1186, 2016 WL 3974203 (Fed. Cir. July 25,
`2016)................................................................................................................................................ 3
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack, LLC,
`Nos. 2:15-cv-727-JRG-RSP & 2:15-cv-1216-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 5719697 (E.D. Tex. Sept.
`21, 2016) ......................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-01754, Dkt. No. 23 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2016) ...................................................... 10
`
`Personalized Media Commuc'ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-01366, Dkt. No. 34 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2015)........................................................ 10
`
`Preservation Wellness Techs. LLC v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions,
`2:15-cv-1559-WCB, 2016 WL 2742379 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2016) .......................................... 7
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Voda v. Cordis Corp.,
`536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ...................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 1163
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`“Mot.” refers to Salesforce’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (Case
`No. 2:16-cv-744, D.I. 24).
`
`“Opp.” refers to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Salesforce’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for
`Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 74).
`
`“‘578 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,324,578, provided as Exhibit A to Uniloc’s Complaint
`(D.I. 1-1).
`
`“‘293 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 7,069,293, provided as Exhibit B to Uniloc’s Complaint
`(D.I. 1-2).
`
`“‘466 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466, provided as Exhibit C to Uniloc’s Complaint
`(D.I. 1-3).
`
`“‘766 Patent” refers to U.S. Patent No. 6,728,766, provided as Exhibit D to Uniloc’s Complaint
`(D.I. 1-4).
`
`
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 1164
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s claims are ineligible for patenting because they apply generic computer
`
`technologies to routine business practices to yield expected benefits. Contrary to Uniloc’s
`
`central argument (Opp. at 1, 10-11), Uniloc’s claims do not “solve a problem particular to
`
`computers” because centrally licensing and distributing software is no different than centrally
`
`licensing and distributing any products or services. By Uniloc’s own admission, its patents
`
`address traditional problems that have long faced businesses: configuring, distributing, and
`
`managing access to products or services for an array of geographically dispersed customers.
`
`(Opp. at 2.) And in Uniloc’s own words, its patents overcome these challenges with traditional
`
`solutions: “centralized management,” “configurable preferences,” “automating the software life
`
`cycle,” “increased uniformity,” “on-demand” service, and greater “mobility.” (Id. at 2, 5, 24-
`
`25.) Uniloc’s patents do not identify any new computer hardware or unique computer algorithm
`
`for achieving these solutions, but rather only claim generic client-server network components
`
`that the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have repeatedly confirmed are insufficient to confer
`
`patent eligibility. Salesforce’s motion to dismiss should be granted.
`
`I.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE ABSTRACT AND UNINVENTIVE
`
`Within both steps of the Alice framework, Uniloc repeats buzzwords from recent Federal
`
`Circuit cases to argue that its patents provide “computer-based solutions” to “computer-based
`
`problems,” and that the patents improve the “ways computers operate.” (Opp. at 10, 12, 16, 18-
`
`22, 25-29.) Not so: the problems addressed by Uniloc’s patents are the same problems found in
`
`the brick-and-mortar analogues described in Salesforce’s motion. The cases on which Uniloc
`
`relies, by contrast, involve uniquely technical solutions to problems with no brick-and-mortar
`
`analog, and are therefore inapposite. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1329
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (deployment of self-referential database); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com
`
`L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (retaining webpage visitors); Bascom Global Internet
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 1165
`
`
`
`Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (ISP server-based Internet
`
`filtering tool); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (“automated three-dimensional computer animation”); Audio MPEG, Inc. v. HP Inc., 2016
`
`WL 7010947, at *5 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2016) (“solv[ing] a problem that the MPEG Audio
`
`standards-setting organization identified”); Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 4768827, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016) (“specific type of packet traffic-metering”).
`
`More specifically, an engineer or businessperson from the early 1900s would have had
`
`difficulties comprehending a “self-referential database” (Enfish) or a need to keep users engaged
`
`by a website while presenting third-party vendor content (DDR Holdings), since these problems
`
`and solutions are unique to the modern computer environment. However, the same engineer or
`
`businessperson would easily recognize the abstract solutions offered by Uniloc’s purported
`
`inventions: centralized distribution and management of products and information aimed to
`
`“reduce costs and increase uniformity.” (Opp. at 5.) They would further recognize the problems
`
`allegedly identified in the specification (diverse customers demanding customized products), and
`
`would readily understand how the proposed solutions (providing a menu of options, customizing
`
`a product for a customer, controlling access to a product based on a policy, or using centralized
`
`distribution) would provide the same benefits in conventional environments.
`
`Uniloc’s challenges to Salesforce’s brick-and-mortar analogies are unavailing. Uniloc
`
`argues that the claimed patents “require only a single actor while the analogies provided by
`
`Salesforce largely require multiple actors” (Opp. at 22), and repeats the argument that the
`
`asserted patents “recite[] inherent computer-related limitations” or are “inherently electronic”
`
`and that Salesforce “delete[s] all computer-related limitations” (Opp. at 8-10, 15-17). But
`
`reducing the number of human “actors” required to implement an abstract idea (i.e., the process
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 1166
`
`
`
`of automation) is not inventive. See, e.g., LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 2016 WL 3974203,
`
`at *5 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) (“It is well settled . . . that automating conventional activities
`
`using generic technology does not amount to an inventive concept. ”). Further, generic computer
`
`implementation alone does not rescue the claims from being directed to abstract ideas.
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he inability
`
`for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability.”).1
`
`Uniloc wrongly relies on Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack, LLC in asserting that
`
`Salesforce’s analogies “delete all computer-related limitations.” (Opp. at 8-9, 15-17.) Instead,
`
`consistent with the Court’s guidance, Salesforce “substantively engage[d] with the role played by
`
`the computer limitations” and substituted their brick-and-mortar equivalents to demonstrate that
`
`each of the asserted patents claims a business practice that pre-dates the Internet. See
`
`Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack, LLC, 2016 WL 5719697, at *5-6 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016). In
`
`particular, Salesforce’s analogies address every claimed element, including terms like
`
`“application program” and “file packet” on which Uniloc places so much emphasis. (Compare
`
`Mot. at 11 (“The university receives . . . a selection of . . . academic program(s)”), 20 (“a
`
`package for shipping”) with Opp. at 10 (“[i]mportantly, this claim recites inherent computer-
`
`related limitations, such as ‘receiving at the server a selection of one of the . . . application
`
`programs’”), 18 (“[n]otably, the claim recites . . . a file packet”).) Every facet of Salesforce’s
`
`
`1 Uniloc’s reliance on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. LG Elecs, Inc., 2016 WL 1106438
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2016) is flawed. There, the issue was not that the asserted claims included
`the computing terms identified by Uniloc—“application,” “summary window,” and “unlaunched
`state” (Opp. at 10, 20)—but that these computing terms (and not analog concepts outside the
`context of computers and cell phones) were found in the purportedly abstract idea identified by
`the defendant. Id. at *4. No such computer elements are found in the abstract ideas identified
`by Salesforce, and Uniloc does not contest these brick-and-mortar concepts are not abstract, but
`only whether the asserted patents describe the same ideas.
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 1167
`
`
`
`analogies achieve the same results as the asserted patents: providing multiple offerings to
`
`customers, catering to customer preferences, maintaining and enforcing company policies, and
`
`effectively distributing offerings from a centralized location. (Mot. at 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20.)
`
`The fact that Salesforce was able to couch these benefits in the brick-and-mortar context only
`
`confirms that the asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas.
`
`Salesforce’s analogies are similarly distinguishable from the analogy found inadequate in
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd., in which the Court found defendant failed to
`
`account for the fact that “[a] human cannot . . . successfully interwork between IP telephony
`
`protocols during a real-time audio call.” See 2016 WL 5422737, at *37-39 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29,
`
`2016); see also 2-Way Computing, Inc. v. Grandstream Networks, Inc., 2016 WL 6090726, at *4
`
`(D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) (finding the claims to be patent eligible because “converting sound to
`
`electronically stored information . . . is not something that can be done without the claimed
`
`apparatus (or a similar apparatus)”).2 Here, in contrast, Uniloc has identified no inaccuracies in
`
`Salesforce’s discussion of Uniloc’s claims or shortcomings with its analogies. Accordingly,
`
`Salesforce’s analysis under the first step of Alice, including analogous case law that Uniloc
`
`entirely fails to address,3 demonstrates that the claims are directed to business practices that pre-
`
`
`2 Uniloc’s Opposition also relies on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotel.com, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 509
`(E.D. Tex. 2013). That decision was pre-Alice and applied the outdated “manifestly abstract”
`test. See id. at 527. Further, while agreeing with the district court’s conclusion, the Federal
`Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo and did not adopt the district court’s
`reasoning. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1255-60. And, as explained above, the present case is
`distinguishable from the Federal Circuit’s decision because the patents asserted here do not solve
`“a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. at 1257.
`
`3 Absent from Uniloc’s Opp. is any discussion of or attempt to distinguish the cases Salesforce
`cited that found patents analogous to the asserted patents were directed to abstract idea s. (See
`Mot. at 12, 16, 18-19, 21.) As the Federal Circuit recently noted, both it “and the Supreme Court
`have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed
`to an abstract idea in previous cases.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1334 (emphasis added). “It is well
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 1168
`
`
`
`date the Internet and therefore claim abstract ideas.
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS DO NOT CLAIM THE PURPORTED SOLUTIONS
`THAT UNILOC IDENTIFIES IN ITS OPPOSITION
`
`Uniloc repeatedly argues that its patents “solve a problem particular to computers,
`
`namely providing application programs to roaming users who login from different clients with
`
`varying hardware and operating systems.” (Opp. at 11.) The asserted claims, however, are in no
`
`way directed to—and certainly are not limited to—solving this problem, but instead preempt the
`
`general use of generic computer technology to practice fundamental business practices. Here,
`
`Uniloc ignores the Federal Circuit’s repeated guidance that “[t]he § 101 inquiry must focus on
`
`the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839
`
`F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also id. (“While [plaintiff] may be correct that the
`
`inventions of the [asserted] [p]atents were intended to be used in conjunction with computer-
`
`based design tools, the Asserted Claims are not confined to that conception.”); Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). An examination of the
`
`asserted claims, none of which is directed to “roaming users” or a “heterogeneous network”
`
`(Opp. at 11, 15, 17), reveals that Uniloc’s patents claim unpatentable abstract ideas.4
`
`
`understood ... that when a plaintiff files an opposition to a dispositive motion and addresses only
`certain arguments raised by the defendant, a court may treat those arguments that the plaintiff
`failed to address as conceded.” Cunningham v. Tennessee Cancer Specialists, PLLC, 957 F.
`Supp. 2d 899, 921 (E.D. Tenn. 2013); see also Mascarella v. CPlace Univ. SNF, LLC, 2015 WL
`2414518, at *12 (M.D. La. May 20, 2015) (“In the Fifth Circuit, arguments not raised in
`opposition to a motion are waived.” (citing Texas Commercial Energy v. TXU Energy, Inc., 413
`F.3d 503, 510 (5th Cir.2005))).
`
`4 The asserted claims are, on this basis, also distinguishable from the claims found patent
`eligible in Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1,
`2016). There, the Federal Circuit previously affirmed the district court’s narrowing construction
`of all claims to require that processing be performed “in a distributed fashion” and “close to the
`source of network information,” limitations that the Federal Circuit now concluded conferred an
`inventive concept. Id. at *9-11 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, in contrast, and as
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 1169
`
`
`
`With respect to the ‘293 and ‘578 patents, Uniloc exclusively relies on the specification
`
`to describe the purported “problem” that is being addressed. (Opp. at 14-15, 18-19.) Uniloc
`
`never alleges that the claims of these patents actually require “roaming users” using “varying
`
`hardware and operating systems.” (Opp. at 10.)5 For the ‘766 patent, Uniloc simply proposes a
`
`non-limiting construction by reordering the words of the “license management policy
`
`information” limitation into “license use . . . managed by setting certain policies” and adding
`
`non-limiting examples (“such as the limit of the number of users, whether crossing the limit of
`
`users is allowed or not and how users are counted”). (Opp. at 16 (emphasis added).) Moreover,
`
`none of the actual limitations in the claims of the ‘766 patent are directed to solving the problem
`
`of “roaming users accessing application[s] from different client stations.” (Opp. at 22.)
`
`Finally, for the ‘466 patent, Uniloc attempts to import large swaths of the specification
`
`into the claims, arguing that “an instance” of an application program ought to be construed as “a
`
`modified version of an application program that is adapted to the type of hardware and/or
`
`operating system from which a user requests execution.” (Opp. at 12, 22.) But Uniloc makes no
`
`attempt at showing why it would be permissible to import such language from the specification,
`
`such as by showing that the patentees acted as their own lexicographer. See, e.g., Voda v. Cordis
`
`Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]his court has cautioned against importing
`
`
`further explained below, Uniloc makes no effort to allege that the claims of the ‘578, ‘766, or
`‘293 patent require a “heterogeneous network,” and, for the ’466 patent, improperly attempts to
`import a description of “an embodiment” into the claims. See ‘466 patent, col. 6:12-14.
`
`5 Uniloc states that the ‘578 patent specification “discloses that ‘preferences’ can relate to” the
`heterogeneous network problems it claims the patents solve, but does not (and cannot) allege that
`the claims of the ‘578 patent require any such thing. In fact, Uniloc’s infringement contentions
`identify a user’s ID—i.e., their name—as an example of a “configurable preference[].” But
`brick-and-mortar vendors regularly adjust their offerings in the same way. See Clear with
`Computers LLC v. Altec Indus., 2015 WL 993392, at *1–2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015).
`
`
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 1170
`
`
`
`limitations from the specification into the claims.”). Nor could it, as the discussion in the
`
`specification Uniloc cites to is just “an embodiment of the present invention.” See ‘466 patent,
`
`col. 6:12-14. Accordingly, none of the claims of the asserted patents solves any problem specific
`
`to, or with any connection to, a client-server network architecture with diverse and
`
`geographically dispersed users. As such, they do not “overcome a problem arising in the realm
`
`of computer networks” as in DDR Holdings), nor do they “improve[] . . . the functioning of a
`
`computer,” and are thus further distinguishable from the claims found patent eligible in Enfish.
`
`III. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE EVEN UNDER UNILOC’S
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Even under Uniloc’s proposed “constructions,” the claims of the asserted patents still
`
`address problems known outside of the computer arts, using solutions known outside of the
`
`computer arts, to achieve benefits known outside of the computer arts and are thus directed to
`
`patent ineligible subject matter. See Preservation Wellness Techs. LLC v. Allscripts Healthcare
`
`Solutions, 2016 WL 2742379, at *6 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2016) (“Even accepting [patentee’s]
`
`definitions, the Court holds that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.”).
`
`The method claimed in the ‘766 Patent is analogous to a video rental store maintaining a
`
`policy on borrowing videos. (Mot. at 18.) Even adopting Uniloc’s proposed construction, that
`
`the claimed “license management policy information” requires “license use . . . managed by
`
`setting certain policies, such as the limit of the number of users, whether crossing the limit of
`
`users is allowed or not and how users are counted” (Opp. at 16), a video rental store is
`
`analogous. Like Uniloc’s server, the video rental store controls the borrowing of videos by
`
`“setting certain policies,” including the exemplary policies in Uniloc’s construction, such as by
`
`limiting the number of copies that can be borrowed. Contrary to Uniloc’s assertion that the
`
`“general character of the patent” is not “merely a series of steps that can be accomplished by a
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 1171
`
`
`
`video rental store” (Opp. at 16-17), the claimed method, even under Uniloc’s proposed
`
`construction, has been performed by human beings for decades.
`
`The ‘293 Patent is subject to a similar analogy: the centralized distribution system of a
`
`video rental company. (Mot. at 20.) Even adopting Uniloc’s construction that the claimed
`
`“segment configured to initiate registration operations” includes a “variable field,” an “import
`
`data file,” a “call to an import program,” and a “profile manager import call” (Opp. at 19, 29),
`
`any indexing system (whether for videos or computer files) will have “fields” to specify sources
`
`and destinations, “data files” e.g., for recordkeeping, and “calls” (i.e., instructions), such as
`
`shelving instructions to be performed under certain conditions.
`
`The ‘466 Patent’s method, similarly, fits Salesforce’s university course catalog analogy
`
`even under Uniloc’s construction, which would require providing “a modified version of an
`
`application program that is adapted to the type of hardware and/or operating system from which
`
`a user requests execution.” (Opp. at 12.) For example, universities know better than to enroll an
`
`undergraduate engineering major in medical courses available to graduate medical students—
`
`different students get different courses. Salesforce’s analogy thus does not “gloss over and fail
`
`to capture” (Opp. at 22) the concept that different customers may seek different products.
`
`Finally, the method of the ‘578 Patent can be analogized to a travel agent preparing
`
`reservations for a business trip, and Uniloc’s construction does not change this outcome. (Mot.
`
`at 14-15.) First, as explained above, Uniloc does not actually propose a narrowing construction
`
`of the claimed “configurable preferences.” Second, the construction Uniloc proposes for the
`
`claimed “application launcher program” (Opp. at 28) is remarkably broad: an “entire program
`
`. . . or . . . merely a portion thereof,” which “may only include a URL and an associated ICON,”
`
`to “allow obtaining of user identification and password information.” Id. While this
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 1172
`
`
`
`terminology comes from the computer arts, it is the computer equivalent of the top line of a
`
`reservation order form—e.g., entry blanks for an employee’s name—and nothing more.
`
`More generally, even if the claims of all the asserted patents were construed to require a
`
`network of roaming users on differing devices, limiting the claims to a particular technological
`
`environment (heterogeneous networks) does not render them patent eligible. See Alice Corp.
`
`Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014) (“[L]imiting the use of an abstract idea
`
`to a particular technological environment” is “not enough for patent eligibility” (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted)). Here, even if the claims did require a heterogeneous network (they
`
`do not), the asserted patents would still only claim a desired outcome using functional language
`
`and would not be limited to a particular manner of bringing about this outcome—a “frequent
`
`feature” of patent ineligible claims. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language
`
`has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under § 101, especially in the area of using
`
`generic computer and network technology to carry out economic transactions.”); Internet Patents
`
`Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims directed to a
`
`solution but with “no restriction on how the result is accomplished” not eligible for patenting.). 6
`
`IV.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS LACK AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT SUFFICIENT
`TO CONFER PATENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER STEP TWO OF ALICE
`
`
`
`Uniloc’s arguments regarding inventive concept under step two of the Alice framework
`
`fare no better. The bulk of Uniloc’s arguments rehash its assertion from step one, arguing by
`
`citation to the specification, not the claims, that the asserted patents address problems associated
`
`
`6 So even if the Court adopts, for example, Uniloc’s proposed claim construction for the ‘466
`patent (Opp. at 12), the resultant claim would only “describe[] the effect or result disassociated
`from any method by which [this result] is accomplished,” i.e., the claim would preempt all
`methods by which “a modified version of an application program” can be provided.
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 1173
`
`
`
`with a heterogeneous network of roaming users. (Opp. at 24-30.) As explained above, however,
`
`none of the asserted patents actually claim such a solution. Apart from repeating its argument
`
`from step one, Uniloc lists arbitrary claim limitations and then states that they are not generic.
`
`(Opp. at 23-25.) These statements, however, are bald assertions without any case law or
`
`evidence cited in their support. (Compare id. with Mot. at 25-28 (citing specific cases to show
`
`analogous claim limitations have been deemed generic).)
`
`
`
`Unable to affirmatively identify any inventive concepts, Uniloc resorts to
`
`mischaracterizing Salesforce’s motion as “cherry pick[ing] certain claim language and
`
`declar[ing] those actions generic.” (Opp. at 29.) But Salesforce’s motion addressed how all
`
`limitations of the claims at issue are nothing more than generic computer hardware and software
`
`by citing to analogous examples in the case law (none of which Uniloc disputes) and explaining
`
`how the asserted patents’ specification admits that even particular embodiments of each
`
`limitation were well known (which Uniloc also does not dispute). (Mot. at 23-28.) This includes
`
`the “file packet” and “segment configured to initiate registration operations” that Uniloc
`
`highlights. (Opp. at 30.) Further, the claim limitations do not disclose how their particular
`
`arrangement is “a technical improvement over prior art ways” of accomplishing abstract ideas,
`
`and are thus distinguishable from the claims deemed patent eligible in Bascom. (Mot. at 28-29.)7
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons above, the complaint should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`
`7 Unlike the present case, in the PMC cases cited by Uniloc the defendants did not substantively
`address why the claim limitations, in combination, lacked an inventive concept. See Apple Inc.’s
`Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Personalized Media Commuc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:15-
`cv-01366, Dkt. No. 34, at 20-24 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2015); Samsung Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)
`Motion to Dismiss, Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:15-
`cv-01754, Dkt. No. 23, at 10-11 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2016).
`
`03340-00005/8592843.5
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 101 Filed 12/02/16 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 1174
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 2, 2016
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ J. Mark Mann
`
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Str