Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 787
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-741 (JRG)
`
`
`CONSOLIDATED LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-744 (JRG)
`
`
`MEMBER CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO SALESFORCE.COM, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADP, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SALESFORCE.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2A80180
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 788
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ...................................... 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 6 
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 8 
`A. 
`Step 1: The Asserted Patents Claim Patentable Subject Matter ............................. 8 
`B. 
`The Asserted Patents are Directed Toward an Improvement in the Way
`Computers Operate ............................................................................................... 19 
`Step 2: The Claims of the Asserted Patents Add an Inventive Concept ............... 23 
`The Specific Components Recited in the Claims Perform Specific
`a. 
`Functions Within a Network ..................................................................... 27 
`Salesforce Has Failed to Sustain its Burden that the Generic
`Components, as Arranged in the Asserted Claims, Does Not
`Amount to an Inventive Concept .............................................................. 29 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30 
`
`b.  
`
`C. 
`
` 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 789
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`2-Way Computing, Inc., v. Grandstream Networks, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-0111-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) .................................................................... 19
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ...................................................................................................... passim
`Audio MPEG, Inc. v. HP, Inc.,
`2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK (E.D. Va. Jun. 29, 2016) ............................................................... 21
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 7
`Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11687 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 27, 2016) ........................................... 7, 23, 27, 30
`Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123232 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016) .................................... 10, 12, 14, 19
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... passim
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ................................................................................................................... 6
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) .............................................. 1, 8, 9, 19
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) ............................................. passim
`In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Pat. Lit.,
`774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 8
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................................................... 7
`McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games AM. Inc.,
`2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) ............................................................................ 9
`Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack LLC,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667 (E.D. Tex., July 7, 2016) ................................................ passim
`Personalized Media Communs., LLC v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135669 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) ........................................ 23, 29, 30
`
`Rules 
`35 U.S.C. §101 .......................................................................................................................... 1, 21
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 790
`
`Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together “Uniloc” or
`
`“Plaintiffs”), respectfully submit this opposition to the motion of Defendant, salesforce.com, inc.
`
`(“Defendant” or “Salesforce”), to dismiss for failure to state a claim (“Motion” or “Mot.”). For
`
`the reasons set forth herein, the Motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`The claims of the 6, 510, 466 Patent (“’466 Patent”), 6,728,766 Patent (“’766
`Patent”), 6,324,578 Patent (“’578 Patent), 7,069,293 Patent (“’293 Patent”)
`(collectively “Asserted Patents”) are not directed to abstract ideas and, therefore,
`are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents include inventive concepts and, therefore, are
`patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`
`As explained in detail below, the Asserted Patents solve particular problems in the
`
`computer field, thus rendering them patent eligible. See Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2016
`
`U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, at *21 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (“claims [that] are directed to a specific
`
`implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” are not invalid under Section
`
`101). Even assuming, however that the Asserted Patent are directed to an abstract idea, the facts
`
`of this case are like those in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit upheld a claim as a patent-eligible inventive
`
`concept where the claimed solution was “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
`
`overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” because “it
`
`amount[ed] to an inventive concept for resolving this particular Internet-centric problem.” Id. at
`
`1259.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 791
`
`The Original Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) was filed on July 8, 2016
`
`and alleges infringement of the Asserted Patents. See Dkt. No. 1.1 In the Complaint, Uniloc
`
`asserts claims 1, 2, 7, 15-17, 22, 30 and 35 of the ’466 Patent, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and
`
`17 of the ’766 Patent, claims 1-8, 10-24, 26-39, and 41-46 of the ’578 Patent, and claims 1, 12,
`
`and 17 of the ’293 Patent. Id. at ¶¶60, 71, 38, and 49. The Asserted Patents relate to network
`
`management and application management on a computer network. See ’466 Patent at 1:21-23;
`
`’766 Patent at 1:21-23.2 Further, the Asserted Patents are all part of a family of patents drawn
`
`toward addressing the inefficiencies in application management in a client-server environment.
`
`Accordingly, they share similar specifications.
`
`Prior to the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents, many information technology
`
`organizations struggled with application deployment management particularly with the advent of
`
`large, distributed networks. See, e.g., ’578 Patent 1:45-48. Among the problems facing the
`
`industry were: configuring geographically diverse machines running different operating systems;
`
`installing new and updated software in a timely and efficient manner; monitoring software and
`
`data to ensure that they were synchronized with administrative policy; and automating the
`
`software life cycle from development through production. Another major challenge facing the
`
`industry at that time was maintaining proper licensing procedures for existing software
`
`installations. Id. at 1:52-56.
`
`A known approach to reducing software distribution was to use an application server to
`
`store and maintain application programs which may then be transmitted over a network to a
`
`                                                            
`1 Copies of the Asserted Patents were filed with the Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and
`1-4.
`
` The inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents were developed and made by engineers working
`at IBM, the original assignee and owner named on the patents.
`
` 2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 792
`
`plurality of client stations using a software program, such as Systems Management Server
`
`(“SMS”) from Microsoft Corporation. Id. at 1:57-62. However, a customized install was
`
`required each time for each different version of a given application. Id. at 1:67-2:2. Further, an
`
`install was specific to a client station rather than to a given user. Id. at 2:2-3. Moreover,
`
`applications could not be deleted or updated on the station. Id. at 2:3-6. In addition,
`
`combinations of network connections, differing hardware, native applications and network
`
`applications made portability of preferences or operating environment characteristics, which
`
`provide consistency from station to station, difficult. Id. at 2:19-25.
`
`Solutions to other approaches such as Novell’s Z.E.N.works™, Microsoft’s “Zero
`
`Administration” initiative for Windows®, and International Business Machines Corporation’s
`
`Workspace On Demand™ attempted to address the issue of mobility of users within a network
`
`including preference mobility. Id. at 2:35-40. These solutions typically required pre-installation
`
`of software at the station to support their services. Id. at 2:40-42. Some of these solutions were
`
`largely limited to a homogenous environment, where the station and server utilized the same
`
`operating system. Id.at 2:47-49. Traditional mainframe models for centralized management,
`
`such as with the IBM 3270 system or an X Windows environment, only allowed for execution of
`
`applications to occur at the server rather than the client station. Id. at 2:50-55. Each solution
`
`that attempted to address the issue of mobility of users typically did not present application
`
`choices with a given user. Id. at 3:8-11. Instead, they presented information associated with a
`
`given client station. Id. Moreover, users had to either manually define their session
`
`characteristics at each different client station in the network, or maintain local characteristic
`
`definitions which may have been inappropriate for particular executing applications. Id.at 3:11-
`
`17.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 793
`
`The ’466 Patent seeks to resolve the long-standing problem of providing a seamless
`
`integration of application access and session characteristics across heterogeneous networks. See
`
`’466 Patent at 3:21-23. The claimed subject matter of the ’466 Patent is directed to resolving that
`
`problem by providing methods, systems and computer program products for management of
`
`application programs on a network including a server and a client. See, e.g., id. at 21:17-18;
`
`22:57-59; 23:9-10. A plurality of application programs is installed at a server, which receives a
`
`login request from a user at a client. Id. at 21:20-22. A user desktop interface is established at the
`
`client in response to the login request and includes a plurality of display regions associated with
`
`a set of application programs for which the user is authorized. Id. at 21:23-29. The server
`
`receives selection of one of the application programs from the user desktop interface and, in
`
`response, an instance of the selected application program is provided to the client for execution.
`
`Id. at 21:30-35. Thus, the application programs may be installed at the server and an instance of a
`
`selected application program may be provided to a client for execution.
`
`Similarly, the ’766 Patent seeks to resolve a license use management problem associated
`
`with user-based applications in a distributed network environment with a plurality of client
`
`stations and a plurality of users accessing the applications from different clients. See ’766 Patent
`
`at 3:25-31. The claimed subject matter of the patent is directed to resolving the problem by
`
`maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of application programs at a
`
`license management server. Id. at 14:66-15:2. A request is received at the license management
`
`server for a license availability of a selected one of the plurality of application programs. Id. at
`
`15:5-8. The license availability for the selected application program is determined based on the
`
`maintained license management policy information. Id. at 15:8-11. An unavailability indication
`
`is provided to the client responsive to the selection if the license availability indicates that a
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 794
`
`license is not available for the user; or, an availability indication is provided if the license
`
`availability indicates that a license is available. Id. at 15:12-17. This allows for licenses to be
`
`associated with a user, thereby allowing the user to move between different computers while
`
`maintaining a license. Further, this allows for a software designer to change license use policies
`
`depending upon the requesting user. The solution embodied in the ’766 Patent reduces costs and
`
`increases “uniformity in managing software in a network environment by delivering configured
`
`applications when demanded by a user.” Id. at 6:2-5.
`
`
`
`The ’578 Patent seeks to reduce costs and increase uniformity in managing software in a
`
`network environment by delivering configured applications when demanded by a user and
`
`provides “an essentially hardware transparent ability for an individual user to interface to an on-
`
`demand server supported client station while maintaining the user’s personal preferences for
`
`each application program.” ’578 Patent at 6:2-9. The ’578 Patent is directed to resolving that
`
`problem by claiming a method for management of configurable programs on a network. Id. at
`
`14:63-64. An application launcher program having a plurality of configurable preferences and a
`
`plurality of authorized users is installed on a server coupled to the network. Id. at 14:65-67. An
`
`application program associated with the application program is distributed to a client coupled to
`
`the network. Id. at 15:1-3. A user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated with
`
`one of the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program is obtained.
`
`Id. at 15:4-7. In addition, an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences is
`
`obtained from an administrator. Id. at 15:8-9. The application program is then executed using the
`
`obtained user set and the obtained administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences
`
`responsive to a request from the one of the plurality of authorized users. Id. at 15:9-13. This
`
`provides for the desired reduced costs and increased uniformity in managing software in a
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 795
`
`network environment by delivering configured applications when demanded by a user. Id. at 6:2-
`
`5.
`
`
`
`The ’293 Patent provides a solution to the problem of limited capabilities associated with
`
`centralized management of software distribution by providing “a uniform framework for
`
`deployment of new or updated application programs from different software designers.” ’293
`
`Patent at 3:32-34. The claims of the ’293 Patent are directed toward resolving this problem by,
`
`inter alia, providing a method for distribution of application programs to a target on-demand
`
`server on a network. Id. at 21:22-25. An application program to be distributed is provided to a
`
`network management server. Id.at 21:26-30. Source and target directories for distribution of the
`
`application program are specified. Id. at 21:26-30. Further, a file packet associated with the
`
`application program is prepared and includes a segment configured to initiate registration
`
`operations for the application program at the target on-demand server. Id. at 15:30-34. The file
`
`packet is distributed to the target on-demand server to make the application program available
`
`for use by a user at a client. Id.at 15:34-37.
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101, an inventor may obtain a patent for “any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Excluded from patent protection are “laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
`
`“[T]he concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i]s one of pre-emption,” that is, “that
`
`patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building
`
`blocks of human ingenuity.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court recognized, however, that “too broad an
`
`interpretation of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law” because “all inventions
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 796
`
`at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293
`
`(2012). Accordingly, “an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
`
`involves an abstract concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. The abstract-ideas exception does not
`
`apply if the claimed invention “solve[s] a technological problem in ‘conventional industry
`
`practice,’” “improve[s] an existing technological process,” or otherwise “effect[s] an
`
`improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59.
`
`The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for “distinguishing patents that
`
`claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
`
`applications of those concepts.” Id. at 2355. First, a court must “determine whether the claims at
`
`issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts[:]” laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, or abstract ideas. Id. If so, then secondly, the court must “search for an ‘inventive
`
`concept’— i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent
`
`in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id.
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Only when a claim fails both steps is it rendered ineligible
`
`subject matter under Section 101.
`
`The Federal Circuit has cautioned that “it will ordinarily be desirable—and often
`
`necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a §101 analysis, for the determination
`
`of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject
`
`matter.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Even then, claims must be construed in favor of the nonmovant. Bascom
`
`Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11687, at *23 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Jun. 27, 2016). For these reasons, courts often decline to resolve challenges under Section 101
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 797
`
`on a motion to dismiss. The ultimate question of eligibility under Section 101 is an issue of law.
`
`In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Pat. Lit., 774 F.3d 755, 759 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Step 1: The Asserted Patents Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`
`The step 1 analysis applies a “filter to claims, considered in light of the specification
`
`based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish,
`
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, at *11 (internal citations omitted). When “the claims are directed
`
`to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” they are not directed
`
`to an abstract idea. Id. at *21. “To be sure, “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
`
`transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Perdiemco, LLC v.
`
`Industrack LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667 at*16 (E.D. Tex., July 7, 2016) (internal
`
`citations omitted). “But this is not a license to delete all computer-related limitations from a
`
`claim and thereby declare it abstract.” Id. “Moreover, the mere fact that all the recited computer
`
`components are ‘conventional’ because the applicant did not invent an entirely new kind of
`
`computer is not inherently troubling.” Id. at 17. “Instead, the analysis turns on ‘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.” Id.
`
`Salesforce argues that the Asserted Patents are abstract “because they are directed to
`
`fundamental business practices regarding providing tailored offerings to customers and
`
`preventing non-customers from accessing those offerings.” Mot. at 10. This over-generalization
`
`of the Asserted Patents is exactly what the Federal Circuit has cautioned against in an Alice
`
`analysis, warning that “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 798
`
`from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to §101 swallow the rule.”
`
`Enfish, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, at *16; see also McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games AM.
`
`Inc., 2016 WL 4896481, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016)(“[C]ourts must be careful to avoid
`
`oversimplifying the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific
`
`requirements of the claims.”). Salesforce’s over-generalization of the scope of these claims
`
`should be rejected.
`
`As set forth in more detail below, the claimed inventions are directed to remedying
`
`specific problems with prior systems and do not merely invoke generic computer components.
`
`See, e.g., Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659, at
`
`**112-114 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016).
`
`i)
`
`The ’466 Patent
`
`Salesforce alleges that the ’466 Patent is abstract because it “claims the idea of providing a
`
`customer with a list of products or services being offered” and “attempts to monopolize the age-
`
`old idea of providing users with a menu.” “Mot. at 10. In so arguing, Salesforce improperly
`
`reads the indispensable computer limitations out of the claim. See, e.g., Perdiemco, LLC v.
`
`Industrack LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667, at *16 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) (Alice “is not
`
`a license to delete all computer-related limitations from a claim and thereby declare it abstract”).3
`
`Salesforce then compares the steps of claim 1 with an example of a university who displays a list
`
`of available courses to its students. Mot. at 11.
`
`However, claim 1 of the ’466 recites:
`
`1. A method for management of application programs on a network including a
`server and a client comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`                                                            
`3 Adopted by 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134654 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 799
`
`[b] receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`[c] establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with the user
`responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop interface including a
`plurality of display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application
`programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized;
`
`[d] receiving at the server a selection of one of the plurality of application
`programs from the user desktop interface; and
`
`[e] providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application
`programs to the client for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`Importantly, this claim recites inherent computer-related limitations, such as “receiving at
`
`
`
`the server a selection of one of the plurality of application programs from the user desktop
`
`interface, and “providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs
`
`to the client for execution responsive to the selection.” Id. at 21:30-33. Cf. Core Wireless, 2016
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663, at *11 (“concepts of ‘application,’ ‘summary window,’ and
`
`‘unlaunched state’ are specific to devices like computers”). This claim specifically recites a
`
`client server environment where an instance of an application program is provided to a client in
`
`response to selection of the program from a user desktop interface associated with an authorized
`
`user. Notably, the instance of the application program (i.e., executable computer program
`
`instructions) is provided to the client for execution. These steps of the claim are inherently
`
`electronic and not tasks that could be performed by the human hand. See, e.g., Genband, 2016
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659, at **110-111. Neither are they mental processes or methods of
`
`organizing human activity that merely invoke a computer. Rather, they inherently require a
`
`computer because they solve a problem particular to computers, namely providing application
`
`programs to roaming users who login from different clients with varying hardware and operating
`
`systems. Such claims are patent eligible. Core Wireless, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663, at *12
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 800
`
`(claim that “purports to ‘improve the functioning of the computer itself’” is patent eligible)
`
`(citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
`
`
`
`Salesforce then claims that the dependent claims are equally abstract. Salesforce alleges
`
`that the dependent claims merely “add that the list of options available to a customer depends on
`
`the customer’s identity.” Mot. at 12. Salesforce’s argument should be rejected. Claim 2 of the
`
`’466 Patent recites:
`
`A method according to claim 1 further comprising the steps of:
`
`maintaining application management information for the plurality of applications
`at the server; and
`
`wherein the establishing step includes the step of including a plurality of display
`regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs for which the
`user is authorized responsive to the application management information.
`
`’466 Patent at 21:36-45. This dependent claim recites that the display regions associated with
`
`the application programs for which the user is authorized is responsive to application
`
`management information maintained at the server. The elements of this claim are also inherently
`
`electronic and not amenable to tasks performed by a human.
`
`
`
`Further, claim 7 specifically recites:
`
`A method according to claim 1 wherein the establishing a user desktop step includes
`the steps of:
`
`configuring the user desktop interface responsive to an identifier of the user
`associated with the login request so as to provide associated information for the
`user desktop interface; and
`
`providing the user desktop interface and the associated information for the user
`desktop interface to the client for display.
`
`Id. at 22:11-17. This claim recites the user desktop interface is configured responsive to an
`
`identifier of the user associated with the login request so as to provide associated information to
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 801
`
`the interface. Again, the elements of the claim are inherently electronic and not amenable to
`
`tasks performed by a human.
`
`
`
`Further, Salesforce argues that the claims “only add conventional computer activity” to
`
`an already abstract idea. Mot. at 13. However, the claims call for more than that and, in fact,
`
`recite establishing a “user desktop interface” associated with a user that includes “a plurality of
`
`display regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs installed at the
`
`server for which the user is authorized.” Moreover, the claims recite “providing an instance of
`
`the selected one of the plurality of application programs to the client for execution.” The
`
`meaning of the term “an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs” is
`
`important to clarify the general character of the patent as a solution to the problem of providing
`
`seamless integration of application access across heterogeneous networks that is specific enough
`
`to avoid the risk of pre-emption. For example, a proposed construction of the term 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” is not only consistent with the teachings of the ’466 Patent
`
`specification (see id. at 11:4-8) but is also consistent with the plain language of the claim itself.
`
`See claim 1 at 21:17-35, e.g. “application programs” v. “instance of… application program”).
`
`Therefore, the terms recited in the steps of the Claim 1 and those that depend on it are not merely
`
`conventional computer activity, but rather are elements or combination of elements that provide
`
`user mobility in a client-server environment. See Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123232, at *31 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016) (claim “directed to a specific
`
`type of packet traffic-metering that is confined to, and solves problems arising in, mobile device
`
`networks” is “not directed to an abstract idea”).4
`
`                                                            
`4 Adopted by 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122745 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2016).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 74 Filed 11/09/16 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 802
`
`ii)
`
`The ’578 Patent
`
`Salesforce argues that “[t]he ’578 patent claims the abstract idea of customizing a product
`
`based on a customer’s preferences while also accounting for the business’ preferences.” Mot. at
`
`14. Salesforce then compares the limitations of claim 1 to a travel agency who manages business
`
`trips . Id.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’578 Patent recites:
`
`1. A method for management of configurable application programs on a network
`comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] installing an application program having a plurality of configurable
`preferences and a plurality of authorized users on a server coupled to the
`network;
`
`[b] distributing an application launcher program associated with the application
`program to a client coupled to the network;
`
`[c] obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated with
`one of the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher
`program;
`
`[d] obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences from
`an administrator; and
`
`[e] executing the application program using the obtained user set and the obtained
`administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences responsive to a
`request from the one of the plurality of authorized users.
`
`Importantly, this claim recites a specific method for management of configurable
`
`application programs on a network, wherein an app