Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 14456
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,467,838; 9,445,251; 9,408,055; AND 9,749,829
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 14457
`
`
`
`F
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Present Lawsuit .................................................................................................1
`
`The Idea Of A Map Room: Situational Awareness, Communications,
`Command and Control, And Common Operational Picture ....................................2
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Claimed Software .................................................................................5
`
`Hardware Components Recited In The Claims ...........................................6
`
`Prototype Software.......................................................................................8
`
`D.
`
`The Accused Products..............................................................................................8
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment ...............................................................................................10
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................10
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ..................................11
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Patents’ Claims Are Directed An Abstract
`Idea. ........................................................................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Claims Of The Asserted Patents Are Directed To The Abstract
`Idea Of A Map Room. ...............................................................................12
`
`The Generic Hardware Recited In The Asserted Patents’ Claims
`Does Not Make Them Any Less Abstract. ................................................14
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack An Inventive Concept. .....................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Software Disclosed In The Asserted Patents Does Not
`Represent An Improvement In Computer Technology. .............................18
`
`The Dependent Claims Of The Asserted Patents Do Not Contain
`An Inventive Concept. ...............................................................................20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 14458
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 14459
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ................................................................................................... passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Opennet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 17
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .......................................................................................................... 10
`
`Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 22
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................... 14, 17
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................... 10
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 22
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .......................................................................................................... 10
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................... 15, 21
`
`Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................... 18
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 18
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 14
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................... 14, 17
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................... 12, 17
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 14460
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................... 15, 20
`
`Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
`37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................... 18
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................. 12, 18, 23
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................... 12
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................... 17
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................... 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 14461
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1
`Ex. 2
`
`Ex. 3
`Ex. 4
`Ex. 5
`Ex. 6
`Ex. 7
`
`Ex. 8
`Ex. 9
`Ex. 10
`Ex. 11
`Ex. 12
`
`Ex. 13
`Ex. 14
`
`Ex. 15
`
`Ex. 16
`Ex. 17
`
`Ex. 18
`Ex. 19
`Ex. 20
`Ex. 21
`Ex. 22
`Ex. 23
`
`List of Dependent Claims by Category
`Docket Sheet for AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Apple Inc., Civil
`Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829
`AGIS Software Development, LLC’s Final Election of Asserted Claims
`to Defendant Apple, Inc.
`Christopher Rice Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Sandell Blackwell Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Malcolm Beyer Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Excerpt from George McKee Elsey, An Unplanned Life (Missouri 2005)
`Excerpt from William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer
`Churchill Alone, 1932-1940 (Bantum 1988)
`Joseph McAlexander Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`AGIS Software Development, LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(Dkt. No. 165) Excerpts
`Declaration of Jaime G. Carbonell in Support of Plaintiff’s Opening
`Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 165-1) Excerpts
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. No. 205) Excerpts
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No.
`17)
`Joseph McAlexander Infringement Report Excerpts
`Scott Lopatin Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Navin Suparna Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Apple Production Document
`Roberto Garcia Deposition Transcript Excerpts
`Sandell Blackwell Deposition Transcript Excerpts from Advanced
`Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Civil Action No. 9:14-
`CV-80651-DMM (S.D. Fla.)
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 14462
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`The claims of four patents asserted in this litigation are directed to fundamental concepts
`
`that have been central to every successful modern war effort: situational awareness,
`
`communications, and command-and-control. Among the most notable and expansive examples
`
`of this idea in action is the Allies’ collaboration during World War II. Their coordination began
`
`when Winston Churchill visited Washington, D.C. in December 1941,1 bringing along a traveling
`
`“map room” for communicating with his troops, tracking their operations, and sending them
`
`orders. Franklin Delano Roosevelt instructed an aide to create a similar White House map room
`
`that could stay in contact with Churchill’s for the duration of the war.
`
`The claims at issue here are directed to the functions of a World War II-era map room:
`
`communicating with others, annotating and analyzing maps, and sending messages. This approach
`
`to coordinating a war effort is an abstract concept—a basic building block of warcraft that has
`
`existed for as long as there have been maps. And while the claims recite the use of “devices” and
`
`“servers” for sending, receiving, and displaying information, there is no genuine dispute that the
`
`use of well-known computer technology to perform those functions was as unremarkable by the
`
`patents’ alleged 2004 priority date as the use of telephones and paper maps was in 1941. The
`
`asserted claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`The Present Lawsuit
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) filed this case on June 21,
`
`2017. (Ex. 2.) AGIS alleges infringement of five U.S. Patents. Four of those patents are the
`
`subject of this motion: U.S. Pat. No. 9,467,838 (Ex. 3, the “’838 patent”); U.S. Pat. No. 9,445,251
`
`
`1 For facts supporting this introduction, see Part III, Statement of Undisputed Material Facts
`(“SOF”) ¶¶ 4.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 14463
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 4, the “’251 patent”); U.S. Pat No. 9,408,055 (Ex. 5, the “’055 patent”); and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`9,749,829 (Ex. 6, the “’829 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”). The asserted claims of
`
`the asserted patents are listed in the table below; the independent claims are highlighted in bold.
`
`(Ex. 7)
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent
`9,467,838
`
`9,445,251
`
`9,408,055
`9,749,829
`
`Asserted Claims
`5, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 38, 40, 54
`
`2, 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 27, 29, 31, 35
`
`5, 7, 24, 32, 36, 42, 54
`2, 8, 10, 14, 30, 34, 42, 50, 68
`
`2.
`
`Malcolm “Cap” Beyer is a named inventor of each of the asserted patents. (Ex. 3-
`
`6.) Christopher Rice is a named inventor of the ’838, ’251, and ’829 patents. (Ex. 3-4, 6.) Each
`
`of the asserted patents purports to claim priority to an application filed on September 21, 2004.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Room: Situational Awareness, Communications,
`Command and Control, And Common Operational Picture
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 14464
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The United States military has long implemented the concepts of situational
`
`awareness, command-and-control, and a common operational picture to coordinate its war efforts.
`
`For example, a network of U.S. military forces and allies used situational awareness,
`
`communications, and command-and-control to coordinate the United States and Allied efforts
`
`during World War II. Most famously, Winston Churchill set up an elaborate map room (which he
`
`called a “War Room”), featuring maps and communications technology that allowed the prime
`
`minister to track evolving military positions around the world and communicate with and
`
`command and control his forces. (Ex. 11 at 18-19; Ex. 12 at 549-50, 599, 620, 670.) Churchill
`
`took a subset of his maps and communications technologies with him when he traveled, including
`
`during a trip to America after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. (Ex. 11 at
`
`18-19.) Upon seeing Churchill’s traveling war room, President Roosevelt instructed naval aides
`
`to set up the White House Map Room. Id. The White House Map Room was set up to provide
`
`24-hour situational awareness: watch officers remained on duty at all times to receive and forward
`
`to others information about the location of allied forces. (Ex. 11 at 20, 26.) Based on the
`
`information they received, they marked up maps with grease pencils and push pins—the pin size,
`
`shape, and color denoting information about the vessel it represented. (Id. at 19-20.) The watch
`
`officers also received and forwarded photographs, messages, and orders to U.S. and Allied forces
`
`across Europe and Asia. (Ex. 11 at 20-22, 38, 43-44.) Because allies and other military branches
`
`also set up their own map rooms, the President and his collaborators were able to enjoy a common
`
`operational picture of the war. (Ex. 11 at 20, 38.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 14465
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Photo 1: "Al Cornelius in the White House Map Room. Circa 1943."
`(From National Archives -- Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum ,
`available online at https://fdrlibrary.org/map-room.)
`
`5.
`
`After World War II, the U.S. military continued to use situational awareness,
`
`communications, and command-and-control to coordinate its efforts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 14466
`
`
`
`C.
`
`7.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`The four asserted patents that are the subject of this motion share a common
`
`
`
`
`
`specification. Each is entitled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and
`
`Voice Networks.”2 (Ex. 3-6.) The asserted patents disclose a communications method and system
`
`“for the management of two or more people through the use of a communications network.” ’251
`
`pat. 1:33-37. The patents describe this software as “[t]he heart of the invention[.]” ’251 pat. 6:14-
`
`15.
`
`1.
`
`The Claimed Software
`
`8.
`
`The patents explain that the disclosed ACS software allows users to establish a
`
`network for allowing devices to communicate with each other. ’251 pat. 2:60-63. According to
`
`the specification, “each PDA/GPS phone starts by . . . identifying a . . . network” (or “group”) to
`
`join. Id. 2:63-66. Upon joining the network, each phone reports its GPS position and status to a
`
`server, which the server then forwards “to all other participants, causing their displays . . . to
`
`display the received information, thus providing the information necessary for all network
`
`participants to know the identity, location and status of all other network participants.” Id. 3:15-
`
`27. Members of the network can initiate voice or data communication with some or all other users
`
`and request and receive data (i.e. maps, satellite images, and the like) from the server. See id. 3:5-
`
`7; 3:39-43.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Because the specifications of the four patents subject to this motion are identical, any quotation
`from the written description of one patent is also included in each of the other patents. For
`simplicity, all references to the shared specification of the four patents will cite to the ’251 patent
`columns and line numbers.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 14467
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Hardware Components Recited In The Claims
`
`11.
`
`The claims of the asserted patents list two hardware components that are used to
`
`carry out the method described above: (1) “devices” for sending, receiving, and displaying
`
`location and other data, and (2) “servers” for joining devices to a group, forwarding data among
`
`devices, and providing a database for the group.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 14468
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The patents’ specification explains that the devices recited in the claims could
`
`consist of a “cell phone/PDA” or “PC” having a CPU, databases, and a display. See ’251 pat.
`
`5:13-15; 6:14-23.
`
`
`
` Devices that “unite cellular phone technology
`
`with navigation information, computer information transmission and receipt of data” were known
`
`in the art at the time of the alleged invention. ’251 pat. 1:58-2:3.
`
`
`
`specification explains that “[c]onventional PDA/cellular phones are currently on sale and sold as
`
`a unit (or with an external connected GPS) that can be used” to make calls and send SMS, TCP/IP,
`
` The patents’
`
`and other messages “via cellular communications, WiFi, or radio.” ’251 pat. 5:58-6:3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13. With regard to the “servers,” the patents’ specification describes the claimed server
`
`by its functions, including: (1) forwarding “IP communications” and “data addressed from one
`
`participant to one or more addressed participants” in the network, and (2) acting as a “database
`
`from which data can be requested by network participants . . . or can be pushed to network
`
`participants” and for storing the information necessary to “establish an ad hoc network.” ’251 pat.
`
`3:15-33; 3:39-45. The specification notes that these functions “can also be accomplished using
`
`peer to peer WiFi, WiMax or other peer to peer communications” or through the use of a
`
`“centralized static IP routable Server” that can “assure the level of security cell phone companies
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 14469
`
`
`
`require.” Id. 3:34-38.
`
`3.
`
`Prototype Software
`
`14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` During
`
`claim construction, AGIS’s expert, Dr. Jaime Carbonell, further confirmed that “one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood how to routinely program a device with each of the steps”
`
`outlined in the claims of the asserted patents. (See Ex. 15 (Dkt. No. 165-1) ¶¶ 67-70 (’838 pat. cl.
`
`54); ¶¶ 71-75 (’251 pat. cl. 24); ¶¶ 76-81 (’055 pat. cl. 28 (specifying “smartphone or PDA
`
`device”); ¶¶ 82-85 (’829 pat. cl 68).)
`
`D.
`
`15.
`
`The Accused Products
`
`AGIS has accused of infringement a range of Apple products that implement at
`
`least one of Apple’s Find My iPhone, Find My Friends, Family Sharing, and Messages features.
`
`(Ex. 17 (Dkt. No. 32) ¶¶ 30, 44, 58 72.)
`
`16.
`
`Find My iPhone is an app for allowing Apple users to locate their Apple
`
`devices. AGIS alleges that Find My iPhone meets the “group” limitations of the asserted claims
`
`(discussion of ’838 patent claim 1).) In order to use the Find My iPhone app to determine device
`
`location, users must first sign into their iCloud account, enable location sharing, and authorize the
`
` (See, e.g., Ex. 18 at D-a37
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 14470
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Find My iPhone service for each of the devices they want to track. (Ex. 19 (Lopatin Tr.) 93:5-19,
`
`94:21-24.) In order to view devices with the service authorized, a user must log into the Find My
`
`iPhone app. (Id. 98:21-99:8, 112:11-17.)
`
`17.
`
`Find My Friends is an app for allowing Apple users to see each other’s
`
`locations. AGIS alleges that Find My Friends meets the “group” limitations of the asserted claims
`
` (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 18 at D-a40-41 (discussion of ’838 patent claim 1).) In order to use the Find My Friends app
`
`to share his location information with a friend, the user must log into their iCloud account, launch
`
`the app, identify a friend, and authorize location sharing with that friend. (Ex. 20 (Suparna
`
`Tr.) 112:4-15.)
`
`18.
`
`Family Sharing is a feature that allows Apple users to link their iCloud accounts
`
`together for sharing information with family members, such as purchases, subscriptions, photos,
`
`and location information. AGIS alleges that Family Sharing meets the “group” limitations of the
`
`asserted claims
`
` (See, e.g., Ex. 18 at D-a41
`
`(discussion of ’838 patent claim 1).) In order to use Family Sharing to share location information
`
`with family members, a “family organizer” must (among other things) log into iCloud, enter
`
`contact information for one or more family members, send a message to each family member to
`
`invite them to join the family, and enable sharing location information with family members. (Ex.
`
`21 at APL-AGIS00027773-4.) Each member of the family must then accept the invitation and
`
`authorize sharing location information with other members of the family. (Id.)
`
`19. Messages is an app that allows Apple users to send messages to one another. AGIS
`
`alleges that Messages meets the “group” limitations of the asserted claims
`
`
`
` (See, e.g, Ex. 18 at D-a41 (discussion of ’838
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 14471
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent claim 1).) In order to use the Messages app to send messages, a user must identify the other
`
`users by contact information such as telephone number or email address. (Ex. 22 (Garcia Tr.) at
`
`61:6-17.)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`A movant is entitled to summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
`
`fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A dispute of fact is “genuine” only if the evidence
`
`presented “is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
`
`party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “[T]he party moving for
`
`summary judgment must ‘demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,’ but need
`
`not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075
`
`(5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323).
`
`B.
`
`Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014), the Supreme Court
`
`specified a two-step process for determining whether a patent claim covers only a patent-ineligible
`
`“abstract idea.” At the first step, a court must “determine whether the claims at issue are directed
`
`to” an abstract idea. Id. If so, the court proceeds to the second step to “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 quotations and citations omitted).
`
`“Whether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law which may
`
`contain disputes over underlying facts.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018). “When there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the claim element or
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 14472
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claimed combination is well-understood, routine, [and] conventional to a skilled artisan in the
`
`relevant field, this issue can be decided on summary judgment as a matter of law.” Id.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`Whether the asserted claims of U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,467,838; 9,445,251; 9,408,055; and
`
`9,749,829 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Each claim of the asserted patents is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed
`
`to the abstract idea of conducting situational awareness, communications, and command-and-
`
`control activities, limited only by the requirement that these functions be performed on generic
`
`computers.3 The named inventors of the asserted patents did not invent the technology necessary
`
`to perform these functions on a computer. Nor do their patents disclose an invention or
`
`improvement in that technology. Instead, the asserted patents describe an unexceptional method
`
`for developing a common operational picture: (1) setting up a network of collaborators; (2)
`
`exchanging up-to-date location information with one another; (3) plotting the location information
`
`on a georeferenced map and keeping it up-to-date; and (4) sending data and communications to
`
`other collaborators. In short, the claims are directed to the idea of a digital Map Room.
`
`Part A, below, describes how the claims of the asserted patents embody the abstract idea
`
`of a Map Room, and why the hardware recited in the claims does render that idea patent-eligible.
`
`Part B addresses each element of the asserted claims, individually and as an ordered combination,
`
`
`3 With a few minor exceptions, the independent claims of any individual patent contain all of the
`same limitations, and differ only with respect to whether (1) the claim is directed to a device or a
`method, and (2) the limitations are described from the perspective of a device or a server. See,
`e.g., ’829 pat. cl. 1 (claiming method performed by a server); cl. 34 (claiming device that performs
`that method); cl. 55 (claiming that method, as performed by a device).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 14473
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and explains why they fail to set forth an inventive concept that transforms the claims into patent-
`
`eligible subject matter.
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Patents’ Claims Are Directed An Abstract
`Idea.
`
`At Alice step one, a court “consider[s] the claims in their entirety” to determine their subject
`
`matter. Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. Although there is no bright-line rule for identifying what constitutes a
`
`patent-ineligible abstract idea, “[t]he inquiry often is whether the claims are directed to a specific
`
`means or method for improving technology, or whether they are simply directed to an abstract
`
`end-result.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). For example, claims centered on “methods of organizing
`
`human activity” are ineligible abstract ideas. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
`
`(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`1.
`
`The Claims Of The Asserted Patents Are Directed To The Abstract
`Idea Of A Map Room.
`
`Considered in their entirety, the asserted claims of the asserted patents are directed to the
`
`abstract end result of performing the functions of a Map Room, as described above. Setting up an
`
`operating Map Room for communications and command-and-control involves a number of steps.
`
`It is no surprise, then, that the asserted claims of the asserted patents are long and recite several
`
`steps. For clarity, representative Claim 1 of the ’251 patent is set forth below, with the Map Room
`
`functionality highlighted in bold.
`
`1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
`
`with a first device, receiving a message from a second device, wherein the message
`relates to joining a group;
`
`based on receiving the message from the second device, participating in the group,
`wherein participating in the group includes sending first location information to
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 14474
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a server and receiving second location information from the server, the first
`location information comprising a location of the first device, the second location
`information comprising a plurality of locations of a respective plurality of
`second devices included in the group;
`
`presenting, via an interactive display of the first device, a first interactive,
`georeferenced map and a plurality of user-selectable symbols corresponding to
`the plurality of second devices, wherein the symbols are positioned on the first
`georeferenced map at respective positions corresponding to the locations of the
`second devices, and wherein the first georeferenced map includes data relating
`positions on the first georeferenced map to spatial coordinates;
`
`sending, from the first device to the server, a request for a second georeferenced
`map different from the first georeferenced map, wherein the request specifies a
`map location;
`
`receiving, from the server, the second georeferenced map, wherein the second
`georeferenced map includes the requested location and data relating positions on
`the second georeferenced map to spatial coordinates;
`
`presenting, via the interactive display of the first device, the second georeferenced
`map and the plurality of user-selectable symbols corresponding to the plurality
`of second devices, wherein the symbols are positioned on the second
`georeferenced map at respective positions corresponding to the locations of the
`second devices; and
`
`identifying user interaction with the interactive display selecting one or more of the
`user-selectable symbols corresponding to one or more of the second devices and
`positioned on the second georeferenced map and user interaction with the display
`specifying an action and, based thereon, using an Internet Protocol to send data to
`the one or more second devices via the server,
`
`wherein the first device does not have access to respective Internet Protocol addresses
`of the second devices.
`
`’251 pat. 14:59-15:35
`
`There can be no genuine dispute that the highlighted elements of representative claim 1
`
`describe a well-known method of organizing human activity. These activities mirror precisely the
`
`situational awareness, communications, and command-and-control activities conducted in the
`
`World War II map rooms. (See SOF ¶ 4.) Military forces scattered over a geographic area join
`
`together in a group. They share location information with each other, plot that location information
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 240 Filed 12/18/18 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 14475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on accurate maps, and keep the information up-to-date so that everyone in the network has a
`
`common operational picture of the evolving situation. (Id.) Based on this shared visual, they
`
`communicate with each other—for example, by sending orders or information about the location
`
`of other entities on the battlefield.
`
`Since World War II (and before), this method has been implemented over and over, in
`
`different contexts and using different technologies.
`
`
`
` The
`
`use of a situational awareness, communications, and command-and-control system