Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 1 of 31 PageID 248
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`7-ELEVEN, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-02868
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`RULE 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`OF DEFENDANT 7- ELEVEN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 31 PageID 249
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The ’157 Patent ..........................................................................................3
`
`The ’329 Patent ..........................................................................................4
`
`The ’317 Patent ..........................................................................................5
`
`The ’097 Patent ..........................................................................................5
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................7
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157........................................................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’157 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of
`ranking search results ...................................................................10
`
`The ’157 Patent Also Fails Alice Step 2 .......................................12
`
`The Other Claims Are Ineligible for Patent Protection ...............13
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,698,329........................................................................14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’329 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of
`ranking search results ...................................................................14
`
`The ’329 Patent Also Fails Alice step 2 .......................................15
`
`The Other Claims Are Ineligible For Patent Protection...............16
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,209,317........................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Alice Step 1 – The ’317 Patent is directed to the abstract
`idea of replacing a “partial query” with a “full query” ................17
`
`The ’317 Patent Also Fails Alice Step 2 ......................................19
`
`The Other Claims Are Ineligible for Patent Protection ...............19
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,805,097........................................................................21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 3 of 31 PageID 250
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’097 Patent Is Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Arranging and Displaying Search Results Based on
`Their Content ...............................................................................21
`
`The ’097 Patent Also Fails Alice Step 2 ......................................23
`
`The Other Claims Are Ineligible for Patent Protection ...............23
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 4 of 31 PageID 251
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Ltd.v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................8
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...............................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. Advanced Discovery Inc,
`No. 16-413-GMS, 2017 WL 2734725 (D. Del. 2017) ...................................................2, 11, 12
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns., Inc.,
`778 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................8
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................19, 23
`
`Collarity, Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. CV11-1103-MPT, 2015 WL 7597413 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal dismissed (May
`10, 2016) ....................................................................................................................................1
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................10
`
`Cuvillier v. Sullivan,
`503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................8
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................9, 18
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 5 of 31 PageID 252
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................9
`
`Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................9
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank U.S.A.,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................13, 16, 20
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d at 1340 ......................................................................................................................22
`
`Landmark Tech., LLC v. Assurant, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-CV-76-RWS-JDL, 2015 WL 4388311 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) .............................2
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .........................................................................................................9, 13
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp.,
`No. 3:12-CV-1652-M, 2016 WL 2757371 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2016) ...................................17
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cellular, Inc.,
`2:16-cv-152-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1065938 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2017) ..............................10, 20
`
`Semantic Search Technologies, LLC v. Aldo U.S., Inc.,
`425 F.Supp.3d 758 (E.D. Tex. 2019) .........................................................................2, 8, 10, 12
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns., LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring).................................................... passim
`
`Univ. of Fl. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d at 1367 ......................................................................................................................22
`
`Zitovault v. IBM,
`Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-0962-M, 2018 WL 2971131 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (Lynn, J.) ................5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 6 of 31 PageID 253
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .........................................................................................................................3, 8
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 7 of 31 PageID 254
`
`Plaintiff R2 Solutions LLC (“R2” or “Plaintiff”) alleged that Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-
`
`Eleven” or “Defendant”) infringes U.S. Patents 8,209,317 (the “’317 Patent”), 8,341,157 (the “’157
`
`Patent”), 7,698,329 (the “’329 Patent”), 9,805,097 (the “’097 Patent”), and 10,176,272 (the “’272
`
`Patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Patents”). 1 7-Eleven moves to dismiss Counts I–IV of the
`
`complaint2 because they are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Since each of the Asserted
`
`Search Claims of the Search Patents is invalid, R2 has failed to state a claim upon which relief can
`
`be granted.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent claims directed to an abstract idea are ineligible for patentability under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101. The Asserted Search Claims in this case are all directed to an organized human activity—
`
`searching, arranging, and displaying information—using computers merely as tools. The ’317 Patent
`
`is directed to replacing one search term with another, the ’157 and ’329 Patents are related to ranking
`
`search results, and the ’097 Patent is directed to arranging and displaying search results.
`
`Courts have found similar claims to be patent ineligible. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
`
`S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that “merely selecting information, by content
`
`or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
`
`ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based
`
`category of abstract ideas”); Collarity, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. CV11-1103-MPT, 2015 WL
`
`7597413, at *4 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2015), appeal dismissed (May 10, 2016) (finding that “the abstract
`
`
`1 In the Complaint, R2 asserts the following claims (collectively “Asserted Claims”): Claims 1-5
`and 7-10 of the ’157 Patent, claim 1, 4-5, 8, and 11-12 of the ’329 Patent, claims 1-2, 8-10,
`and 12 of the ’317 Patent, claims 1, 3, 8-10, and 17-20 of the ’097 Patent, and claims 1 and
`10 of the ’272 Patent. The subset of Asserted Claims from the Search Patents are referred to
`as the “Asserted Search Claims” hereinafter.
`2 Counts I–IV are the portions pertaining to the ’317, ’157, ’329, and ’097 Patents (collectively
`the “Search Patents”). 7-Eleven does not concede that the ’272 Patent is patent-eligible and
`reserves the right to address its validity after sufficient discovery.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 8 of 31 PageID 255
`
`idea of refining search queries” on a computer is patent ineligible); Landmark Tech., LLC v.
`
`Assurant, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-76-RWS-JDL, 2015 WL 4388311, at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015)
`
`(finding patent claims that recite only the well-known concepts of “storing, interrelating, searching,
`
`and retrieving information” to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea); Blackbird Tech LLC
`
`v. Advanced Discovery Inc, No. 16-413-GMS, 2017 WL 2734725, at *4 (D. Del. 2017) (finding
`
`patents drawn to the steps of “1) conducting a search based on a search query, 2) determining a
`
`concept associated with a search query, 3) and then ranking the search results based on which
`
`documents are most relevant to that concept” to be an “abstract idea.”); Semantic Search
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Aldo U.S., Inc., 425 F.Supp.3d 758, 774 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (finding patent
`
`claims directed to “iteratively searching for and presenting information based on user feedback” and
`
`“not rooted in an improvement to computer technology but merely apply generic computer
`
`technology to a traditional routine method of commercial and human activity” to be patent
`
`ineligible).
`
`The Search Patents also use functional end-results to describe the claimed technology
`
`without specificity, which runs afoul of precedents on patent eligibility. Elec. Power Grp., 830
`
`F.3d at 1351 (finding claims that “defin[e] a desirable information-based result and not limited to
`
`inventive means of achieving the result fail under § 101.”) Similarly, all Search Patents recite
`
`generic, conventional computer equipment. Simply reciting a “method” to be performed “on a
`
`computing device,” without providing specific technological improvements in the capabilities of
`
`computer technology, would not make the claims nonabstract. Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast
`
`Cable Commc’ns., LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “claims directed to
`
`generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity are not
`
`patent eligible.”) Similarly, none of the Search Claims include “additional features” that are “more
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 9 of 31 PageID 256
`
`than well-understood, routine, conventional activity” to elevate them above abstract ideas.
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718-19 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring).
`
`All the Search Patents are directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea. Resolving these issues
`
`does not require discovery or formal claim construction. To avoid wasting judicial and party
`
`resources by litigating invalid patents, 7-Eleven requests that the Court dismiss Counts I–IV of the
`
`Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
`
`which relief can be granted.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`R2 Solutions LLC sued 7-Eleven for patent infringement on December 21, 2022. The
`
`asserted Search Patents are related to different stages of internet searches: the ’317 Patent is
`
`directed to replacing a “partial query” with a “full query” in the outset of a computer search,
`
`the ’157 Patent is directed to ranking search results by their “intents,” the ’329 Patent is directed
`
`to ranking search results by their content, and the ’097 Patent is directed to arranging and
`
`displaying search results based on their content.
`
`A.
`
`The ’157 Patent
`
`The ’157 Patent discloses systems and methods of “intent driven search presentation,” or
`
`in other words, “information search, retrieval and presentation.” ’157 Patent at Abstract, 1:15. The
`
`specification acknowledges that existing search engines are already capable of “more narrowly
`
`tailor search results and may additionally employ sophisticated algorithms to rank search results,”
`
`and also “use the ranked search results to build one or more search engine result pages.” Id. at 4:6–
`
`8. The alleged improvement of the ’157 Patent was related to knowing the “intent of the query,”
`
`so that “search results may be ranked such that results that are more relevant to the user's intent
`
`appear at or near the top of the search results.” Id. at 4:18–19. To determine the intent of a query,
`
`the ’157 Patent recites analyzing the query and identifying at least one query keyword, using the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 10 of 31 PageID 257
`
`query keyword to classify the query into at least one “intent,” assigning the intent or intents to data
`
`objects, then rank the data objects and build the search result. See id. at 1:33–52; see also Claim 1.
`
`The ’157 Patent also recites using generic computing equipment, such as “general purpose
`
`computer, special purpose computer, ASIC, or other programmable data processing apparatus,” to
`
`implement the claimed method and system. Id. at 2:49–51.
`
`B.
`
`The ’329 Patent
`
`The ’329 Patent recites “method and apparatus for improving search results,” which “works
`
`by delineating sections of a document that are not relevant to the main content,” yet “[t]he
`
`document content is subjected to ranking analysis in entirety.” ’329 Patent at Abstract. The ’329
`
`Patent acknowledges that it was well known that “[s]earch engines use [one or more] index . . . to
`
`search for documents,” that such indexes “can be directories, in which content is indexed . . . to
`
`reflect human observation,” and that these indexes can either be manually designated by a
`
`webmaster, or “created and maintained automatically by processes [known as] crawlers.” Id. at
`
`1:45–51. Notably, the ’329 Patent does not claim to have invented or improved crawlers; in fact,
`
`the claims do not even recite using crawlers.
`
`Further, “[a] search engine may rank the documents according to relevance to the search
`
`query.” Id. at 1:67–2:1. The purported improvement over prior art is including “no-recall sections”
`
`(sections of documents that are not indexed in search engine indexes) “as input to forms of analysis
`
`of the document that affect […] the document’s ranking.” Id. at 3:12, 21–23.
`
`During its prosecution, before the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Ltd.v. CLS Bank
`
`Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the ’329 Patent was already rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 by the Patent
`
`Office. Ex. A (Non-Final Rejection dated May 13, 2009, Application No. 11/652,356, at p.2.)3 In
`
`
`3 Courts may take judicial notice of the prosecution histories of patents. See Zitovault v. IBM,
`Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-0962-M, 2018 WL 2971131, at *2, n.4 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (Lynn, J.).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 11 of 31 PageID 258
`
`response, the patentee amended the claims to recite “wherein the method is performed by one or
`
`more computing devices.” (Ex. B, Response to Office Action filed on July 10, 2007 (Claim
`
`Amendments), Application No. 11/652,356, at p. 2.)
`
`C.
`
`The ’317 Patent
`
`The ’317 Patent discloses “[m]ethods and systems for reconstructing a full query based on
`
`a partial query,” and in specific, “by allowing a flexible way for users to submit a partial query
`
`and reconstruct a full query based on the partial query.” ’317 Patent, Abstract. The ’317 Patent’s
`
`specification acknowledges that the disclosed methods can be distilled down to the following steps:
`
`“receiving a first set of information indicative of a partial query, determining a full query based on
`
`the partial query, submitting the full query to a search engine, receiving results from the search
`
`engine, and presenting the results to the user.” Id. at 1:61–65. The ’317 Patent further explains “the
`
`term ‘partial search query’ or ‘partial query’ means any abbreviated or incomplete search query
`
`such that the submitted query is not fully representative of the entire search query desired by the
`
`user,” while a “full query” is “reconstructed from the partial query.” Id. at 3:12–15, 27–28.
`
`The ’317 Patent recites using generic components, such as “any private or public
`
`communication network,” “standard browser application,” “workstation computer, laptop
`
`computer, handheld computer, cell phone, mobile messaging device, or the like” to implement the
`
`purported invention. Id. at 2:47–55.
`
`D.
`
`The ’097 Patent
`
`The ’097 Patent is directed to “methods, systems, and programming for providing a search
`
`result.” ’097 Patent at 1:17–18. The Patent discloses providing search results, which are structured
`
`in different “sub-components,” based on “a correspondence . . . between the one or more content
`
`items and the at least one sub-component,” such that “each of the one or more content items is
`
`arranged with respect to a corresponding sub-component.” Id. at Abstract. To put simply, the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 12 of 31 PageID 259
`
`purported invention “aim at providing a search result to a user to improve the user engagement
`
`and/or increase revenue for a search engine.” Id. at 4:33–36.
`
`The purported improvement over prior art is shown in Figures 1 and 2 is simply a way to
`
`“frame” search result information alongside advertising content:
`
`’097 Patent, Fig. 1 (prior art presenting search results as a list).
`
`
`
`’097 Patent, Fig. 2 (presenting search results by framing them into “sub-components”)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 13 of 31 PageID 260
`
`
`Notably, the focus of the ’097 Patent is on arranging and presenting the search results. For
`
`example, Claim 1 recites:
`
`A method, implemented on at least one computing device each of
`which has at least one processor, storage, and a communication
`platform connected to a network for providing a search result, the
`method comprising:
`receiving a search request from a user;
`determining a plurality of content items based on the search request;
`selecting one or more content items from the plurality of content
`items;
`generating a framed structure having at least one sub-component;
`determining a correspondence between the one or more content
`items and the at least one sub-component;
`arranging each of the one or more content items with respect to a
`corresponding sub-component;
`generating a search result based on the one or more content items
`and the framed structure; and
`providing the search result.
`
`
`The ’097 Patent concedes that the purported invention can be “realized” by generic
`
`computer and telecommunication equipment such as “computing devices (e.g., mobile phone,
`
`personal computer, etc.) and network communications (wired or wireless).” Id. at 4:30–33.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A complaint that fails to state a plausible claim for relief must be dismissed under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Semantic Search Techs. LLC v. Aldo U.S., Inc., 425 F. Supp. 3d 758, 768 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2019) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint “must provide the plaintiff’s
`
`grounds for entitlement to relief—including factual allegations that when assumed to be true raise
`
`a right to relief above the speculative level.” Cuvillier v. Sullivan, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir.
`
`2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Although factual allegations are taken as true,
`
`legal conclusions are given no deference. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (holding
`
`that the tenet that allegations are taken as true in a complaint “is inapplicable to legal conclusions.”)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 14 of 31 PageID 261
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal issue. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
`
`593, 602 (2010). Accordingly, the 101 inquiry is properly raised at the pleadings stage if it is
`
`apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to eligible subject
`
`matter. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718-19 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J.,
`
`concurring). In those situations, claim construction is not required to conduct a § 101 analysis. See
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Similarly, while patent eligibility “may contain disputes over underlying facts” (see
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), courts are not “required to accept
`
`legal conclusions as true, even if couched as factual allegations.” Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Commc'ns., Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 894 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Section 101 of the Patent Act sets forth
`
`four categories of patentable subject matter: “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
`
`or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The law recognizes three exceptions to patent eligibility: “laws of nature, physical
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980). Determining
`
`whether a patent claim is impermissibly directed to an abstract idea involves two steps. First, the
`
`court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice,
`
`573 U.S. at 218. Second, if the claim contains an abstract idea, the court evaluates whether there
`
`is “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. at 217.
`
`Transformation into a patent-eligible application requires “more than simply stating the
`
`abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 221 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
`
`Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). Indeed, if a claim could be performed in
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 15 of 31 PageID 262
`
`the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, it is not patent-eligible. CyberSource Corp.
`
`v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also, a claim is not meaningfully
`
`limited if it includes only token or insignificant pre- or post-solution activity—such as identifying
`
`a relevant audience, category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Mayo, 132 S. Ct.
`
`at 1297–98, 1300–01; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191–92 & n.14
`
`(1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 n.18 (1978).
`
`Finally, “simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, to
`
`laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make those laws, phenomena, and
`
`ideas patentable.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300; see also Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`
`671 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Such a broad and general limitation does not impose
`
`meaningful limits on the claim’s scope.”). For example, “[i]n cases involving software
`
`innovations, th[e] inquiry [of patent eligibility] often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the
`
`specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as
`
`an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat
`
`Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
`
`1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`The claims asserting the Search Patents should be dismissed because they are directed to
`
`subject matter ineligible for patent protection. First, they are all directed to abstract ideas. Second,
`
`they do not provide a specific solution or additional elements that transform the nature of the claim
`
`into a patent-eligible application.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 16 of 31 PageID 263
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,341,157
`
`1.
`
`The ’157 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of ranking search
`results
`
`Claim 1 of the ’157 Patent is representative. See IV.A.3, infra. 4 In determining patent
`
`eligibility under § 101, the Court must first determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract
`
`idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In this inquiry, “[c]ourts should recite a claim’s purpose at a
`
`reasonably high level of generality.” Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. Blackberry
`
`Corp., No. 3:12-CV-1652-M, 2016 WL 2757371, at *4 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2016) (Lynn, J.)
`
`(internal citation omitted).
`
`The crux of claim 1 is “determining . . . intents from [query] keyword,” using the keywords
`
`to conduct a search, “assigning” the same set of “intents” to the search results, then “ranking” and
`
`displaying the search results based on the “intents.” Under step 1 of the Alive test, claim 1 recites
`
`the abstract idea of the collection, organization, and display of data, carried out “over a network”
`
`and “using . . . computer device.” The following table shows the limitations of the claim 1 along
`
`with a corresponding restatement for each limitation that reflects the broad, general nature of each
`
`claim:
`
`’157 Patent
`
`1.Pre A method comprising the steps of:
`1.a
`receiving, over a network, a query from a user, the query
`comprising at least one query token;
`
`Function
`
`
`Receiving a query
`
`
`4 Where claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea,” courts may look
`to representative claims in a § 101 analysis. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
`Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also Semantic Search,
`425 F.Supp.3d at 772 (finding that since all of the asserted claims in the case “are directed to
`the same abstract idea,” they all “fall within the class of claims related to abstract ideas of
`collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
`analysis.”); Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. Consumer Cellular, Inc., 2:16-cv-152-JRG-RSP,
`2017 WL 1065938, at *8–9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2017) (invalidating 974 claims after analyzing
`only a few “representative claims” where the other claims were “substantially similar” and
`“linked to the same abstract idea”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 17 of 31 PageID 264
`
`1.b
`
`1.c
`
`1.d
`
`1.e
`
`1.f
`
`1.g
`
`1.h
`
`1.i
`
`
`
`analyzing the query, using at least one computing device, to
`identify at least one query keyword;
`determining, at least the one computing device, a plurality of
`intents from the at least one keyword, each of the plurality of
`intents indicates a type of information regarding the query
`keyword that is likely to be desired by a user submitting the
`query;
`classifying the query, using the at least one computing device,
`into at least one of the plurality of intents;
`
`identifying, using the at least one computing device, a
`plurality of data objects available over the network that match
`the at least one query keyword;
`assigning, using the at least one computing device, at least
`one of the plurality of intents to at least some of the plurality
`of data objects;
`Ranking, using the at least one computing device, the
`plurality of data objects;
`building a result, using the at least one computing device,
`using the ranked plurality of data objects, the result comprises
`a plurality of display entries, at least one display entry
`customized to a respective assigned intent is constructed for
`each of the ranked plurality of data objects; and
`Transmitting the result, over the network, to the user
`
`Identifying a
`keyword
`Determining
`the intended topics
`sought by the
`keyword
`
`Classifying the
`query by the topics
`sought
`Searching for a
`match
`
`Assigning the
`sought topics to the
`search results
`Ranking the search
`results
`Displaying the
`search results based
`on the rankings and
`topics sought
`
`Providing the result
`to the user
`
`In claim 1, “intents” are concepts or topics assigned to search queries, and used to
`
`categorize and display the search results. The specifications acknowledge the same. ’157 Patent at
`
`2:40–42 (“The present invention is […] methods and devices to select and present media related
`
`to a specific topic.”) This is a classic example of organized human activity, one similar to everyday
`
`concepts such as classified advertising and library indexes. In Blackbird, the District of Delaware
`
`found that claims drawn to the steps of “1) conducting a search based on a search query, 2)
`
`determining a concept associated with a search query, 3) and then ranking the search results based
`
`on which documents are most relevant to that concept” directed to patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`No. 16-413-GMS, 2017 WL 2734725, at *4 (D. Del. 2017). The same is true here. The “intents”
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-02868-S Document 11 Filed 02/17/23 Page 18 of 31 PageID 265
`
`in claim 1 are analogous to “concepts associated with a search query” in Blackbird, and the search
`
`results are ranked based on which retrieved data objects are most relevant to the “intents.”
`
`Similar to claim 1 of ’371 Patent above, here, claim 1 here merely recites computerizing
`
`this abstract idea with generic, convent