Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1040
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZENDESK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-741-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-863-JRG
`CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ZENDESK, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`2A93705
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 1041
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED...............................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................................................................5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................7
`
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`
`C.
`
`
`Step 1: The Asserted Patents Claim Patentable Subject Matter ..............................7
`
`The ’466 Patent ............................................................................................8
`
`The ’578 Patent ..........................................................................................12
`
`i)
`
`ii)
`
`iii)
`
`The Asserted Patents are Directed Toward Improvements in the Way
`Computers Operate ................................................................................................17
`
`The ’293 Patent ..........................................................................................15
`
`Step 2: The Claims of the Asserted Patents Add Inventive Concepts ...................20
`
`i)
`
`
`ii)
`
`
`
`The Specific Components Recited in the Claims Perform
`Specific Functions Within a Networks ......................................................24
`
`Zendesk has Failed to Sustain its Burden of Showing that the
`Generic Components, as Arranged in the Claims, do not Amount
`To Inventive Concepts ...............................................................................26
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................27
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2A93705
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 1042
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`2-Way Computing, Inc., v. Grandstream Networks, Inc.,
`
`2:16-cv-0111-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) ........................................................16, 17
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`Audio MPEG, Inc. v. HP, Inc.,
`
`2:15-cv-00073-HCM-RJK (E.D. Va. Jun. 29, 2016) .........................................................18
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`
`687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................7
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................7, 20, 24, 26
`
`Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2016).......................................9, 13, 16
`
`Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123232 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016) ................................................11
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`
`954 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ...............................................................................16
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................1, 13, 22, 23, 26
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .............................................................................................................5
`
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................1, 7, 8, 17
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) ..........................8, 9, 24, 25, 26
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .........................................................................................................6
`
`McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games AM. Inc.,
`
`2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) .....................................................................8
`
`
`2A93705
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 1043
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ...............................................................................................................6
`
`Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack LLC,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016),
`adopted by Perdiemco, LLC v. GPS Logic, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134654
`
`
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Personalized Media Comm.’s, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135672 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2016) ........................................26, 27
`
`Personalized Media Comm.’s, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc.,
`
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135669 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) ..............................................20
`
`Presqriber, LLC v. Adv. Data Sys. Corp.,
`
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177436 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2015) ..................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2A93705
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 1044
`
`Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together “Uniloc” or
`
`“Plaintiffs”), respectfully submit this opposition to the motion of defendant, Zendesk, Inc.
`
`(“Defendant” or “Zendesk”), to dismiss for failure to state a claim (“Motion” or “Mot.”). For the
`
`reasons set forth herein, the Motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED1
`
`Has Zendesk proved by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of the
`Asserted Patents are directed to abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice.2
`
`If so, has Zendesk proved by clear and convincing evidence that any such claim(s)
`of the Asserted Patents include no inventive concepts under 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`
`As explained in detail below, the Asserted Patents solve particular problems in the
`
`computer field, thus rendering them patent eligible. See Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
`
`1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“claims [that] are directed to a specific implementation of a solution
`
`to a problem in the software arts” are not invalid under Section 101). Even assuming, however
`
`that the Asserted Patent are directed to an abstract idea, the facts of this case are like those in DDR
`
`Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In DDR Holdings, the Federal
`
`Circuit upheld a claim as a patent-eligible inventive concept where the claimed solution was
`
`“necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
`
`the realm of computer networks” because “it amount[ed] to an inventive concept for resolving this
`
`particular Internet-centric problem.” Id. at 1259.
`
`                                                            
`1 Zendesk did not provide a Statement of the Issues. Therefore, Uniloc includes this Statement
`pursuant to L.R. 7(c).
`
` The Asserted Patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,510,466 (“the ‘466 Patent”), 6,324,578 (“the ‘578
`Patents”) and 7,069,293 (“the ‘293 Patent”). The Asserted Patents are all related and share a
`common specification. Copies of the Asserted Patents were filed with the Complaint. See Dkt.
`No. 1.
`
`
` 2
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 1045
`
`The Original Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) was filed on July 8, 2016
`
`and alleges infringement of the Asserted Patents. See Dkt. No. 1. In the Complaint, Uniloc asserts:
`
`claims 1-10, 12, 15-20, 22-24, 27, 30-33, 35-37 and 40 of the ’466 Patent; claims 1-46 of the ’578
`
`Patent; and claims 1, 6-7, 12, 15-17 and 21 of the ’293 Patent. Id. at ¶¶ 41, 54 and 63. The Asserted
`
`Patents relate to network management and application management on a computer network. See
`
`’466 Patent at 1:21-23; ’766 Patent at 1:21-23.3 Further, the Asserted Patents are all part of a
`
`family of patents drawn toward addressing the inefficiencies in application management in a client-
`
`server environment. Accordingly, they share similar specifications.
`
`Prior to the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents, many information technology
`
`organizations struggled with application deployment management particularly with the advent of
`
`large, distributed networks. See, e.g., ’578 Patent 1:45-48. Among the problems facing the
`
`industry were: configuring geographically diverse machines running different operating systems;
`
`installing new and updated software in a timely and efficient manner; monitoring software and
`
`data to ensure that they were synchronized with administrative policy; and automating the software
`
`life cycle from development through production. Another major challenge facing the industry at
`
`that time was maintaining proper licensing procedures for existing software installations. Id. at
`
`1:52-56.
`
`A known approach to reducing software distribution was to use an application server to
`
`store and maintain application programs which may then be transmitted over a network to a
`
`plurality of client stations using a software program, such as Systems Management Server
`
`(“SMS”) from Microsoft Corporation. Id. at 1:57-62. However, a customized install was required
`
`                                                            
`3 The inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents were developed and made by engineers working
`at IBM, the original assignee and owner named on the patents.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 1046
`
`each time for each different version of a given application. Id. at 1:67-2:2. Further, an install was
`
`specific to a client station rather than to a given user. Id. at 2:2-3. Moreover, applications could
`
`not be deleted or updated on the station. Id. at 2:3-6. In addition, combinations of network
`
`connections, differing hardware, native applications and network applications made portability of
`
`preferences or operating environment characteristics, which provide consistency from station to
`
`station, difficult. Id. at 2:19-25.
`
`Solutions to other approaches such as Novell’s Z.E.N.works™, Microsoft’s “Zero
`
`Administration” initiative for Windows®, and International Business Machines Corporation’s
`
`Workspace On Demand™ attempted to address the issue of mobility of users within a network
`
`including preference mobility. Id. at 2:35-40. These solutions typically required pre-installation
`
`of software at the station to support their services. Id. at 2:40-42. Some of these solutions were
`
`largely limited to a homogenous environment, where the station and server utilized the same
`
`operating system. Id.at 2:47-49. Traditional mainframe models for centralized management, such
`
`as with the IBM 3270 system or an X Windows environment, only allowed for execution of
`
`applications to occur at the server rather than the client station. Id. at 2:50-55. Each solution that
`
`attempted to address the issue of mobility of users typically did not present application choices
`
`with a given user. Id. at 3:8-11. Instead, they presented information associated with a given client
`
`station. Id. Moreover, users had to either manually define their session characteristics at each
`
`different client station in the network, or maintain local characteristic definitions which may have
`
`been inappropriate for particular executing applications. Id.at 3:11-17.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 1047
`
`problem by providing methods, systems and computer program products for management of
`
`application programs on a network including a server and a client. See, e.g., id. at 21:17-18; 22:57-
`
`59; 23:9-10. A plurality of application programs is installed at a server, which receives a login
`
`request from a user at a client. Id. at 21:20-22. A user desktop interface is established at the client
`
`in response to the login request and includes a plurality of display regions associated with a set of
`
`application programs for which the user is authorized. Id. at 21:23-29. The server receives
`
`selection of one of the application programs from the user desktop interface and, in response, an
`
`instance of the selected application program is provided to the client for execution. Id. at 21:30-
`
`35. Thus, the application programs may be installed at the server and an instance of a selected
`
`application program may be provided to a client for execution.
`
`
`
`The ’578 Patent seeks to reduce costs and increase uniformity in managing software in a
`
`network environment by delivering configured applications when demanded by a user and
`
`provides “an essentially hardware transparent ability for an individual user to interface to an on-
`
`demand server supported client station while maintaining the user’s personal preferences for each
`
`application program.” ’578 Patent at 6:2-9. The ’578 Patent is directed to resolving that problem
`
`by claiming a method for management of configurable programs on a network. Id. at 14:63-64.
`
`An application launcher program having a plurality of configurable preferences and a plurality of
`
`authorized users is installed on a server coupled to the network. Id. at 14:65-67. An application
`
`program associated with the application program is distributed to a client coupled to the network.
`
`Id. at 15:1-3. A user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated with one of the
`
`plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program is obtained. Id. at 15:4-7.
`
`In addition, an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences is obtained from an
`
`administrator. Id. at 15:8-9. The application program is then executed using the obtained user set
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 1048
`
`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 a solution to the problem of limited capabilities associated with
`
`centralized management of software distribution by providing “a uniform framework for
`
`deployment of new or updated application programs from different software designers.” ’293
`
`Patent at 3:32-34. The claims of the ’293 Patent are directed toward resolving this problem by,
`
`inter alia, providing a method for distribution of application programs to a target on-demand server
`
`on a network. Id. at 21:22-25. An application program to be distributed is provided to a network
`
`management server. Id.at 21:26-30. Source and target directories for distribution of the application
`
`program are specified. Id. at 21:26-30. Further, a file packet associated with the application
`
`program is prepared and includes a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the
`
`application program at the target on-demand server. Id. at 15:30-34. The file packet is distributed
`
`to the target on-demand server to make the application program available for use by a user at a
`
`client. Id.at 15:34-37.
`
`III.
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §101, an inventor may obtain a patent for “any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Excluded from patent protection are “laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
`
`“[T]he concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i]s one of pre-emption,” that is, “that patent
`
`law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of
`
`human ingenuity.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (internal quotation
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 1049
`
`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. The abstract-ideas exception does not apply if the claimed invention
`
`“solve[s] a technological problem in ‘conventional industry practice,’” “improve[s] an existing
`
`technological process,” or otherwise “effect[s] an improvement in any other technology or
`
`technical field.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59.
`
`The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for “distinguishing patents that
`
`claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
`
`applications of those concepts.” Id. at 2355. First, a court must “determine whether the claims at
`
`issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts[:]” laws of nature, natural phenomena,
`
`or abstract ideas. Id. If so, then secondly, the court must “search for an ‘inventive concept’— i.e.,
`
`an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
`
`amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). Only when a claim fails both steps is it rendered ineligible subject
`
`matter under Section 101. A party challenging the validity of a patent must prove its defense by
`
`clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011).
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 1050
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). Even then, claims must be construed in favor of the nonmovant. BASCOM
`
`Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For these
`
`reasons, courts often decline to resolve challenges under Section 101 on a motion to dismiss. See,
`
`e..g., Presqriber, LLC v. Adv. Data Sys. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177436, at **21-24 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Jun. 29, 2015).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Step 1: The Asserted Patents Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`
`The step 1 analysis applies a “filter to claims, considered in light of the specification based
`
`on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, 822 F.3d at
`
`1334 (internal citations omitted). When “the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a
`
`solution to a problem in the software arts” they are not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at *21. “To
`
`be sure, “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea
`
`into a patent-eligible invention.” Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`135667, at*16 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 21, 2016) (internal citations omitted), adopted by Perdiemco, LLC
`
`v. GPS Logic, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134654 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016). “But this is not a
`
`license to delete all computer-related limitations from a claim and thereby declare it abstract.” Id.
`
`“Moreover, the mere fact that all the recited computer components are ‘conventional’ because the
`
`applicant did not invent an entirely new kind of computer is not inherently troubling.” Id. at 17.
`
`“Instead, the analysis turns on ‘whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or
`
`method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself
`
`is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” Id.
`
`Zendesk argues that the Asserted Patents are abstract “because they are directed to
`
`fundamental business practices regarding providing tailored offerings to customers and preventing
`
`non-customers from accessing those offerings.” Mot. at 10. This over-generalization of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 1051
`
`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, 822
`
`F.3d at 1336; 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.”).  
`
`Zendesk’s over-generalization of the scope of these claims should be rejected.
`
`As set forth in more detail below, the claimed inventions are directed to remedying specific
`
`problems with prior systems and do not merely invoke generic computer components. See, e.g.,
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659, at **112-114
`
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016).
`
`i)
`
`The ’466 Patent
`
`Zendesk alleges that the ’466 Patent is abstract because it “claims the idea of providing a
`
`customer with a list of products or services being offered” and “attempts to monopolize the age-
`
`old idea of providing users with a menu.” “Mot. at 10. In so arguing, Zendesk improperly reads
`
`the indispensable computer limitations out of the claim. See, e.g., Perdiemco v. Industrack, 2016
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667, at *16 (Alice “is not a license to delete all computer-related limitations
`
`from a claim and thereby declare it abstract”). Zendesk then compares the steps of claim 1 with
`
`an example of a university who displays a list of available courses to its students. Mot. at 11.
`
`However, claim 1 of the ’466 recites:
`
`1. A method for management of application programs on a network including a
`server and a client comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
`
`[b] receiving at the server a login request from a user at the client;
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 1052
`
`[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. Mar. 20, 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 of an
`
`application program is provided to a client in response to selection of the program from a user
`
`desktop interface associated with an authorized user. Notably, the instance of the application
`
`program (i.e., executable computer program instructions) is provided to the client for execution.
`
`These steps of the claim are inherently electronic and not tasks that could be performed by the
`
`human hand. See, e.g., Genband, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659, at **110-111. Neither are they
`
`mental processes or methods of organizing human activity that merely invoke a computer. Rather,
`
`they inherently require a computer because they solve a problem particular to computers, namely
`
`providing application programs to roaming users who login from different clients with varying
`
`hardware and operating systems. Such claims are patent eligible. Core Wireless, 2016 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 35663, at *12 (claim that “purports to ‘improve the functioning of the computer itself’” is
`
`patent eligible) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 1053
`
`
`
`Zendesk then claims that the dependent claims are equally abstract. Zendesk alleges that
`
`the dependent claims merely “add that the list of options available to a customer depends on the
`
`customer’s identity.” Mot. at 12. Zendesk’s argument should be rejected. Claim 2 of the ’466
`
`Patent recites:
`
`A method according to claim 1 further comprising the steps of:
`
`maintaining application management information for the plurality of applications
`at the server; and
`
`wherein the establishing step includes the step of including a plurality of display
`regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs for which the
`user is authorized responsive to the application management information.
`
`’466 Patent at 21:36-45. This dependent claim recites that the display regions associated with the
`
`application programs for which the user is authorized is responsive to application management
`
`information maintained at the server. The elements of this claim are also inherently electronic and
`
`not amenable to tasks performed by a human.
`
`
`
`Further, claim 7 specifically recites:
`
`A method according to claim 1 wherein the establishing a user desktop step includes
`the steps of:
`
`configuring the user desktop interface responsive to an identifier of the user
`associated with the login request so as to provide associated information for the
`user desktop interface; and
`
`providing the user desktop interface and the associated information for the user
`desktop interface to the client for display.
`
`Id. at 22:11-17. This claim recites the user desktop interface is configured responsive to an
`
`identifier of the user associated with the login request so as to provide associated information to
`
`the interface. Again, the elements of the claim are inherently electronic and not amenable to tasks
`
`performed by a human.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 1054
`
`
`
`Further, Zendesk argues that the claims “only add conventional computer activity” to an
`
`already abstract idea. Mot. at 14. However, the claims call for more than that and, in fact, recite
`
`establishing a “user desktop interface” associated with a user that includes “a plurality of display
`
`regions associated with a set of the plurality of application programs installed at the server for
`
`which the user is authorized.” Moreover, the claims recite “providing an instance of the selected
`
`one of the plurality of application programs to the client for execution.” The meaning of the term
`
`“an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application programs” is important to clarify the
`
`general character of the patent as a solution to the problem of providing seamless integration of
`
`application access across heterogeneous networks that is specific enough to avoid the risk of pre-
`
`emption. For example, a proposed construction of the term as “a modified version of an application
`
`program that is adapted to the type of hardware and/or operating system from which a user requests
`
`execution” is not only consistent with the teachings of the ’466 Patent specification (see id. at 11:4-
`
`8) but is also consistent with the plain language of the claim itself. See claim 1 at 21:17-35, e.g.
`
`“application programs” vs. “instance of… application program”). Therefore, the terms recited in
`
`the steps of the Claim 1 and those that depend on it are not merely conventional computer activity,
`
`but rather are elements or combination of elements that provide user mobility in a client-server
`
`environment. See Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123232, at
`
`*31 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016) (claim “directed to a specific type of packet traffic-metering that is
`
`confined to, and solves problems arising in, mobile device networks” is “not directed to an abstract
`
`idea”).4
`
`ii)
`
`The ’578 Patent
`
`                                                            
`4 Adopted by 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122745 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2016).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 94 Filed 11/22/16 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 1055
`
`Zendesk argues that “[t]he ’578 patent claims the abstract idea of customizing a product
`
`based on a customer’s preferences while also accounting for the business’ preferences.” Mot. at
`
`15. Zendesk then compares the limitations of claim 1 to a travel agency who manages business
`
`trips . Id.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’578 Patent recites:
`
`1. A method for management of configurable application programs on a network
`comprising the steps of:
`
`[a] installing an application program having a plurality of configurable preferences
`and a plurality of authorized users on a server coupled to the network;
`
`[b] distributing an application launcher program associated with the application
`program to a client coupled to the network;
`
`[c] obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated with
`one of the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program;
`
`[d] obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences from
`an administrator; and  
`
`[e] executing the application program using the obtained user set and the obtained
`administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences responsive to a request
`from the one of the plurality of authorized users.
` 
`Importantly, this claim recites a specific method for management of configurable
`
`application programs on a network, wherein an application program having a plurality of
`
`configurable preferences and a plurality of authorized users is installed on a server coupled to the
`
`network. The claim further recites distributing an application launcher program associated with
`
`the application program to be distributed to a client connected to the network. A user set of the
`
`plurality of configurable preferences associated wit