Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1095
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00741-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00858-JRG
`CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADP, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT BIG FISH GAMES, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`2AA4983
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 1096
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................. 1 
`
`COMPUTER PROBLEMS ADDRESSED BY THE ASSERTED PATENTS ................. 1 
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 5 
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7 
`
`A. 
`B. 
`
`Step 1: The Asserted Patents Claim Patentable Subject Matter ............................. 7 
`The Asserted Patents are Directed Toward an Improvement in the Way
`Computers Operate ............................................................................................... 17 
`Step 2: The Claims of the Asserted Patents Add an Inventive Concept ............... 20 
`The Specific Components Recited in the Claims Perform Specific
`a. 
`Functions Within a Network ..................................................................... 25 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 27 
`
`C. 
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 1097
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`2-Way Computing, Inc., v. Grandstream Networks, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-0111-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2016) .................................................................... 17
`800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd.,
`539 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 2
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ...................................................................................................... passim
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ................................................................................................................... 5
`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 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 7
`Bascom Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11687 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 27, 2016) ........................................... 7, 20, 24, 25
`Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123232 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2016) ...................................................... 14
`Core Wireless Lic. S.à.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2016) ..................................... 10, 12, 13, 17
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... passim
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ................................................................................................................... 6
`Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) ................................................... passim
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) ............................................. passim
`Gonzalez v. Kay,
`577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 5
`Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
`563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 5
`In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Pat. Lit.,
`774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................... 7
`JDS Techs., Inc. v. Exacq Techs.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73622 (E.D. Mich., June 7, 2016) ....................................................... 8
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 1098
`
`McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games AM. Inc.,
`2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016) ............................................................................ 8
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 7
`Perdiemco, LLC v. Industrack LLC,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667 (E.D. Tex., July 7, 2016) ................................................ passim
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135669 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2016) .................................................... 21
`RPost Holdings, Inc. v. Readnotify.com Pty. Ltd.,
`No. 2:11-cv-16, 2012 WL 3201898, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2012) ........................................ 5
`Turner v. Pleasant,
`663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 5
`
` 
`
`Rules 
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................... 7
`35 U.S.C. §101 ....................................................................................................................... passim
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 1099
`
`Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together “Uniloc” or
`
`“Plaintiffs”), respectfully submit this opposition to the motion of defendant, Big Fish Games,
`
`Inc., (“Defendant” or “Big Fish”), 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
`
`A.
`
`
`B.
`
`Has Big Fish proved by clear and convincing evidence that the claims of the
`Asserted Patents are directed to abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. §101.2
`
`If so, has Big Fish 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.
`
`
`COMPUTER PROBLEMS ADDRESSED BY THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`II.
`
`As explained in detail below, the Asserted Patents solve particular problems in the
`
`computer field, thus rendering them patent eligible. See Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2016
`
`U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, at *21 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (“claims [that] are directed to a specific
`
`implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” are not invalid under Section
`
`101). Moreover, the claims of the Asserted Patents are “necessarily rooted in computer
`
`technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
`
`networks” because they “amount to an inventive concept for resolving this particular Internet-
`
`centric problem.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Thus, contrary to Big Fish’s argument, the claims are patent eligible. Id. at 1259.
`
`                                                            
`1 Big Fish 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 ’78
`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 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 1100
`
`The Asserted Patents, originally issued to IBM, relate to network and application
`
`management on a computer network. See ’466 Patent at 1:21-23. 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.3 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 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,
`
`                                                            
`3 Uniloc asserts: claims 1-8, 10-13, 15, 17-24, 26-29, 31-39, 41-42 and 46 of the ’578 Patent;
`claims 1, 12 and 17 of the ’293 Patent; claims 1- 2, 7, 15-17, 22, 30 and 35 of the ’466 Patent.
`See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 27, 38, 49, 60. Big Fish, however, seeks to invalidate all claims of the
`Asserted Patents (Mot. at 1). Uniloc submits that invalidating unasserted claims is legally
`improper. See e.g., 800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd., 539 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 1101
`
`combinations of network connections, differing hardware, native applications and network
`
`applications made portability of preferences or operating environments difficult. Id. at 2:19-25.
`
`Attempted solutions 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 efforts typically required pre-installation of software
`
`at the station to support their services. Id. at 2:40-42. Some of these efforts 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. None of these attempted solutions
`
`addressing the issue of mobility of users presented application choices for 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 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 1102
`
`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
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 1103
`
`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.
`
`III. 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.,
`
`681 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 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).
`
`
`
`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)).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 1104
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an inventor may obtain a patent for “any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Excluded from patent protection are “laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
`
`“[T]he concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i]s one of pre-emption,” that is, “that
`
`patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building
`
`blocks of human ingenuity.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court recognized, however, that “too broad an
`
`interpretation of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law” because “all inventions
`
`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. 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.
`
`A court must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
`
`patent-ineligible concepts[:]” laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Id. at 2355. 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 1105
`
`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).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Step 1: The Asserted Patents Claim Patentable Subject Matter
`
`The Step 1 analysis applies a “filter to claims, considered in light of the specification
`
`based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish,
`
`2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8699, at *11 (internal citations omitted). When “the claims are directed
`
`to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” they are not directed
`
`to an abstract idea. Id. at *21. “To be sure, “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
`
`transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Perdiemco, LLC v.
`
`Industrack LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135667 at*16 (E.D. Tex., July 7, 2016)(internal
`
`citations omitted). “But this is not a license to delete all computer-related limitations from a
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 1106
`
`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.
`
`Big Fish 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 9-21. 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.”). Big Fish’s over-generalization of the
`
`scope of these claims should be rejected.
`
`As set forth in more detail supra and 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)
`
`The ’578 Patent
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 1107
`
`Big Fish first argues that the claims of the ’578 Patent “are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`providing two-tiered customization, a method of organizing human activity and long-standing
`
`commercial practice which well predates the Patents-in-Suit.” Mot. at 8. Big Fish erroneously
`
`compares the limitations of claim 1 to a supplier providing supplies to two employees of a
`
`business. Id. at 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 with one of the plurality of authorized users
`
`executing the application launcher program is obtained and an administrator set of the plurality
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 1108
`
`of configurable preferences is obtained from an administrator. 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.
`
`The steps of the claim are inherently electronic and “specific to devices like computers.” 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). They expressly require a client-server environment, distribution of application launcher
`
`program and an execution of an application program using the obtained user and administrator
`
`sets of configurable preferences. These steps are, therefore, clearly not tasks that can be
`
`completed by a supplier providing supplies to two employees of a business. Such claims are
`
`“concrete, not abstract.” Id. at *12 (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257). Likewise, the
`
`claimed functionality must be performed on a computer network, using servers and application
`
`programs. “[T]he asserted claims cannot be performed by the human hand or in the human mind
`
`without specific hardware or circuitry.” Genband, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134659, at *110. This
`
`negates Big Fish’s argument that the claims are simply an abstract idea. Id.
`
`Big Fish further argues that the claimed “‘configurable preferences’ described in the ’578
`
`Patent… are so broad as to be no different than the conventional preferences by which
`
`conventional suppliers customize their services to increase consumer satisfaction.” Mot. at 11.
`
`Big Fish’s construction of these claimed terms is inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’578
`
`specification, which details that “configurable preferences” implies more than “a single generic
`
`example” of “color display preferences.” Id. at 11. The specification discloses that “configurable
`
`preferences” can relate to “[t]he combinations of network connections, differing hardware, native
`
`applications and network applications” employed by a given user that moves from workstation to
`
`workstation. ’578 Patent at 2:18-20; 2:23-24. Therefore, the term “configurable preferences” is
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 1109
`
`not a conventional preference that can be utilized by suppliers to customize their service, but
`
`rather is a term that is more specialized and serves to address the ongoing issue of roaming users
`
`within a network. Moreover, in a prior patent cited by an Examiner of the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office, the original assignee and owner of the ’578 Patent (IBM) further defined
`
`computer-related preferences to be “such things as the background color on their computer
`
`screen, mouse click rates, options within a specific software application, start-up screens, etc.”
`
`5,875,327 Patent at 1:18-20, as well as “station configuration passwords”. Id at 4:35-43. The
`
`claimed elements “user set of the plurality of configurable preferences” and “administrator set of
`
`the plurality of configurable preferences” are terms that Uniloc identified as necessary for
`
`construction (Dkt. No. 34-1) prior to a Section 101 analysis in order to ascribe proper meanings
`
`to the terms that are consistent with the teachings of the ’578 Patent. Uniloc’s position is that the
`
`meanings of these claimed terms be consistent with the ’578 Patent teachings, which is contrary
`
`to Defendant’s apparent construction of the terms; thus, there is clearly a dispute as the proper
`
`meanings of those claimed terms.
`
`Big Fish further argues that the dependent claims are equally abstract by making the same
`
`analogy to the supplier who supplies goods to a customer company. Mot. at 12, 13. However,
`
`the dependent claims require additional specific limitations that cannot be performed by a
`
`supplier. For example, Claim 2 requires “a configuration manager program associated with the
`
`application program.” Claim 5 requires “displaying an icon associated with the application
`
`program on a screen of the client.” ’578 Patent at 15:16-17; 15:34-35. Accordingly, these
`
`limitations cannot be performed by humans and are inherently computer-related functions.
`
`ii)
`
`The ’466 Patent
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 97 Filed 12/01/16 Page 16 of 32 PageID #: 1110
`
`Big Fish alleges that the ’466 Patent is abstract because it “is a method of organizing human
`
`activity and long-standing commercial practice which predates the Patents-in-Suit.” Mot. at 14.
`
`In so arguing, Big Fish 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 Big Fish then erroneously compares the steps of claim 1 with the
`
`same example of a supplier providing supplies to businesses and their employees. Mot. at 13-14.
`
`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, 2016
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35663, at *11 (“concepts of ‘application,’ ‘sum