Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 46 PageID# 1797
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 46 PageID# 1798
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Procedural Posture ...............................................................................................................2
`
`Background of the Patents-in-Suit .......................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The ’104 Family .......................................................................................................3
`
`The ’753 Patent ........................................................................................................4
`
`The ’784 Patent ........................................................................................................6
`
`The ’264 Patent ........................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`Legal Standard .....................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) .........................................8
`
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.................................................................9
`
`Presumption of Validity .........................................................................................10
`
`
`
`Argument ...........................................................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The ’104 Family is Patent-Eligible Under Alice .......................................11
`
`The ’753 Patent is Patent-Eligible Under Alice .........................................24
`
`The ’784 Patent is Patent-Eligible Under Alice .........................................31
`
`The ’264 Patent is Patent-Eligible Under Alice .........................................36
`
`
`
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 3 of 46 PageID# 1799
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`55 F.4th 900 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................9, 17, 28, 31
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`723 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................22
`
`Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................10
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................21
`
`California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................23
`
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc,
`955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................10, 11, 20
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`813 F. App'x 495 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................................39
`
`Copperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc.,
`50 F.4th 127 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................10, 20, 21, 31
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................14
`
`CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC,
`15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................21, 36
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 4 of 46 PageID# 1800
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................13
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................16, 30
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH,
`942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................10, 12, 16, 18
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................14
`
`Mentone Solutions LLC v. Digi International Inc.,
`Nos. 2021-1202, 2021-1203, 2021 WL 5291802 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)...........................35
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
`5 F. Supp. 3d 592 (D. Del. 2013) .............................................................................................39
`
`Occupy Columbia v. Haley,
`738 F.3d 107 (4th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................12, 14, 19
`
`Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc.,
`65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................................28, 29
`
`SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`425 F. Supp. 3d 601 (E.D. Va. 2019) .............................................................................. passim
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................14, 17, 33, 34
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 5 of 46 PageID# 1801
`
`Weisner v. Google LLC,
`51 F.4th 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................34
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ..............................................................................................................................10
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..............................................................................................................8, 21
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) .............................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 6 of 46 PageID# 1802
`
`Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) hereby opposes Defendants
`
`Google LLC (“Google”) and Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the
`
`Pleadings (Dkt. No. 93 (Google Action) and Dkt. No. 83 (Apple Action), “Motion” or “Mot.”).
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Technological improvements to known problems are patent-eligible. Controlling precedent
`
`confirms this for the electrical and computer arts as for any other, even though those improvements
`
`may, e.g., be software-based, comprise novel data structures, or involve the processing and
`
`analysis of data. If a patent claims a technological improvement, that ends the Alice inquiry.
`
`Defendants’ reflexive § 101 challenge—curiously filed as a Rule 12(c) motion in the
`
`middle of expert discovery, and without record support—commits the classic fallacy of over-
`
`abstracting the claimed inventions in search of an abstract concept to argue the Patents-in-Suit are
`
`invalid. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have repeatedly admonished against this approach,
`
`recognizing that any invention can be dissected to find an alleged abstract idea. That is not the
`
`Alice test. Rather, the controlling test is whether the patent claims as written—and as informed by
`
`the patent specification—cover a technological improvement, or merely an abstract idea.
`
`The specifications of the Patents-in-Suit—as well as the averments in Geoscope’s
`
`Complaints that must be accepted here as true—detail specific technological challenges to
`
`geolocating mobile devices, and explain how the claimed inventions solve those challenges. They
`
`improve geolocation technology itself by, inter alia, correcting for biases in outdoor versus indoor
`
`environments, defining grid points based on measured signal propagation rather than a fixed or
`
`conventional geography, correcting measurement bias to align calibration data with ground truth,
`
`and using ambient signals for geolocation so that bandwidth, sensors, and battery can be more
`
`efficiently utilized. These are specific technological improvements to geolocation—they are not
`
`mere uses of geolocation for implementing a business method or economic activity, or other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 7 of 46 PageID# 1803
`
`abstract idea. Even if the claims were drawn to an abstract concept—which they are not—they
`
`would, at a minimum, be patent-eligible under the second step of the Alice test, since they include
`
`inventive concepts and unconventional approaches as to how geolocation is performed.
`
`All inventions are built on prior components and involve abstract ideas. That alone cannot
`
`render a claim patent-ineligible. The correct inquiry is whether the claims as a whole cover abstract
`
`ideas, or rather recite technological improvements. The Patents-in-Suit do the latter—they claim
`
`specific technological improvements for performing geolocation. Defendants cannot meet their
`
`burden to show otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, the Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`PROCEDURAL POSTURE
`
`Geoscope filed its Complaints against Google and Apple on November 22, 2022 and
`
`December 1, 2022, respectively, for infringement of the same six patents. Although not
`
`consolidated, some proceedings have been conducted jointly (e.g., Markman) and some filings
`
`(e.g., briefings for this Motion) are filed identically in both matters. The parties served opening
`
`expert reports on July 3, 2023, and rebuttal reports are due on July 28, 2023. See Dkt. No. 91
`
`(Google Action). The joint Markman hearing for both cases was held on July 6, 2023. Discovery
`
`closes in both cases on August 18, 2023.
`
`Defendants first approached Geoscope regarding this Motion on June 8, 2023, many
`
`months after answering the Complaints. Geoscope said that, given the imminent expert exchanges,
`
`it would be better to address the issue on a full record at summary judgment. Nonetheless,
`
`Defendants filed the Motion on June 27, 2023. Less than a week later, on July 3, 2023, Defendants
`
`served expert reports addressing, e.g.¸ “the conventionality of the elements of the asserted claims”
`
`as part of a purported “ineligibility analysis.” Geoscope’s expert will also opine on the issue as
`
`part of his July 28, 2023 rebuttal report. As discussed below, however, the expert testimony cannot
`
`be considered because Defendants raised these arguments in a Rule 12(c) motion.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 8 of 46 PageID# 1804
`
` BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`A.
`
`The ’104 Family
`
`The asserted ’104, ’358, and ’494 Patents are all part of the same patent family (the “’104
`
`Family”1). Geoscope asserts that Defendants infringe claims 1 and 2 of the ’104 Patent, claims 15,
`
`18, and 52 of the ’358 Patent, and claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 of the ’494 Patent. The ’104 Family
`
`claims are directed to methods and systems for determining the location of a mobile device that
`
`involve, inter alia, modifying observed network measurement data.
`
`Conventional geolocation systems using network signals were subject to reduced accuracy
`
`due to disparities between calibration data and observed data. Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 1:33-
`
`40, 3:43-49, 9:35-392; Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 49-503. These disparities can be caused by a number of
`
`“varying conditions and other operational variables” that affect how signals propagate, including
`
`the environment in which the data is acquired (e.g., indoors or outdoors). Id. For example, “the
`
`signal strengths of signals received from … neighboring base stations [by wireless devices located
`
`indoors] tend to be lower than the strength of the signals received by [those] located outdoors,”
`
`resulting in “a poor estimated location accuracy.” Id. This problem was common given that
`
`“[c]alibration data is typically collected in an outdoor environment” but mobile devices seeking
`
`their location may often be indoors. Id. Collecting calibration data indoors was not an acceptable
`
`solution to this problem because it is “time-consuming to perform calibration procedures indoors
`
`due to the required access to buildings and the inability to utilize automated collection procedures
`
`designed for outdoor environments.” Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at 1:24-32; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 53.
`
`The inventions of the ’104 Family improved on conventional methods for geolocation
`
`
`1 Where possible, Geoscope has endeavored to use the same naming conventions as Defendants.
`2 For simplicity, citations are to the ’104 Patent; identical language is in the ’358 and ’494 Patents.
`3 The portions of the Complaints discussing the background of the Patents-in-Suit are identical
`(with identical paragraph numbering) for the Google and Apple Actions.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 9 of 46 PageID# 1805
`
`using network signals by modifying the observed data to account for these disparities. As the ’104
`
`Family explains, “[observed] network measurement data may be modified for comparison with the
`
`outdoor calibration data” as part of “[r]eliably locating a mobile station located indoors, even when
`
`the calibration data has been obtained in an outdoor environment.” Dkt. No. 1-1 (’104 Patent) at
`
`3:43-49; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 51. The ’104 Family claims recite this technological improvement to
`
`conventional geolocation systems that improves the accuracy of geolocation. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 54-57.
`
`The ’104 Family extensively describes exemplary forms of modifying the observed data prior to
`
`comparison to the calibration data. Id. ¶ 51.
`
`The applicants for the ’104 Family patents identified this problem in the prior art while
`
`prosecuting the patents before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Id. ¶ 50.
`
`For example, during prosecution of the ’358 Patent, the applicants explained: “When a mobile
`
`station is located indoors, the signal strength of signals received and/or transmitted by the mobile
`
`station have the tendency to be lower than the strength of the signals received by a mobile station
`
`located outdoors. As a result of these lower signal strengths, geo-location efforts which rely on
`
`signal strengths may result in unsatisfactory location accuracy.” Id. The applicants for the ’104
`
`Family patents also identified this aspect of the inventions to the USPTO as distinguishing prior
`
`art. Id. ¶ 52. For example, during prosecution of the ’358 Patent, the applicants explained that prior
`
`art references relied on by the Examiner failed to teach, inter alia, “modifying the observed
`
`network measurement data and comparing the modified network measurement data with a
`
`database of calibration data to determine the location of a mobile station.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`The ’753 Patent
`
`Geoscope asserts that Defendants infringe claims 1 and 32 of the ’753 Patent. The ’753
`
`Patent claims are directed to methods and systems for determining the location of a mobile device
`
`that involve, inter alia, generating “grid points” based on calibration data and using those grid
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 10 of 46 PageID# 1806
`
`points to geolocate a mobile device.
`
`Conventional geolocation systems used signals associated with known locations to try to
`
`locate mobile devices. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 59. Where these known locations were relatively sparse
`
`throughout a region resulting in limited information to be used for geolocation, the accuracy and
`
`efficiency of geolocation of mobile devices could suffer. Id. The further a mobile device was from
`
`a known location, the greater the uncertainty and error for the determination of its location. Id.
`
`Thus, the accuracy and efficiency of geolocation was diminished by not having more known
`
`locations associated with network data. Id. The’753 Patent explains that “there is a need to
`
`streamline the process in order to efficiently and effectively handle the vast amount of data being
`
`sent between the wireless communications network and the large number of mobile devices for
`
`which locations are to be determined.” Dkt. No. 1-4 (’753 Patent) at 2:21-26; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 59.
`
`The inventions of the ’753 Patent improved on conventional methods for geolocation using
`
`network signals by employing the generation and use of “grid points,” including non-uniform grid
`
`points, as part of the determination of the location of a mobile device. Dkt. No. 1-4 (’753 Patent)
`
`at 9:34-48; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 60. Using this approach, calibration data could be used to create a denser
`
`“map” of known locations associated with network data that could be used to locate a mobile
`
`device, ensuring more accurate geolocation with simpler calculations. Id. Then, “[t]he location of
`
`a wireless mobile device may be estimated by comparing data reported by the mobile device to be
`
`geolocated with the data … associated with the various grid points to thereby estimate the location
`
`of the mobile.” Id. The ’753 Patent explains how grid points can be generated based on calibration
`
`data. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-4 (’753 Patent) at 10:29-11:21, 12:15-67; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 60.
`
`The applicants for the ’753 Patent pointed to these inventive features in distinguishing the
`
`prior art during prosecution of the patent before the USPTO. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 61. For example, the
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 11 of 46 PageID# 1807
`
`applicants explained that, inter alia, in a prior art reference relied on by the Examiner “no grid
`
`points are generated within any geographic region” despite “[t]he claim [of the ’753 Patent]
`
`specifically requir[ing] both calibration points and grid points.” Id.
`
`C.
`
`The ’784 Patent
`
`Geoscope asserts that Defendants infringe claim 11 of the ’784 Patent, which depends from
`
`claim 1. The ’784 Patent claims are directed to methods and systems for generating a calibration
`
`database that involve, inter alia, using data about the locations of streets to verify and improve
`
`calibration data that can be used for geolocation.
`
`Conventional geolocation systems could suffer from reduced accuracy due to errors and
`
`imprecision in the calibration data used for geolocation caused by a variety of factors. Dkt. No. 1-
`
`5 (’784 Patent) at 1:28-37, Abstract; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 65. For example, “[c]alibration data measured
`
`via a calibration data collection device may contain errors due to the physical limitations of the
`
`collection device and/or the collection process,” including errors related to “signal degradation or
`
`drop-out” for GPS signals. Id. “Without accurate ground truth information, the calibration database
`
`will contain significant errors which will in turn be reflected by poor location estimates.” Id. This
`
`problem was not resolved by alternative approaches such as the use of a “dead-reckoning device,”
`
`which attempts to calculate location “when GPS location signaling obtained from a GPS satellite
`
`becomes unavailable,” because that approach still results in calibration data that is “unsatisfactory”
`
`for accurate geolocation. Dkt. No. 1-5 (’784 Patent) at 1:44-60; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 68.
`
`The inventions of the ’784 Patent improved on conventional methods for geolocation by
`
`using the locations of streets in an area as supplemental information to check the integrity of the
`
`calibration data. Contrary to conventional systems, the ’784 Patent employed this additional
`
`geographic information to assess and correct errors in the calibration data. The ’784 Patent teaches
`
`that “[g]round truth data observed from a data collection device (i.e., a GPS receiver) may be
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 12 of 46 PageID# 1808
`
`collected and stored in a calibration database and compared to a street database to modify and
`
`enhance the calibration data for increased accuracy … [which] may in turn provide more accurate
`
`location results.” Dkt. No. 1-4 (’784 Patent) at 3:23-3:28; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 66. In this way, a “street
`
`database may be used as a supplemental data source to compare and/or check the integrity of
`
`collected location data.” Id. The ’784 Patent describes specific, exemplary ways in which a “street
`
`database” can be used to check and correct errors in calibration data. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-4 (’784
`
`Patent) at 4:7-67; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 66.
`
`During prosecution of the ’784 Patent, the Examiner recognized that the prior art failed to
`
`teach limitations of the claims directed to this novel method of using information about streets to
`
`correct errors in the calibration data. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 67. For example, the Examiner stated that the
`
`prior art failed to teach “determining from said status a most likely one of said plural streets upon
`
`which said wireless device is located” and “determining said most likely street as a first one of
`
`said plural geographic locations,” as recited in the independent claims of the ’784 Patent. Id.
`
`D.
`
`The ’264 Patent
`
`Geoscope asserts that Defendants infringe claims 13, 15, and 20 of the ’264 Patent. The
`
`’264 Patent claims are directed to methods and systems for determining path loss value that
`
`involve, inter alia, allowing such a determination while the wireless device and receiver are
`
`actively communicating and without disabling any other communication channel.
`
`The ’264 Patent teaches that “conventional systems determine the path loss value by
`
`assigning a dedicated frequency channel to the wireless device and disabling interfering frequency
`
`channels within the wireless communication system … [which] requires revising the frequency
`
`use plan for the entire geographic area which is costly and inefficient.” Dkt. No. 1-6 (’264 Patent)
`
`at 3:39-45; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 72. This also interfered with how remaining channels could be used by a
`
`and could require disabling interfering channels, reducing the number of frequency channels
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 13 of 46 PageID# 1809
`
`available for use. Id. Thus, the ’264 Patent explains that “there is a need for a method and apparatus
`
`for assessing path loss without setting aside an otherwise active frequency channel or disturbing
`
`the frequency use plan.” Dkt. No. 1-6 (’264 Patent) at 1:55-61; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 72.
`
`The inventions of the ’264 Patent satisfied this need. They improved on conventional
`
`methods for determining path loss values for geolocation purposes by using “an existing channel
`
`engaged in active communication” for path loss measurements, which “obviates the need for a
`
`dedicated channel and a revised frequency use plan.” Dkt. No. 1-6 (’264 Patent) at 3:51-60; Dkt.
`
`No. 1 ¶ 74. “By using an active communication channel, the path loss measurement can be
`
`conducted without disrupting an existing frequency use plan to allocate a specific frequency
`
`channel for path loss calculations” and “the results can be as reliable as using a dedicated frequency
`
`channel for beacon signaling.” Dkt. No. 1-6 (’264 Patent) at 4:60-67; Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 74.
`
`The applicants for the ’264 Patent identified this problem in the prior art while prosecuting
`
`the patent before the USPTO. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 73. For example, the applicants distinguished prior art
`
`systems that “require[d] a frequency channel dedicated to the path loss measurement,” noting that
`
`this approach employed by conventional systems “require[d] revising a frequency use plan for the
`
`respective geographic area which is costly and inefficient.” Id. The applicants relied on these
`
`inventive features in arguing for the patentability of the claims during prosecution. Id. ¶ 75. For
`
`example, the applicants told the USPTO that the prior art failed to teach determining path loss
`
`values “utilizing an active communications channel and/or using measurements from an active
`
`communications channel without disabling any other communications channel.” Id.
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)
`
`A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed under the same standard
`
`as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 14 of 46 PageID# 1810
`
`Corp., 425 F. Supp. 3d 601, 608 (E.D. Va. 2019) (quoting Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d
`
`107, 115 (4th Cir. 2013)). “[F]or purposes of the court’s consideration of the Rule 12(c) motion,
`
`all of the well pleaded factual allegations in the adversary’s pleadings are assumed to be true and
`
`all contravening assertions in the movant’s pleadings are taken to be false.” Trs. of Columbia, 425
`
`F. Supp. 3d at 608. Additionally, the Court must view all inferences to be drawn from the facts in
`
`the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Broadly, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “any new and useful process, machines, manufacture, or
`
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore.”
`
`One of the few exclusions is that “abstract ideas” cannot be patented. The test for that exclusion is
`
`governed by a two-step framework set forth by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
`
`Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). Under Alice Step One, courts “determine whether the claims
`
`at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as an “abstract idea.” Id. at 218. If not,
`
`then the claims are patent-eligible under § 101, and the analysis ends there. Id. at 217; Adasa Inc.
`
`v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“If the focus of the claim is a specific
`
`and concrete technological advance, for example an improvement to a technological process or in
`
`the underlying operation of a machine, our inquiry ends and the claim is eligible.”).
`
`Courts must “tread carefully” to focus on the specific claimed solution rather than high-
`
`level simplifications because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions … embody, use, reflect, rest upon,
`
`or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Id. Additionally, courts must look
`
`to the patent’s specification to inform their understanding of the claims in determining what they
`
`are “directed to.” CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc, 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Enfish,
`
`LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims directed to improvements
`
`in technological processes are not abstract, and thus are patent-eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 15 of 46 PageID# 1811
`
`U.S. 175, 187-88 (1981); Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017); Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Claims that do not meet Alice Step One are still patent-eligible under Alice Step Two if
`
`they include an “inventive concept,” such as “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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. “The ‘inventive concept’ may arise in one or
`
`more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations.” Bascom
`
`Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`“inventive concept” can be found in “the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
`
`known, conventional pieces.” Id. at 1350. Therefore, the “inquiry requires more than recognizing
`
`that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art.” Id. at 1349.
`
`“[P]atent eligibility may be resolved at the Rule 12 stage only if there are no plausible
`
`factual disputes after drawing all reasonable inferences from the intrinsic and Rule 12 record in
`
`favor of the non-movant.” Coop. Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 130 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2022). Patentee’s “specific, plausible factual allegations about why aspects of its claimed
`
`inventions were not conventional” must be accepted as true, and are enough to overcome a patent
`
`eligibility challenge under Rule 12(c). Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1317–18
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019). “[P]lausible factual allegations may preclude dismissing a case under § 101
`
`where, for example, ‘nothing on th[e] record … refutes those allegations.”’ Aatrix Software, Inc.
`
`v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`C.
`
`Presumption of Validity
`
`Patents are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. As such, an accused infringer has the burden
`
`of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564
`
`U.S. 91, 95 (2011). The presumption of validity and the “clear and convincing” burden of proof
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 102 Filed 07/13/23 Page 16 of 46 PageID# 1812
`
`apply to challenges to patent eligibility under § 101. See Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1319; Trs. of
`
`Columbia, 425 F. Supp. 3d at 612.
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’104 Family is Patent-Eligible Under Alice
`
`i.
`
`The ’104 Family Claims are Not Directed