Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 8829
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`NO. 2:17-CV-00140-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 8830
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT .......................... 1
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................ 1
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438...................................................................................... 1
`B.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978...................................................................................... 5
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 7
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Alice Step 1: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Concept ............. 8
`1.
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to an Unpatentable
`Mathematical Algorithm for Combining Sensor Data ............................... 8
`Alice Step 2: The Asserted Claims Do Not Recite An Inventive Concept .......... 10
`The Dependent Claims Do Not Add Anything of Substance That Would
`Affect the Patentability of the Claims .................................................................. 12
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 13
`
`B.
`C.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 8831
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .....................................................................................................................8
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................10
`
`Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .........................................................................................................8, 11
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ...............................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................7
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 8832
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This motion presents a simple question for the Court: Does claiming basic, well-known
`
`sensors and other off-the-shelf components convert a mathematical algorithm into patentable
`
`subject matter? Plaintiff CyWee Group Ltd.’s (“CyWee”) experts admit that the claims of the
`
`patents-in-suit set forth an open-ended framework of mathematical equations. It is well
`
`established that such claims do not recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`CyWee argues that the patent claims set forth a particular configuration of sensors in a
`
`hand-held device and are thus patent eligible. The claims, however, merely recite well-known
`
`sensors performing their usual functions without any restriction about how they are physically
`
`configured. The prosecution histories confirm that the alleged point of novelty was the claimed
`
`algorithms, not the sensors or their configuration. Because there is no plausible reading of the
`
`claims that renders them patentable subject matter, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court
`
`grants its motion and find the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`Algorithms are not patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CyWee’s patent
`
`claims merely recite algorithms that operate on data obtained from conventional sensors and
`
`were allowed because of the details of those algorithms, not the sensors or their configuration.
`
`Given this, are CyWee’s patent claims invalid?
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438
`
`CyWee has asserted Claims 1, 3–5, 14–17 and 19 of
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 8833
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (“the ’438 Patent””) (Ex. 1)1 a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`variants of the same basic conceppt of calculaating the atti
`
`
`
`gainst Sams
`
`
`
`ung. These cclaims are mminor
`
`
`
`
`
`tude or orienntation of a ““3D pointingg
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device” using well-known matheematical formmulas. In a pparallel laws
`
`
`
`
`
`uit, in its oppposition to
`
`
`
`Google’s motion to dismiss undeer Section 1001, CyWee mmapped a floow chart fromm the ’438 PPatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to a paraphrased version of the allgorithm reccited in Clai
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`m 14:
`
`
`
`m literally r
`
`
`
`ecited in Claaim 14:
`
`
`
`Ex. 2 at 5.
`
`
`
`CyWee further mapped thhe above to tthe algorith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A method for obtaaining a resuulting deviatiion includinng resultant
`
`
`
`angles in a spatiall pointer refeerence fram
`e of a three-
`dimensional
`
`
`
`
`
`(3D) pointing devvice utilizingg a six-axis mmotion sensoor module
`
`
`
`therein and subjecct to movements and rot
`ations in dy
`namic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise stated, all exhhibits referennced herein
`
`
`
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann, filed concurrrently herewwith.
`
`
`
`to the Declaaration of
`
`are attached
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 8834
`
`
`environments in said spatial pointer reference frame, comprising
`the steps of:
`obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module;
`wherein the previous state includes an initial-value set associated
`with previous angular velocities gained from the motion sensor
`signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at a previous time
`T−1;
`obtaining a current state of the six-axis motion sensor module by
`obtaining measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz gained from the
`motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at a
`current time T;
`obtaining a measured state of the six-axis motion sensor module by
`obtaining measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az gained from the
`motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at the
`current time T and calculating predicted axial accelerations Ax′,
`Ay′, Az′ based on the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy,ωz of
`the current state of the six-axis motion sensor module without
`using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy,
`ωz; said current state of the six-axis motion sensor module is a
`second quaternion with respect to said current time T; comparing
`the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular
`velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state at current time T with the
`measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and the predicted axial
`accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ also at current time T;
`obtaining an updated state of the six-axis motion sensor module by
`comparing the current state with the measured state of the six-axis
`motion sensor module; and
`calculating and converting the updated state of the six axis motion
`sensor module to said resulting deviation comprising said resultant
`angles in said spatial pointer reference frame of the 3D pointing
`device.
`
`Id. at 5–6.
`
`
`
`The sole portion of the claim that is not color coded (aside from the preamble) merely
`
`recites comparing velocities in quaternion format to measured and predicted axial accelerations,
`
`which is a mathematical operation that CyWee’s expert claims is reflected in Equation 11 of the
`
`specification. Ex. 3 at 61:20–22. Therefore, all of Claim 14 is directed to a mathematical
`
`algorithm.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 8835
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 8835
`
`Claim 14 does refer to stnlcture, such as a “3D pointing device” and a “six-axis motion
`
`module.”—
`
`— The ’438 Patent itself acknowledges 3D pointing devices
`
`were known in the art. Ex. 1, Figs. 1—2, 223—47.—
`
`— eytew ttmttt gg tontgttgg gyggggg g
`
`accelerometers into three-axis sensors was known and conventional as of 2010, before the
`
`earliest possible priority dates of the asserted patents. Ex. 7 1[ 9.
`
`The remainder of the intlinsic evidence confums that the ’438 Patent is directed to an
`
`algorithm. The specification states that the claims are directed to a mathematical algorithm for
`
`calculating the orientation of a 3D pointing device: “The present invention generally relates to a
`
`three-dimensional (3D) pointing device utilizing a motion sensor module and method of
`
`compensating and mapping signals of the motion sensor module subject to movements and
`
`rotations of said 3D pointing device.” Ex. 1 at C01. 1:17—21. The PTO allowed the claims based
`
`solely on the algorithm. The claims were rejected in View of Nasiri (U.S. Pat. Pub.
`
`2009/0262074), a reference that discloses a device using accelerometers and gyroscopes.) Ex. 8
`
`at 3—4; Ex. 9. Therefore. CyWee could not argue that the claims were novel because they recite a
`
`six-axis motion sensor module or other components. Instead. CyWee obtained allowance of the
`
`claims because of the recited algorithm. specifically the fact that the predicted axial accelerations
`
`are calculated without using derivatives of the measured angular velocities. Ex. 10.
`
`The other asserted claims are very similar to Claim 14. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8836
`
`
`requiring a housing, printed circuit board (“PCB”), a six-axis motion sensor module, and a
`
`processing and transmitting module. For the reasons stated above, these structural limitations are
`
`merely generic hardware and were never described by CyWee or the inventors as being novel
`
`aspect of the claimed invention. Claims 3 and 5 are directed to trivial design elements of the PCB
`
`and the data transmitting unit. Claims 4 and 15–17 relate to further specifics of the algorithm.
`
`And Claim 19 is essentially the same as Claim 14.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`The ’978 Patent claims priority to the ’438 Patent and similarly claims a mathematical
`
`algorithm for calculating the attitude or orientation of a 3D pointing device, although at a much
`
`higher level. Ex. 11 at Abstract. CyWee has asserted Claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 Patent. Claim
`
`10 recites:
`
`10. A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing device,
`comprising:
`
`generating an orientation output associated with an orientation of
`the 3D pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of a
`global reference frame associated with Earth;
`
`generatinq [sic] a first signal set comprising axial accelerations
`associated with movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device
`in the spatial reference frame;
`
`generating a second signal set associated with Earth's magnetism;
`generating the orientation output based on the first signal set, the
`second signal set and the rotation output or based on the first signal
`set and the second signal set;
`
`generating a rotation output associated with a rotation of the 3D
`pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of a spatial
`reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device; and
`
`using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a
`transformed output associated with a fixed reference frame
`associated with a display device, wherein the orientation output
`and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion sensor
`module; obtaining one or more resultant deviation including a
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 8837
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 8837
`
`plurality of deviation angles using a plurality of measured
`magnetisms Mx, My, MZ and a plurality of predicted magnetism
`
`Mx' My' and M2' for the second signal set.
`
`CyWee admits that the ’978 Patent claims include the
`
`m
`
`same seven-step algorithm described above with respect
`
`“$33"
`
`to the ’438 Patent. Ex. 2 at 4. Unlike the ’438 Patent, the
`
`
`
`’978 Patent incorporates measured and predicted
`
`-
`
`
`:
`Data
`.
`.
`Transmzttrr
`Unit
`
`9
`
`- --» -----“2-~—‘ — - -
`-
`Computnq
`Processor
`
`magnetisms generated by a nine—axis motion sensor
`
`module. Specifically, Claim 10 uses magnetic data, in
`
`FIG. 4
`
`combination with angular velocity and axial acceleration data. to determine the direction the 3D
`
`pointing device is pointing.
`
`Notably, Claim 10 does not refer to any structure except for a 3D pointing device, which
`
`the ’978 Patent specification admits is in the prior art, and a nine-axis motion sensor module. Ex.
`
`— eyvvee admits
`
`configuring magnetometers into three-axis sensor's was known and conventional as of 2010,
`
`before the earliest possible priority dates of the asserted patents. Ex. 7 1] 9.
`
`That fact is confmned in the prosecution history. Similar to the ’438 Patent, the ’978
`
`Patent application was rejected based on Nasiri, which discloses gyroscopes, accelerometers, and
`
`magnetometers. Ex. 12 at 4—5. The claims were eventually allowed after they were amended to
`
`incorporate magnetisms into the recited algorithm. Ex. 13 at 2—3.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 8838
`
`
`Claim 12 of the ’978 Patent depends from Claim 10. Claim 12 merely recites a minor
`
`variation in which the orientation of the 3D pointing device can be expressed in one of four
`
`commonly known ways, and thus relates closely to the unpatentable mathematical algorithm
`
`recited in Claim 10.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material
`
`fact” and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 defines patentable subject matter. Judicial precedent has “long held that this
`
`provision contains an important implicit exception” in that “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena,
`
`and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
`
`2354 (2014) (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`There is a two-step process to determine whether a patent claims ineligible subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. First, the court must “determine whether the claims at issue are directed
`
`to one of [the] patent-ineligible concepts”—laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.
`
`Id. at 2355. The court must “consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an
`
`ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform that nature of the
`
`claim into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at 2356–57 (citations and internal quotation marks
`
`omitted). “The abstract ideas category embodies the longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not
`
`patentable.” Id. at 2355 (internal quotations and alteration marks omitted).
`
`
`
`Second, if the court determines that the patent is drawn to an abstract idea or otherwise
`
`ineligible subject matter, it must then “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it
`
`contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
`
`eligible application.” Id. at 2357. “Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it”’ is
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 8839
`
`
`not enough for patent eligibility.” Id. at 2358 (quoting Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`
`Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step 1: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Concept
`
`1.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Directed to an Unpatentable Mathematical
`Algorithm for Combining Sensor Data
`
`The asserted claims are plainly directed to an unpatentable mathematical algorithm and
`
`therefore fail step 1 of the Alice test. Under any plausible reading, the ’438 and ’978 Patents
`
`claim a mathematical algorithm for computing the direction a 3D pointing device is pointing by
`
`combining two (’438 Patent) or three (’978 Patent) sets of sensor data. It is well-established,
`
`however, that abstract principles like mathematical algorithms are not patentable under Section
`
`101. See Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 89 (holding that there is “a bright-line prohibition against
`
`patenting . . . mathematical formulas . . . .”); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“[A]
`
`scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not a patentable invention . . . .”);
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(“If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even
`
`if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”) (citing Parker v.
`
`Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978)).
`
`Here, the basic character of the alleged inventions claimed in the ’438 and ’978 Patents is
`
`an algorithm for using acceleration, rotational, and/or magnetic data obtained from sensors as
`
`inputs into a series of mathematical formulas that calculate attitude or orientation. CyWee has
`
`admitted that “the patented inventions teach how to determine a device’s current orientation
`
`based on the motion data detected by its motion sensors, such as an accelerometer, gyroscope,
`
`and magnetometer.” Ex. 7 ¶ 8. In fact, CyWee’s expert has characterized the inventions as an
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 8840
`
`
`open-ended mathematical framework. Ex. 3 at 138:11–14.
`
`Further, the PTO noted that the ’438 Patent claims were allowable because of the claimed
`
`algorithms. Ex. 10. Claim 10 of the ’978 Patent was allowed because it claimed obtaining a
`
`deviation using measured and predicted magnetisms. Ex. 13 at 5–6. Indeed, each asserted
`
`independent claim recites little more than steps for: (i) “detecting,” “generating” and “obtaining”
`
`data and then (ii) “using,” “comparing,” or “calculating” a result using this data.
`
`The Supreme Court’s holding in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), is instructive.
`
`There, the relevant claim required: (i) measuring a present value; (ii) calculating an updated
`
`alarm-limit; and (iii) adjusting the actual alarm limit to the updated value. Id. at 585–86. The
`
`only difference between the alleged invention and conventional methods of charging alarm limits
`
`was the “mathematical algorithm or formula.” Id. at 586. The claims were broad but did not
`
`cover every conceivable application of the algorithm or formula. See id. However, the Court
`
`found that the claims were directed to a mathematical formula and thus unpatentable. Id. at 593.
`
`Similarly, in Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., the
`
`Federal Circuit found that patent claims directed to combining a first data set of color
`
`information with a second data set of spatial information was unpatentable under Section 101.
`
`758 F.3d at 1350–51. In so doing, the Court specifically held that “a process that employs
`
`mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is
`
`not patent eligible.” Id. at 1351.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’438 and ’978 Patents are analogous to those at issue in Flook
`
`and Digitech. These claims comprise two steps: (i) measuring data—axial acceleration, angular
`
`velocity, and/or magnetism; and (ii) applying a mathematical algorithm that combines the data
`
`sets to calculate the updated orientation of the device. These are exactly the type of claims that
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 8841
`
`
`courts have found to recite unpatentable subject matter.
`
`In opposition to motions from LG and Google in parallel lawsuits, CyWee relied heavily
`
`on Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), but that case is
`
`unavailing. CyWee is correct that the Thales case also related to inertial sensors like those at
`
`issue here. The case states that “[i]nertial sensors, such as accelerometers and gyroscopes,
`
`measure the specific forces associated with changes in a sensor’s position and orientation relative
`
`to a known starting position. . . . [I]nertial systems generally include at least one other type of
`
`sensor, such as an optical or magnetic sensor, to intermittently correct these errors that
`
`compound over time.” Thales, 850 F.3d at 1344–45. However, the relevant claims in Thales
`
`recited two sensors in a specific physical configuration—one mounted on a tracked object and
`
`the other mounted on a moving reference frame. Id. at 1345–46. The placement of the sensors
`
`was non-conventional and reduced errors “in measuring the relative position and orientation of a
`
`moving object on a moving reference frame.” Id. at 1348–49. Here, however, none of the
`
`asserted claims requires anything specific or non-conventional with respect to the sensors or their
`
`configuration. Instead, the sensors are merely to collect data to be used in the allegedly novel
`
`recited algorithm.
`
`The patentee’s statements in the prosecution history further demonstrate what CyWee
`
`considered to be the innovation over the prior art and the essential aspect of its patent claims. See
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To obtain
`
`allowance, CyWee pointed to the algorithms recited in the claims, not the claimed sensors or any
`
`particular configuration of the sensors. Ex. 10; Ex. 13 at 5–6.
`
`Therefore, the asserted claims fail step one of the Alice test.
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step 2: The Asserted Claims Do Not Recite An Inventive Concept
`
`
`
` the patents’ file histories show that the remaining
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 8842
`
`
`elements of the asserted claims merely recite common components and do not contain an
`
`inventive concept. “[T]he elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered
`
`combination” should be considered to determine whether the additional elements “transform the
`
`nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). 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
`
`[abstract idea].’” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alteration in original). Those
`
`additional features, moreover, must be more than “‘well-understood, routine, conventional
`
`activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Id. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1299)
`
`(alteration in original).
`
`
`
`Here, the asserted claims of the ’438 and ’978 Patents fail to claim anything more than an
`
`abstract mathematical algorithm with, at best, several additional generic components previously
`
`known in the industry. The only asserted independent system claim is Claim 1 of the ’438 Patent,
`
`which requires a housing, a printed circuit board (“PCB”), a six-axis motion sensor module
`
`comprising a rotation sensor and accelerometer, and a processing and transmitting module. Ex. 1
`
`at Claim 1. The remaining asserted independent claims are all method claims listing the steps of
`
`the algorithm and referring only to a 3D pointing device and a six-axis or nine-axis motion
`
`sensor module. Id., Claims 14, 19; Ex. 11, Claim 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`. The PTO further noted that devices
`
`including these components were known in the prior art. Ex. 8 at 3–4; Ex. 12 at 4–5. The
`
`remaining limitations recite only algorithmic calculations and resulting data outputs. It is well
`
`established that “merely provid[ing] a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 8843
`
`
`idea” is insufficient to confer patentability to those limitations. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
`
`Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611–12 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court has made clear that the fact that claims may be directed to a specific
`
`application of an abstract idea does not by itself render them patentable. In Diamond v. Diehr,
`
`450 U.S. 175, 191–92 (1981), the Court explained that the prohibition against patenting an
`
`abstract idea such as a mathematical formula “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the
`
`use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Although the claims in this case
`
`may not cover all uses of the recited algorithms, a modest reduction in the scope of the abstract
`
`idea does not render the claims patent eligible. Even with the 3D pointing device limitations, the
`
`asserted claims would still have sweeping preemptive effects. This is especially true under the
`
`Court’s construction of “3D pointing device,” which (over Defendants’ objections) has been
`
`given its plain and ordinary meaning. Dkt. No. 117 at 8.
`
`
`
`Therefore, the asserted claims also fail step two of the Alice test and are not directed to
`
`patentable subject matter.
`
`C.
`
`The Dependent Claims Do Not Add Anything of Substance That Would
`Affect the Patentability of the Claims
`
`Finally, the marginal differences in the dependent claims do not make them patentable.
`
`The dependent claims of the ’438 and ’978 Patents merely recite either additional algorithmic
`
`steps, slightly different hardware configurations, or different (but commonly known) ways to
`
`express the calculated results of the algorithms. Because these limitations are fundamentally
`
`directed to the same mathematical algorithms recited in the independent claims, the asserted
`
`claims as a whole remain directed to unpatentable subject matter.
`
`Specifically, Claims 3 and 5 of the ’438 Patent are directed to slight variations in the
`
`configuration of the foundational hardware used in the claimed algorithm. Claim 3 recites the
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 8844
`
`
`printed circuit board of the 3D pointing device being parallel to the housing. Claim 5 recites a
`
`generic unit that transmits the data collected from the sensors to an equally generic processor.
`
`Neither of these variations changes the fundamental nature of the asserted claims.
`
`Claims 4 and 15 of the ’438 Patent merely recite a minor variation in which the change in
`
`orientation of the 3D pointing device is expressed in yaw, pitch and roll angles, otherwise known
`
`as Euler angles. This is simply a slight difference in how the result of the algorithm is expressed.
`
`Like Claims 4 and 15 of the ’438 Patent, Claim 12 of the ’978 Patent merely recites commonly
`
`known methods in how the orientation of the 3D pointing device is expressed.
`
`Likewise, Claim 16 of the ’438 Patent recites that various results from the algorithm are
`
`expressed in a mathematical format known as a quaternion, which merely represents orientation.
`
`Ex. 3 at 45:21–46:11. Again, this is a very minor difference in how the algorithm is executed.
`
`Finally, Claim 17 of the ’438 Patent recites nothing more than the additional algorithmic
`
`step of setting the initial values to the algorithm. These marginal differences do not change the
`
`essential character of what the asserted claims are directed to under Alice Step 1, nor do they
`
`disclose an “inventive concept” under Alice Step 2.
`
`Accordingly, each of the asserted dependent claims are also unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`CyWee’s own experts admit that the ’438 and ’978 Patents are drawn solely to an open-
`
`ended mathematical framework. This claimed algorithm can be implemented on any device with
`
`sensors. Such mathematical formulas are quintessentially unpatentable abstract ideas. Therefore,
`
`Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for summary judgment and find the
`
`claims of the ’438 and ’978 Patents unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 8845
`
`
`DATED: October 3, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`(650) 320-1900
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 222873
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`Bob Chen (pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 273098
`bobchen@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile:
`(858) 458-3005
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`TX Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 188 Filed 10/05/18 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 8846
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on October 3, 2018. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) and by email.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that under Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), the foregoing document is filed under
`
`
`
`seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order entered in this matter.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`