Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 985
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-741-JRG
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 2:16-cv-860-JRG
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ADP, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BOX, INC.
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT BOX, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OR FOR IMPROPER VENUE
`
`
`
`US_ACTIVE-129434469.1-SBHERRIN 11/21/2016 2:44 PM
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 986
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The ‘466 and ‘293 Patents .......................................................................................2
`
`The ‘578 Patent ........................................................................................................5
`
`Disclosed Hardware .................................................................................................8
`
`III.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) ..............................................9
`
`Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................................10
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: The Patents-In-Suit Are Directed To Abstract Ideas ..................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The claims of the ‘466 and ‘293 Patents are directed to the abstract
`idea of software distribution ......................................................................11
`
`The asserted claims of the ‘578 Patent are directed to the abstract
`idea of customization based on preferences ...............................................18
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claims Fail to Recite Innovative Concepts .........................21
`
`V.
`
`UNILOC’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER
`VENUE IF THE SUPREME COURT OVERRULES TC HEARTLAND .........................27
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 987
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................18, 20, 22
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2015-2080, 2016 WL 5335502 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) ....................................... passim
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC,
`2016 WL 5335501 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) ................................................................. passim
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. ---, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................ passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom. Inc.,
`No. 2015-1180, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19593 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) .........................24, 25
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................23
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................25
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...........................................................................................................10, 19
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................10, 22
`
`Clear with Computers LLC v. Altec Indus.,
`No. 6:14-cv-79, 2015 WL 993392 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015), aff’d, 636 F.
`Appx. 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................15, 19, 22
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................9, 12, 15
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 988
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................26
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................23
`
`Device Enhancement LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2016 WL 2899246 (D. Del. May 17, 2016) .......................................................................19, 20
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................17
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................12, 14, 22
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................14, 15
`
`Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.,
`353 U.S. 222 (1957) .................................................................................................................27
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, L.L.C. v. Motorola Mobility L.L.C.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 356 (D. Del. 2015) .....................................................................................13, 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................18, 22, 23
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 2015-1769, 2016 WL 5539870 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2016) .........................................11, 12
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56092 (S.D.N.Y. April 28, 2015) ......................................................14
`
`In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
`495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Kroy IP Holdings, LLP v. Safeway, Inc.,
`107 F. Supp. 3d 677 (E.D. Tex. 2015) (Bryson, J.), aff’d, 639 Fed. Appx.
`(Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2016) .........................................................................................................19
`
`Landmark Tech., LLC v. Assurant, Inc.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94511 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015)..................................................14, 26
`
`Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................................................23
`
`Mayo Collaborative v. Promethius Labs,
`132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012) ..............................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 989
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,
`No. 2015-1080, 2016 WL 48964818 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) .................................14, 16, 17
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................22
`
`Neochloris, Inc. v. Emerson Process Management LLP,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138957 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 13, 2015) ........................................................14
`
`NexusCard, Inc. v. Kroger Co.,
`2016 WL 1162180 (E.D. Tex. April 6, 2016) ..........................................................................16
`
`OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................22, 23
`
`Rothschild Location Techs. LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-CV_682-RWS-JDL, 2016 WL 3584195 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2016),
`adopted by, No. 6:15-CV-682-RWS-JDL, 2016 WL 2847975 (E.D. Tex. May
`16, 2016) ..................................................................................................................................22
`
`In re TC Heartland LLC,
`821 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................27
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
`No. 13-341 (U.S. filed Sept. 12, 2016) ....................................................................................27
`
`In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (US), Inc.,
`No. 2015-1907, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) (available at
`http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-
`1907.Opinion.11-10-2016.1.PDF) ...............................................................................18, 23, 24
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring) ..................................................9, 10, 11
`
`VE Holdings Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co.,
`917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990)................................................................................................27
`
`Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz,
`635 Fed. Appx. 914 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2015) ........................................................................17
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U. S. C. § 1400 (b) ....................................................................................................................27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 990
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 991
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,510,466 (“the ‘466 Patent”), 7,069,293 (“the
`
`‘293 Patent”), and 6,324,578 (“the ‘578 Patent”) fail both parts of the two-part test for patent
`
`eligibility set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ---, 134 S. Ct. 2347
`
`(2014). At Alice step one, the asserted claims of the ‘466 and ‘293 Patents are directed to the
`
`abstract idea of software distribution, and the asserted claims of the ‘578 Patent are directed to
`
`the abstract idea of customization based on preferences. As the patents themselves admit,
`
`software distribution and customization based on preferences were well-known prior art
`
`practices, including where performed over networks. The patents’ claimed improvements
`
`purport to centralize this conventional activity from “a single point” using generic servers and a
`
`network. But the patents do not disclose any improvement to computer or network functionality,
`
`and instead merely recite aspirational “centralization” goals with no corresponding technical
`
`detail for how to achieve them. Thus, as the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held in cases
`
`involving analogous computer-related patents, the asserted patents here are drawn to the abstract
`
`ideas themselves.
`
`As for Alice step two, the elements of the asserted claims, viewed individually and as an
`
`ordered combination, provide no inventive concept. Instead, they merely recite basic building
`
`blocks of technology—servers and a network—used in the same way they had always been used.
`
`The claims do not disclose any unique arrangement of these conventional components or any
`
`details regarding their operation. Instead, these components simply perform their basic functions
`
`and provide the generic environment in which the abstract concepts are carried out.
`
`Thus, the asserted claims of the ‘293, ‘466 and ‘578 Patents do not meet either part of the
`
`Alice two-step test and are invalid as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Defendant Box,
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 992
`
`Inc. (“Box”) therefore respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case under Section 101.1
`
`In the alternative, Box requests that the Court dismiss this case for improper venue in the event
`
`the Supreme Court overturns TC Heartland.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ‘466 and ‘293 Patents
`
`Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collectively, “Uniloc”)
`
`alleges that Box infringes the “‘466 Patent . . . including at least claims 1-5, 7-9, 13, 15-20, 22-
`
`24, 28-33, 35-37, and 41-42 . . . by or through making, using, importing, offering for sale and/or
`
`selling the Box content management and collaboration system during the pendency of the ’466
`
`Patent.” (Dkt. No. 51, ¶ 52.) Uniloc further alleges that Box infringes the “‘293 Patent . . .
`
`including at least claims 1, 12, and 17 . . . by or through making, using, importing, offering for
`
`sale and/or selling the Box content management and collaboration system during the pendency of
`
`the ’293 Patent.” (Dkt. No. 51, ¶ 41.) The ‘293 Patent is a divisional of the ‘466 Patent and
`
`shares its specification (collectively, the “Distribution Patents”). 2
`
`The Distribution Patents purport to provide “methods, systems and computer program
`
`products . . . for software deployment from a central administrative server location across a
`
`plurality of client stations.” (‘293 Patent at 3:51-53.) The common specification identifies
`
`several well-known problems associated with distributing software over a network from a
`
`“central location” such as the: (i) mobility of users; (ii) maintenance of proper licenses; and (iii)
`
`
`1 Several motions to dismiss asserting that the patents-in-suit are invalid as directed to ineligible
`subject matter are already pending in this District. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. BitDefender Holding
`B.V., 2:16-cv-00394-RWS, Dkt. No. 23; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC et al., 2:16-cv-741-JRG,
`Dkt. Nos. 17, 58; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, 2:16-cv-744-JRG, Dkt. No. 24. This
`motion makes similar arguments to those in the earlier-filed motions, but also addresses recent
`Federal Circuit Section 101 decisions issued after those motions were filed.
`2 As the ‘293 Patent and the ‘466 Patent share a common specification, only citations to the ‘293
`Patent specification are provided in this section.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 993
`
`deploying new or updated application programs across the network. (Id. at 1:53-59.) Prior art
`
`solutions to these problems included utilizing “an application server in which the application
`
`programs are installed and maintained on a centralized server which supports a plurality of client
`
`stations.” (Id. at 1:57-62.) In addition, commercially-available products such as Microsoft’s
`
`Systems Management Server (SMS) program (id. at 1:65-2:1) and “the Tivoli Management
`
`Environment (TME) 10™ system from Tivoli Systems, Inc.,” (id. at 2:10-14) provided the
`
`ability to transmit an application program from a central server to a number of clients. Other
`
`prior art solutions included the “traditional mainframe model,” such as “the IBM 3270 system”
`
`and “an X Windows environment.” (Id. at 2:55-57.)
`
`But, according to the Distribution Patents, these conventional solutions had drawbacks.
`
`For example, they “typically require[d] various steps in the installation process to occur at
`
`different locations rather than allowing the entire process to be controlled from a single point for
`
`an entire managed network environment.” (‘293 Patent at 3:34-39.) While the Distribution
`
`Patents purportedly solve this drawback by using the concept of “centralized” software
`
`deployment and management via a central administrative server, nothing in the patents discloses
`
`the mechanism for this solution or any details concerning its operation. (Id. at 3:43-46, 50-53.)
`
`Instead, the Distribution Patents merely describe using generic components such as “hardware of
`
`existing on-demand servers,” “conventional Hyper-Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`
`communications or other suitable protocols” and “any network management application having
`
`the ability to pass file packets,” to accomplish the claimed functions without disclosing any
`
`unique or inventive combination of these well-known and conventional components or any other
`
`advancement over the prior art. (Id. at 9:54-59; 17:31-37; 21:9-14.)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 994
`
`With respect to the ‘466 Patent, asserted claim 1 is representative:
`
`A method for management of application programs on a network including a server and a
`client comprising the steps of:
`
`installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`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;
`
`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. (Emphasis added).
`
`The asserted claims that depend from claim 1: specify the data used by the server to
`
`determine the software for which the user is permitted (claim 2); specify how the user desktop
`
`interface is established (claims 3, 7, 8); add that configurable preferences may be used (claims 4,
`
`5); add that license management may be performed (claim 9); and add that the distributed
`
`software may perform event-logging (claim 13).
`
`Asserted independent claim 15 is a system claim and recites the limitations of claim 1 in
`
`means-plus-function language. Asserted independent claim 16 claims “computer readable
`
`program code means” for performing the functions in claim 1. The remaining asserted claims,
`
`namely claims 17-20, 22-24, 28-33, 35-37 and 41-42, depend from claims 15 and 16 and repeat
`
`limitations of the claims depending from claim 1 in the context of system and apparatus claims.
`
`With respect to the ‘293 Patent, 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:
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 995
`
`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. (Emphasis added).
`
`Asserted independent claim 12 is a system claim which recites the limitations of claim 1 in
`
`means-plus-function language, and asserted independent claim 17 claims “computer readable
`
`program code means” for performing the functions in claim 1.
`
`B. The ‘578 Patent
`
`Uniloc alleges that Box infringes the “‘578 Patent . . . including at least claims 1-8, 10-
`
`11, 13-39, and 41-46 . . . by or through making, using, importing, offering for sale and/or selling
`
`the Box content management and collaboration system during the pendency of the ’578 Patent.”
`
`(Dkt. No. 51, ¶ 30.)
`
`
`
`Like the Distribution Patents, the ‘578 Patent states that “control” over software “is more
`
`difficult” in modern computer networks than in the traditional mainframe setting, particularly
`
`where there are a large number of geographically-dispersed and mobile users who may access
`
`the network from different client stations at different times. (‘578 Patent at 1:45-57.)3 For
`
`example, in network systems, the “combinations of network connections, differing hardware,
`
`native applications and network applications makes portability of preferences or operating
`
`environment characteristics which provides consistency from workstation to workstation
`
`difficult.” (Id. at 2:18-22.)
`
`3 Although not identical, the specification of the ‘578 overlaps with the common specification of
`the Distribution Patents.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 996
`
`The ‘578 Patent acknowledges that prior art solutions existed to solve this “portability”
`
`problem. (‘578 Patent at 2:35-40.) For example, “Novell’s Z.E.N.works™, Microsoft’s ‘Zero
`
`Administration’ initiative for Windows® and International Business Machines Corporation’s
`
`(IBM’s) Workspace On Demand™” each “provide[d] preference mobility.” (Id.) However, the
`
`purported drawback of these solutions was that they “typically require[d] pre-installation of
`
`software at the workstation to support their services.” (Id. at 2:40-42.) Additionally, “various
`
`web applications do allow personalizing of a specific application display by user.” (Id. at 2:65-
`
`67.) However, the purported drawback of this prior art solution was that this capability was
`
`“generally not managed across applications for a user” and was limited in its ability to support
`
`roaming by users. (Id. at 2:67-3:4.)
`
`To overcome these drawbacks, the ‘578 Patent purports to provide “methods, systems
`
`and computer program products for management of configurable application programs on a
`
`computer network which allow a mix of user and system administrator defined configurable
`
`preferences to be associated with specific application programs.” (‘578 Patent at 3:40-45.) The
`
`specification describes an embodiment of the claimed invention as including “[a]n application
`
`program having a plurality of configurable preferences and a plurality of authorized users”
`
`installed on a server coupled to a network. (Id. at 4:24-26.) An “application launcher program”
`
`associated with the application program is distributed to a client coupled to the network.” (Id. at
`
`4:26-28.) “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 and an
`
`administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences is obtained from an administrator.”
`
`(Id. at 4:28-33.) The application program is “then executed using the obtained user set and the
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 997
`
`obtained administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences” responsive to an
`
`authorized user request. (Id. at 4:33-37.)
`
`However, like the Distribution Patents, the ‘578 Patent does not disclose any technical
`
`details for achieving the hoped-for outcome of “allow[ing] a mix of user and system
`
`administrator defined configurable preferences to be associated with specific application
`
`programs.” For instance, claim 1 requires “obtaining . . . configurable preferences,” which
`
`Figures 2 and 3 disclose in flow charts, but the specification’s description of the corresponding
`
`steps in the figures (blocks 56 and 58 of FIG. 2; and blocks 76, 82, and 84 of FIG. 3) only
`
`indicates that “preferences [are] obtained” using software, without any details of what this
`
`involves or what this software does. (‘578 Patent at 8:55-9:4; 9:66-10:10:5; 10:19-10:29.)
`
`And, as discussed in more detail below, the ‘578 Patent explicitly notes that its claims
`
`may be implemented using conventional and generic computers and networks, without disclosing
`
`any new or inventive combination of such well-known and conventional components. (‘578
`
`Patent at 6:51-53, 6:60-62, 7:3-5, 7:23-24, 14:51-53.)
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘578 Patent is representative:
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 998
`
`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.
`
`The asserted claims depending from claim 1 specify: where the configurable preferences
`
`come from (claims 2, 3, 10); where the preferences are stored (claim 6); where the command to
`
`execute the application program comes from (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, 13-14).
`
`Asserted independent claim 15 is a method claim which recites the features of claim 1 as
`
`executed at a client, instead of a server. Independent claims 17 and 31 are system claims which
`
`recite the limitations of claims 1 and 15 in means-plus-function language. Independent claim 16
`
`is a combined server-client system which 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 – 18-30, 33-39, and 41-
`
`45 – repeat the limitations of claims 2-14 in the context of the system and apparatus claims.
`
`C. Disclosed Hardware
`
`The specifications of the Patents-in-Suit explain that conventional servers, clients,
`
`networks, and network management software are all that is needed to perform the functions of
`
`the claimed inventions.
`
`For instance, 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, ‘293 Patent 21:10-12.)4 The term “on-demand” merely refers to any server delivering
`
`applications “as needed responsive to user requests as requests are received.” (‘578 Patent 6:51-
`
`
`4 Again, as the ‘293 Patent and the ‘466 Patent share a common specification, only citations to
`the ‘293 Patent specifications are provided in this section.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 999
`
`53, ‘293 Patent 6:65-67.) The Patents-in-Suit further state that the claims can be implemented
`
`using various, generic “client/server and network management environments.” (‘578 Patent
`
`7:23-24; see also ‘293 Patent 17:33-37.) The claimed clients can be any “hardware from a
`
`variety of designers operating a variety of different operating systems.” (‘578 Patent 6:60-62,
`
`‘293 Patent 7:7-9.) And the claimed networks “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.)
`
`III. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`1. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss an action that fails to state a claim
`
`upon which relief may be granted. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
`
`state a claim, “[t]he court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most
`
`favorable to the [nonmovant].” In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
`
`2007) (internal quotation omitted). To survive the motion, a nonmovant must plead “enough
`
`facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`
`544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the [nonmovant] pleads factual content
`
`that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the [movant] is liable for the
`
`misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`The Federal Circuit has confirmed that determining patent eligibility under Section 101 is
`
`appropriate at the pleadings stage. “Issues of patent-eligible subject matter are questions of law.”
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343,
`
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s resolution of a motion to dismiss at the pleading
`
`stage); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 711 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J.,
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 89 Filed 11/21/16 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 1000
`
`concurring) (affirming district court’s decision granting motion to dismiss infringement claim for
`
`failure to state patent-eligible subject matter); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,
`
`1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming district court's decision to grant judgment on the pleadings
`
`based on § 101). “[S]ection 101 imposes ‘a threshold test,’ . . . one that must be satisfied before
`
`a court can proceed to consider subordinate validity issues such as non-obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 or adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at
`
`718 (Mayer, J., concurring). “[S]ubject matter eligibility is the primal inquiry, one that must be
`
`addressed at the outset of litigation.” Id. at 717 (Mayer, J., concurring).
`
`2. Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`In applying the Alice two-part test for identifying ineligible patent claims, a court first
`
`determines whether the claims at issue are directed to one of the patent-ineligible concepts—
`
`laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo
`
`Collaborative v. Promethius Labs, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1296–97 (2012). If the claims involve a
`
`patent-ineligible concept, a court next considers the elements of the claims – both individually
`
`and as an ordered combination – to determine whether those elements transform the concept into
`
`a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297).
`
`“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the
`
`[claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [