Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 836
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:16-cv-00741-JRG
`
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:16-cv-00858-JRG
`
`(INDIVIDUAL CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`ADP, LLC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT BIG FISH GAMES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 837
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`A. The ’578 Patent ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`B. The ’466 Patent ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`C. The ’293 Patent ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`D. Disclosed Hardware ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`The Patents-In-Suit Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................ 6
`
`A. Legal Standards ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`B. Alice Step One: The Patents-In-Suit Are Directed To Abstract Ideas ......................... 8
`
`1. The ’578 Patent Claims Are Directed To The Abstract Idea Of Providing
`Two-Tiered Customization ..................................................................................... 8
`
`2. The ’466 Patent Claims Are Directed To The Abstract Idea Of Centralized
`Offering Of Products ............................................................................................. 13
`
`3. The ’293 Patent Claims Are Directed To The Abstract Idea Of On-
`Demand Distribution Of Information ................................................................... 16
`
`C. Alice Step Two: The Claims Fail To Recite Innovative Concepts ............................ 18
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 838
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 12, 15, 18, 19
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`--- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 5335502 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) ..................................................... 22
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC,
`--- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 5335501 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) ........................................... 7, 20, 21
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 7, 23, 24
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`Clear with Computers, LLC v. Altec Indus.,
`No. 14-cv-79, 2015 WL 993392 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015),
`aff’d, 636 F. App’x 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... passim
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ passim
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 23, 24
`
`Device Enhancement LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2016 WL 2899246 (D. Del. May 17, 2016) ................................... 7, 10, 14
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 7, 23, 24
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 11, 15, 20
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 839
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ................................................................................... 8, 21
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`--- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) ............................................... 23, 24
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`NexusCard, Inc. v. Kroger Co.,
`173 F. Supp. 3d 462 (E.D. Tex. 2016) ........................................................................... 6, 17, 24
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 6, 8, 21
`
`Rothschild Location Techs. LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-682-RWS-JDL, 2016 WL 3584195 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2016) ............................... 19
`
`Sound View Innov’ns, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`--- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 4535345 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2016) ................................................ passim
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 14, 19, 22
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (US) Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-01065-HZ, 2015 WL 4203469 (D. Or. July 9, 2015) ....................................... 11, 20
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ 2, 18, 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................ 1, 8
`
`Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) ................................................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 840
`
`Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together, “Uniloc”) accuse
`
`Defendant Big Fish Games, Inc. (“Big Fish”) of infringing three U.S. patents, each of which
`
`purports to claim configurations of servers and clients in a networked environment. But each
`
`asserted patent simply claims a known, abstract, and conventional technique for information
`
`management. In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court
`
`made clear that such techniques are unpatentable as a matter of law, and numerous decisions
`
`(including decisions of this Court) have applied Alice at the pleading stage to dismiss cases
`
`asserting similar patents.
`
`Because all claims of the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Big Fish
`
`respectfully moves this Court for dismissal of the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for
`
`failure to state a claim.1
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Big Fish is a Seattle, Washington-based company that provides market-leading games,
`
`including “board” games, arcade games, and social casino games, to users around the world via
`
`online platforms and mobile applications for PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, and Android devices. Uniloc
`
`is a Luxembourg-based patent-assertion entity that filed this action against Big Fish on August 2,
`
`2016, for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,578 (the “’578 Patent”); 6,510,466 (the “’466
`
`Patent”); and 7,069,293 (the “’293 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). The three patents
`
`claim a priority date of December 14, 1998, and were allegedly assigned to Uniloc from the
`
`original owner, IBM, in 2016. Plaintiffs are currently asserting one or more of these or related
`
`patents against nearly twenty unrelated companies, including Big Fish.
`
`
`1
`The arguments presented here are substantially similar to those presented in the motions to
`dismiss filed by Defendant ADP, LLC at ECF No. 17 in Case No. 2:16-cv-741[JRG] and
`Defendant Salesforce.com, Inc. at ECF No. 24 in Case No. 2:16-cv-744[JRG].
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 841
`
`The ’578 Patent
`
`A.
`The claims of the ’578 Patent relate to two-tiered customization—in particular, to
`
`executing an application program on a server using two sets of preferences at once, where one set
`
`is associated with a user and the other set is associated with an administrator. The ’578 Patent
`
`contains seven independent claims and thirty-nine dependent claims. The Court does need to
`
`address each and every claim of the ’578 Patent because claim 1 is representative:2
`
`A method for management of configurable application programs on a network comprising
`the steps of:
`
`installing an application program having a plurality of configurable preferences and
`a plurality of authorized users on a server coupled to the network;
`
`distributing an application launcher program associated with the application program
`to a client coupled to the network;
`
`obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated with one
`of the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program;
`
`obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences from an
`administrator; and
`
`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.
`
`’578 Patent, 14:63–15:13 (emphasis added).
`
`The dependent claims of claim 1 specify various aspects of the method, including: where
`
`the configurable preferences originate (claims 2, 3, 10); where the preferences are stored (claims
`
`6, 9); where the command to execute the application program originates (claims 4, 5, 7); whether
`
`default preferences should be used (claim 8); and whether multiple user sets and application
`
`programs may be used (claims 11–14).
`
`
`See, e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (treating claim
`2
`as representative because “other claims of the patent are drawn to a similar process”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 842
`
`The remaining claims mirror claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent claim 15 is a
`
`method claim which recites the features of claim 1 as executed at a client, not at a server.
`
`Independent claims 17 and 31 are system claims that recite the limitations of claims 1 and 15 in
`
`means-plus-function language. Independent claim 16 is a combined server-client system that
`
`combines the limitations of claims 17 and 31. Independent claims 32 and 46 claim “computer
`
`readable code means” for performing the same functions identified in claims 1 and 15. The
`
`remaining dependent claims repeat the limitations of claims 2–14.
`
`The ’466 Patent
`
`B.
`The claims of the ’466 Patent relate to the centralized offering of products—in particular,
`
`to managing the distribution of software over a network. The ’466 Patent contains three
`
`independent claims and thirty-nine dependent claims. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`An application program management system for managing application programs on a
`network including a server and a client comprising:
`
`means for installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`means for receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`means for 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;
`
`means for receiving at the server a selection of one of the plurality of application
`programs from the user desktop interface; and
`
`means for providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of
`application programs to the client for execution responsive to the selection.
`
`
`’466 Patent, 22:56–23:8 (emphasis added).
`
`The dependent claims of claim 1 further specify: the data used by the server to determine
`
`the applications for which the user is authorized (claim 2); how the user desktop interface is
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 843
`
`established (claims 3, 6, 7, 8); that configurable preferences may be used (claims 4, 5); that license
`
`management may be performed (claims 9–11); where the application programs are to be installed
`
`(claim 12); and that the distributed applications may perform event-logging (claims 13–14).
`
`The remaining claims mirror claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent claim 15 is a
`
`system claim that recites the limitations of claim 1 in means-plus-function language. Independent
`
`claim 16 claims “computer readable program code means” for performing the functions in claim
`
`1. The remaining dependent claims repeat the limitations of claims 2–14.
`
`The ’293 Patent
`
`C.
`The claims of the ’293 Patent relate to “on demand” distribution of information—in
`
`particular, to pre-configuring two servers so that applications can thereafter be distributed from a
`
`centralized server to a remote server on demand. The ’293 Patent is a continuation of the ’466
`
`Patent and shares its specification. The ’293 Patent contains three independent claims and eighteen
`
`dependent claims. Claim 1 is representative:
`
`A method for distribution of application programs to a target on-demand server on a
`network comprising the following executed on a centralized network management server
`coupled to the network:
`
`providing an application program to be distributed to the network management
`server;
`
`specifying a source directory and a target directory for distribution of the
`application program;
`
`preparing a file packet associated with the application program and including a
`segment configured to initiate registration operations for the application
`program at the target on-demand server; and
`
`distributing the file packet to the target on-demand server to make the
`application program available for use by a user at a client.
`
`’293 Patent, 21:22–37 (emphasis added).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 844
`
`The dependent claims of claim 1: identify a brand-name management server to be used
`
`(claim 2); identify particular mechanisms for registering applications at the on-demand server
`
`(claims 3–7); and add the use of “pre-distribution” or “after-distribution” programs to facilitate
`
`application distribution (claims 8–11).
`
`The remaining claims mirror claim 1 and its dependent claims. Independent claim 12 is a
`
`system claim that recites the limitations of claim 1 in means-plus-function language. Independent
`
`claim 17 claims “computer readable program code means” for performing the functions in claim
`
`1. The other dependent claims repeat the limitations of claims 2, 3, 6, and 7.
`
`Disclosed Hardware
`
`D.
`The Patents-in-Suit specify that conventional servers, clients, networks, and network
`
`management software are all that is needed to perform the claimed inventions. Specifically, the
`
`Patents-in-Suit each acknowledge that “operations according to the present invention may be
`
`realized in the hardware of existing on-demand servers.” ’578 Patent 14:51–53 (emphasis added);
`
`’293 Patent 21:10–12 (emphasis added). 3 The term “on-demand,” although seemingly a
`
`specialized term, merely refers to any server delivering applications, i.e., data, “as needed
`
`responsive to user requests as requests are received.” ’578 Patent 6:51–53; ’293 Patent 6:65–67.
`
`The claimed clients “may be hardware from a variety of designers operating a variety of different
`
`operating systems.” ’578 Patent 6:60–62; see ’293 Patent 7:7–9. The claimed networks are not
`
`described beyond a statement that they “may be separate physical networks, separate partitions of
`
`a single physical network or may be a single network.” ’578 Patent 7:3–5; ’293 Patent 7:17–19.
`
`The claims can be implemented using various, unspecified “client/server and network
`
`management environments.” ’578 Patent 7:23–24; see also ’293 Patent 17:33–37 (invention can
`
`
`3
`As the ’466 Patent and the ’293 Patent share a common specification, only citations to the
`’578 Patent and the ’293 Patent specifications are provided in this section.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 845
`
`be implemented on “any network management application having the ability to pass file packets”
`
`and “commence initiation of operations on a remote workstation by information included in the
`
`distributed file packet”).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ARE INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Legal Standards
`
`A.
`When a complaint asserts a patent that claims ineligible subject matter, it fails to state a
`
`plausible claim for relief and should be dismissed on the pleadings. See OIP Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC
`
`v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2014); NexusCard, Inc. v. Kroger
`
`Co., 173 F. Supp. 3d 462, 468 (E.D. Tex. 2016) (dismissing with prejudice complaint because
`
`asserted patent claims were drawn to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101).
`
`Patent eligibility is decided under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which has been interpreted to preclude
`
`the patentability of abstract ideas. Section 101 permits issuance of a patent only for a “new and
`
`useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`
`improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
`
`are each excluded by Section 101. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.
`
`Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). As the Supreme Court has noted, allowing patents for subject matter which
`
`are abstract ideas “impede[s] innovation more than it . . . tend[s] to promote it,” effectively
`
`frustrating the very objective of the patent laws. Id.
`
`In Alice, the Supreme Court announced a two-prong framework for determining whether
`
`claimed subject matter is patentable under Section 101. In step one, the court must determine
`
`whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea or other ineligible concept. Abstract ideas include
`
`“method[s] of organizing human activity” or “longstanding commercial practice[s]” like
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 846
`
`intermediated settlement or risk hedging. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356. In step two, the court must
`
`determine whether the claims add an “inventive concept—i.e., an element or a 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. at 2355 (quotations omitted). The second step
`
`requires more than merely stating the abstract idea and adding the words “apply it,” id. at 2357,
`
`and must include additional features that amount to more than “well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
`
`Recently, the Federal Circuit provided additional guidance for assessing the patentability
`
`of claims purportedly directed to improvements in computer-related technology. At step one, the
`
`court must determine “whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
`
`computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which
`
`computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–
`
`36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Unless the claims (in view of the specification) “describe a problem and
`
`solution rooted in computer technology,” and the solution is “specific enough to preclude the risk
`
`of pre-emption,” the claims are potentially invalid and the court proceeds to step two. Device
`
`Enhancement LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2016 WL 2899246, at *7 (D. Del.
`
`May 17, 2016). At step two, the court must ask whether the claims implement the abstract idea in
`
`a conventional, generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. See Bascom Glob. Internet
`
`Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If so, the claims are
`
`invalid. See Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 5335501, at *9–10 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) (“Affinity-DirecTV”); see, e.g., Sound View Innov’ns, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`
`--- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 4535345, at *6 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2016) (applying Bascom and dismissing
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 847
`
`complaint asserting seven computer-based patents where claims recited only “generic computer
`
`components” and did not “describe how the components function”).
`
`In evaluating validity under § 101, “claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite.”
`
`Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1349; see, e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790
`
`F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming invalidity of patents under § 101 resolved on Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1360 (same). If no disputed issues of claim
`
`construction will affect the proper analysis of the patentability of the asserted claims, § 101 may
`
`be addressed at the pleading stage. See Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 66 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 829, 835 (E.D. Tex. 2014). This protects the parties from “expend[ing] significant
`
`resources which will not impact or aid the Court in reaching [its] decision.” Clear with Computers,
`
`LLC v. Altec Indus., No. 14-cv-79, 2015 WL 993392, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015), aff’d, 636 F.
`
`App’x 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step One: The Patents-In-Suit Are Directed To Abstract Ideas
`
`1.
`
`The ’578 Patent Claims Are Directed To The Abstract Idea Of
`Providing Two-Tiered Customization
`
`Each claim of the ’578 Patent, including representative claim 1, is invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are directed to nothing more than the abstract idea of providing two-
`
`tiered customization, which is a method of organizing human activity and a long-standing
`
`commercial practice that long predates the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Consider the following example: a supplier offers to provide supplies to two employees
`
`of a business. The following actions mirror the steps claimed in claim 1 of the ’578 Patent:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 848
`
`The ’578 Patent Claim 1
`
`A method for management of configurable
`application programs on a network comprising
`the steps of:
`
`installing an application program having a
`plurality of configurable preferences and a
`plurality of authorized users on a server
`coupled to the network;
`
`distributing an application launcher program
`associated with the application program to a
`client coupled to the network;
`
`obtaining a user set of the plurality of
`configurable preferences associated with one
`of the plurality of authorized users executing
`the application launcher program;
`
`obtaining an administrator set of the plurality
`of
`configurable
`preferences
`from
`an
`administrator; and
`
`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.
`
`Conventional Activity
`
`A supplier manages supply distribution to
`businesses and their employees.
`
`The supplier offers a supply service. The
`service maintains
`records of business
`customers
`and
`their
`preferences,
`the
`businesses’ employees, and the employees’
`preferences.
`
`The supplier distributes order forms to the
`businesses’ employees.
`
`The supplier obtains individual employee
`preferences. For example, John prefers blue
`pens and legal pads, while Maria prefers black
`pens and bound notebooks.
`
`The supplier obtains business preferences. For
`example, the business will not pay for bound
`notebooks and wants its logo printed on all
`pens.
`
`The supplier receives an order from John for
`“pens and paper.” The supplier retrieves
`John’s preferences and applies them in view of
`John’s employer’s preferences. It sends John
`blue pens with the company logo and yellow
`legal pads.
`
`The supplier receives an order from Maria for
`pens and paper. The supplier retrieves Maria’s
`preferences and applies them in view of
`Maria’s employer’s preferences. It sends
`Maria black pens with the company logo, but
`not bound notebooks.
`
`
`Similar scenarios exist in other contexts. For example, travel agencies have long been
`
`known to use two sets of preferences when booking business travel, one for the traveler (e.g., aisle
`
`seat over window, red-eye over daytime flight) and another for the traveler’s employer (e.g., coach
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 849
`
`over first class, preferential use of specific airline where possible). These preferences could be
`
`centrally stored and used by any employee of the agency, who could apply both sets when
`
`providing travel services. Likewise, doctors and hospitals use two sets of “preferences” when
`
`treating patients, one reflecting the patient’s requests and restrictions (e.g., allergies, medical
`
`counter-indications) and another reflecting the rules of the patient’s insurer (e.g., treatment
`
`restrictions, preferences for generic drugs). These organizational practices were both performed
`
`long before computers, and could even be performed in the mind of the provider. Centrally
`
`managed, two-tiered customization was a longstanding commercial practice at the time the patents
`
`were filed.
`
`The ’578 Patent couches these conventional techniques in computer-specific terms. But
`
`the use of generic computer language such as “installing” applications on servers and clients and
`
`“exchang[ing] data” cannot rescue a claim from abstraction. See Device Enhancement, 2016 WL
`
`2899246, at *9. In Device Enhancement, the plaintiff asserted a patent for “allowing a user of a
`
`terminal device to remotely operate upgraded and/or advanced applications without the need for
`
`upgrading the client side application or computational resources.” Id. at *8. According to the
`
`patent specification, prior art methods existed but were insufficient. Id. Because the claims (in
`
`view of the specification) covered nearly any division of labor between generic clients and servers
`
`without limit, the court found them abstract and dismissed the complaint. Id. at *11. The court
`
`identified a specific concern of pre-emption, namely, that the claims—“although computer-
`
`centric—would pre-empt substantially all uses of the underlying ideas at issue, that is, using
`
`distributed architecture to increase the capabilities of individual devices by using remote
`
`resources.” Id. at *10.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 850
`
`The same is true here. The claimed “configurable preferences” may be described in the
`
`’578 Patent as computer preferences, but are so broad as to be no different than the conventional
`
`preferences by which conventional suppliers customize their services to increase consumer
`
`satisfaction. In fact, the specification of the ’578 Patent places no limits on what can be a
`
`“configurable preference,” and provides only a single, generic example: “color display . . .
`
`preferences” which can be changed when a user switches from a “color monitor” to a
`
`“monochrome display.” ’578 Patent 2:25–34.
`
`This Court has previously held that computerized preference management is an
`
`unpatentable abstract concept. In Clear with Computers, the plaintiff asserted claims to electronic
`
`systems for preparing sales proposals, in which a generic computer, rather than a human
`
`salesperson, stored customer preferences and suggested products based on those preferences. 2015
`
`WL 993392, at *4. This Court found “no meaningful distinction” between those claims and the
`
`commercial practices deemed unpatentable by the Supreme Court in Alice and Bilski v. Kappos,
`
`561 U.S. 593 (2010). Id.
`
`Shortly after this Court’s opinion in Clear with Computers, the Federal Circuit confirmed,
`
`in an unrelated case, that “customizing information based on . . . information known about the
`
`user” is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Other courts dealing with patents that broadly claimed computer
`
`configuration techniques have similarly found such patents to be directed to abstract ideas. See,
`
`e.g., Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (US) Inc., No. 12-cv-01065-HZ, 2015 WL 4203469, at *15 (D. Or.
`
`July 9, 2015) (finding patents for methods of transferring “user preferences” and “application
`
`configuration information” from one computer to another were directed to abstract idea).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 80 Filed 11/14/16 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 851
`
`Dependent claims 2–14 are equally abstract. None change the core idea of two-tier
`
`customization at the heart of the ’578 Patent claims. Instead, they merely specify how the
`
`configurable preferences are obtained (claims 2, 3, 10); where the preferences are stored (claims
`
`6, 9); where the command to implement the preferences comes from (claims 4, 5, 7); whether
`
`default preferences should be used in the absence of user- or administrator-selected preferences
`
`(claim 8); and whether multiple users and services can be accommodated (claims 11–14). All of
`
`these have analogues in the conventional practice of two-tier custom service. For example, a
`
`supplier will typically receive preferences from a customer company and its employees, record
`
`those preferences in some manner, await instruction to provide supplies according to those
`
`preferences, and apply default preferences where no preferences have been specified. The method
`
`can be repeated for multiple customers and for different tiers of supply service. Again, the method
`
`claims of the ’578 Patent merely wrap these conventional practices in generic computer
`
`terminology.
`
`Where method claims are in