Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 871
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBOARD INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00741-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00859-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BLACKBOARD INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIM
`AND IMPROPER VENUE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2A70259
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 872
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .........................................................2
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ...........................................................................................2
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`Step 1: the Asserted Patents Claim Patentable Subject Matter. .......................8
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`’466 Patent ...................................................................................................9
`
`’578 Patent .................................................................................................13
`
`’293 Patent .................................................................................................16
`
`iv.
`
`As in Enfish, the Asserted Patents are Directed Toward Improvements
`in the Way Computers Operate. .................................................................18
`
`Step 2: The Claims of the Asserted Patents Add Inventive Concepts. ............21
`
`B.
`
`i.
`
`The Specific Components Recited in the Claims Perform Specific
`Functions Within a Network. .....................................................................26
`
`Blackboard has Failed to Sustain its Burden of Showing that Generic
`Components as Arranged in the Claims do not Amount to Inventive
`Concepts .....................................................................................................28
`
`VI. VENUE IS PROPER UNDER CONTROLLING LAW ..............................................29
`
`ii.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 873
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
` 
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Audio MPEG, Inc. v. HP, Inc.,
`2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK (E.D. Va. Jun. 29, 2016) .............................................................. 19
`
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11687 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 27, 2016) ................................................ 8, 21, 28
`
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2016) ................................................. 11, 14
`
`
`Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123232 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016) ............................................... 10, 13
`
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`954 F. Supp. 2d 527 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .....................................................................................18
`
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F. 3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...................................................................2, 14, 18, 24, 25, 27
`
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2016) .............................................1, 2, 9, 18
`
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) ............................. 9, 11, 15, 26, 27
`
`
`Gonzalez v. Kay,
`
`577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
`
`563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 874
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 Fed. Appx. 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .........................................................................................4
`
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Proc. Sys. Patent Lit.,
`
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 5
`
`In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Pat. Lit.,
`774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`In re Morgan Stanley,
`
`417 Fed. Appx. 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .........................................................................................2
`
`JDS Techs., Inc. v. Exacq Techs.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73622 (E.D. Mich., June 7, 2016) ...................................................... 9
`
`
`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. Jul. 7, 2016)...............................1, 8, 10, 13, 16, 20
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1366-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2016) ........................................................ 28
`
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135669 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) ................................................... 22
`
`
`RPost Holdings, Inc. v. Readnotify.com Pty. Ltd.,
` No. 2:11-cv-16, 2012 WL 3201898 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2012) ................................................ 6
`
`Script Sec. Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1055827 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2016) ................................................... 6
`
`Skinner v. Spitzer,
`562 U.S. 521 (2011) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Distinctive Dev. Ltd.,
`964 F. Supp. 2d 638 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .................................................................................. 3, 5
`
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of Am.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155927 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2011) ..................................................... 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 875
`
`2-Way Computing, Inc., v. Grandstream Networks, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-0111-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) ................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) .........................................................................................................................2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ........................................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................................................................1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 15, 20, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ................................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ......................................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 876
`
`Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together “Uniloc”),
`
`respectfully submit this Opposition to the Motion of defendant, Blackboard Inc. (“Blackboard”),
`
`to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Improper Venue (“Mot.” or “Motion”). For the
`
`reasons set forth below, the Motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement alleges that Blackboard has
`
`infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,510,466 Patent (“the ’466 Patent”), 6,324,578 Patent (“the ’578
`
`Patent”) and 7,069,293 (“the ’293 Patent”) (together “Asserted Patents”).1 The technology
`
`disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents was developed by IBM and explicitly relates to
`
`solving problems with network management and application management on computer
`
`networks. 2 See, e.g., the ’466 Patent, Abstract. The 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.
`
`
`
`In the Motion, Blackboard improperly removes the computer elements from the claims
`
`and then argues that the remaining subject matter is drawn to routine business practices and
`
`abstract ideas. Such an approach is improper and should be rejected. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, at *16 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (“describing the
`
`claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but
`
`ensures that the exceptions to §101 swallow the rule”); see also Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack
`
`LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667 at *16 (E.D. Tex., Jul. 7, 2016) (Section 101 “is not a
`
`license to delete all computer-related limitations from a claim and thereby declare it abstract.”).
`
`                                                            
`1 Copies of the Asserted Patents were filed with the Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3.
`
` The Asserted Patents were originally issued to IBM.
`
`1
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 877
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents are drawn to subject matter that is patent-
`
`eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
`
`III.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`As set forth below, the claims of the Asserted Patents solve particular problems in the
`
`computer field, thus rendering them patent eligible. See Enfish, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, at
`
`*21 (“claims [that] are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
`
`software arts” are not invalid under Section 101).3 In addition, the asserted claims are directed to
`
`inventive concepts where the claimed solutions are “necessarily rooted in computer technology
`
`in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
`
`Accordingly, as in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the
`
`claims are patent-eligible under Step 2 of Alice.
`
`Prior to the invention of the subject matter 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
`
`                                                            
`3 In the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Uniloc asserts infringement of claims 1-5, 7-9, 13,
`15-20, 22-24, 28-33, 35-37, and 41-42 of the ’466 Patent, claims 1-8, 10-11, 13-39, 41-46 of the
`’578 Patent, and claims 1, 12, and 17 of the ’293 Patent. See Dkt. No. 37, ¶¶ 31, 42, and 53.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 878
`
`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
`
`plurality of client stations using a software program, such as Systems Management Server
`
`(“SMS”) from Microsoft Corporation. Id. at 1:57-62. However, requiring a customized install
`
`each time for each different version of a given application was a drawback. Id. at 1:67-2:2.
`
`Another perceived disadvantage was that 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 environments
`
`difficult. Id. at 2:19-25.
`
`Solutions were proposed using 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™ which attempted to address the issue of
`
`mobility of users within a network including preference mobility. Id. at 2:35-40. These proposed
`
`solutions typically required pre-installation of software at the station to support their services. Id.
`
`at 2:40-42. Some of these attempts 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. Proposed solutions 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,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 879
`
`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.
`
`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 centralized
`
`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 are 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 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 when needed for execution.
`
`
`
`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
`
`14:65-67. An application launcher program associated with the application program is
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 880
`
`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 network environment by delivering configured
`
`applications when demanded by a user. Id. at 6:2-5.
`
`
`
`The ’293 Patent provides an approach to the 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. 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 15:34-37. 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.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`As they are not unique to patent law, motions to dismiss are evaluated under the law of
`
`the regional circuit courts. See, e.g., In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Proc. Sys. Patent Lit.,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 881
`
`681 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint
`
`should be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff and all facts pleaded in the complaint
`
`should be taken as true. Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir.
`
`2009). Upon reviewing the facts most favorably to the plaintiff, the Court must decide whether
`
`the facts state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603
`
`(5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). In the Fifth Circuit, motions to
`
`dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) are disfavored and rarely granted. Turner v. Pleasant, 663
`
`F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011); see also RPost Holdings, Inc. v. Readnotify.com Pty. Ltd., No.
`
`2:11-cv-16, 2012 WL 3201898, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2012).
`
`
`
`“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
`
`court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
`
`Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662). Thus, under Rule 8(a)(2), a plaintiff is required to provide
`
`“only a plausible ‘short and plain’ statement of the plaintiff’s claim, not an exposition of [the
`
`plaintiff’s] legal argument.” Skinner v. Spitzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011); see also Script Sec.
`
`Solutions L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1030, 2016 WL 1055827, at *7 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 16, 2016) (Bryson, J.). The plausibility requirement is not akin to a “probability
`
`requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable
`
`expectation that discovery will reveal” that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct.
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). Importantly, “‘detailed factual
`
`allegations’ are not required” in the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic v.
`
`Trombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 882
`
`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
`
`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. “[A]n application of a law of nature or
`
`mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
`
`protection.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187 (emphasis in original). 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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 883
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Only when a claim fails both steps is it rendered ineligible
`
`subject matter under Section 101.
`
`“A party seeking to establish that particular claims are invalid must overcome the
`
`presumption of validity in 35 U.S.C. § 282 by clear and convincing evidence.” Nystrom v. Trex
`
`Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 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 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).
`
`V.
`
`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, 2016
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667 at*16 (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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 884
`
`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.
`
`Blackboard argues that the Asserted Patents are abstract, comparing them to activities a
`
`human can do manually and simply applying those actions to a computer. Mot. at 10-22. 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 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.”). Blackboard’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); see also JDS Techs., Inc. v. Exacq Techs., 2016 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 73622 at *20 (E.D. Mich., June 7, 2016).
`
`i)
`
`’466 Patent
`
`Blackboard 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 885
`
`monopolize the age-old idea of providing users with a menu.” Mot. at 11. In so arguing,
`
`Blackboard 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”).4 Blackboard 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 12.
`
`However, claim 1 of the ’466 Patent 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;
`
`[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 Lic.
`
`S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016)
`
`(“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
`
`                                                            
`4 Adopted by 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134654 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 82 Filed 11/14/16 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 886
`
`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 Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663, at *12 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 20, 2016) (claim that “purports to ‘improve the functioning of the computer itself’” is
`
`patent eligible) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
`
`
`
`Blackboard claims that the dependent claims are equally abstract. Blackboard alleges
`
`that the dependent claims merely “add that the list of options available to a customer depends on
`
`the customer’s identity.” Mot. at 13. Blackboard’s a