Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 1 of 52 PageID# 1667
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-CV-01331-MSN-JFA
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-CV-01373-MSN-JFA
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 2 of 52 PageID# 1668
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2
`
`THE ’104 FAMILY .............................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background ..............................................................................................................4
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’104 Family Are Ineligible Under Section 101 ...........7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to the Abstract
`Idea of Determining Location Based on Data ..............................................7
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack an Inventive Concept ..........11
`
`V.
`
`THE ʼ753 PATENT ...........................................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background ............................................................................................................14
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’753 Patent Are Ineligible Under Section 101 ..........16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims are Directed to the Abstract
`Idea of Organizing Data and Determining Location Based on Data .........16
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack an Inventive Concept ...........18
`
`VI.
`
`THE ʼ784 PATENT ...........................................................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background ............................................................................................................20
`
`Claim 11 of the ’784 Patent Is Ineligible Under Section 101 ................................23
`
`1.
`
`Alice Step One: Claim 11 of the ’784 Patent Is Directed to the Abstract
`Idea of Associating Observed Location Data With Known Points on a
`Map ............................................................................................................23
`
`2.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claim Lacks Any Inventive Concept ......................28
`
`VII. THE ʼ264 PATENT ...........................................................................................................30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background ............................................................................................................30
`
`The Asserted Claims of the ’264 Patent Are Ineligible Under Section 101 ..........31
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 3 of 52 PageID# 1669
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d.)
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to the Abstract
`Idea of Using an Existing Communication Channel to Determine
`Signal Loss .................................................................................................31
`
`2.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack an Inventive Concept ...........32
`
`VIII.
`
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS APPROPRIATE ...............................................34
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................38
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 4 of 52 PageID# 1670
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................4
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................3
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .........................................................................................1, 3, 4, 12, 18, 28
`
`Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................6, 37
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................35
`
`Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`723 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................6, 8, 18, 25
`
`In re Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
`991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................10, 12, 13, 20, 24, 31
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d at 1366 ................................................................................................................17, 34
`
`In re Bilski,
`545 F.3d 943 (2008), aff’d sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593
`(2010) .........................................................................................................................................3
`
`Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns,
`319 F. Supp. 3d 818 (E.D. Va. 2018), aff’d, 778 F. App’x 882
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................................6, 10
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................11, 25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................12
`
`CalAmp Wireless Networks Corp. v. ORBCOMM, Inc.,
`233 F. Supp. 3d 509 (E.D. Va. 2017) ............................................................................8, 16, 26
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 5 of 52 PageID# 1671
`
`
`Callwave Commc’ns, LLC v. AT&T Mobility,
`207 F. Supp. 3d 405 (D. Del. 2016) .........................................................................................16
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................36, 37
`
`CG Tech. Dev., LLC v. FanDuel, Inc.,
`442 F. Supp.3d 840 (D. Del. 2020) ..........................................................................................16
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................2, 4, 10, 12, 28, 29, 37
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`813 F. App’x 495 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................3, 31
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................3
`
`Concaten, Inc. v. Ameritrak Fleet Solutions, LLC,
`131 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (D. Colo. 2015), aff’d, 669 F. App’x 571
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................................24, 26
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................6, 13, 16
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................27
`
`Data Scape Ltd. v. Western Digital Corp.,
`816 F. App’x 461 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................25
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................13, 34, 35, 36, 37
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................4, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 20, 25, 27, 29, 31
`
`GeoComply Solutions Inc. v. Xpoint Services LLC,
`2023 WL 1927393 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023) .........................................................................9, 26
`
`In re Gopalan,
`809 F. App’x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................32
`
`Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC,
`60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..........................................................................................17, 32
`
`IBM v. Zillow Grp.,
`50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................9, 32
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 6 of 52 PageID# 1672
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................9
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`200 F. Supp. 3d 565 (W.D. Pa. 2016), aff’d, 711 F. App’x 1012
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................................................18
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................24, 31
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................27
`
`Jewel Pathway LLC v. Polar Electro Inc.,
`556 F. Supp. 3d 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) ......................................................................................26
`
`Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co.,
`351 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................14
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .....................................................................................................................1
`
`Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd.,
`721 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................25
`
`Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
`5 F. Supp. 3d 592 (D. Del. 2013) .............................................................................................31
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .................................................................................................................31
`
`People.ai, Inc. v. Clari Inc.,
`2023 WL 2820794 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2023) ..............................................................................9
`
`Peschke Map Techs. LLC v. Rouse Properties Inc.,
`168 F. Supp. 3d 881 (E.D. Va. 2016) ......................................................................................26
`
`RDPA, LLC v. Geopath, Inc.,
`543 F. Supp. 3d 4 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)....................................................................................19, 26
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Array Networks, Inc.,
`537 F. Supp. 3d 591 (D. Del. 2021) .........................................................................................37
`
`In re Rosenberg,
`813 F. App’x 594 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................................................10, 12
`
`Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc.,
`65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ......................................................................................16, 17, 32
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 7 of 52 PageID# 1673
`
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................2, 18, 38
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................................3
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................36, 37
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................10
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................36
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................4, 12, 27, 32, 35
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................................4
`
`Univ. of Fla. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................9
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................14
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Weisner v. Google LLC,
`51 F.4th 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................9, 25
`
`Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 405 (D.N.J. 2015), aff’d, 636 F. App’x 1014
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................................................26
`
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 8 of 52 PageID# 1674
`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 8 of 52 PagelD# 1674
`
`
`
`?104 patent
`°358 patent
`°>494 patent
`°753 patent
`264 patent
`°784 patent
`Apple
`
`Google
`Asserted Claims
`
`Geoscope or Plaintiff
`7104 Famil
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Term
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,561,104
`U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358
`U.S. Patent No. 8,786,494
`U.S. Patent No. 8,406,753
`U.S. Patent No. 8,320,264
`U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784
`Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`Defendant Google LLC
`’104 patent, claims 1, 2
`°358 patent, claims 15, 18, 52
`°494 patent, claims 1, 4, 25, 26, 35
`°753 patent, claims 1, 32
`°784 patent, claim 11
`264 patent, claims 13, 15, 20
`Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.
`The 7104 patent, ’358 patent, and ’494 patent
`
`
`
`Vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 9 of 52 PageID# 1675
`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 9 of 52 PagelD# 1675
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Ex.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,144 a U'S. PatentApp. Pub.No. 2005/0243936
`
`Description
`
`vill
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 10 of 52 PageID# 1676
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants in the above
`
`actions, Google LLC (“Google”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”), respectfully move for judgment on the
`
`pleadings as to the ’104, ’358, ’494, ’753, ’264, and ’784 patents on the basis that their asserted
`
`claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 defines subject matter eligible for patent protection, and provides:
`
`Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
`or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain
`a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`The Supreme Court “has long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception.
`
`Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative
`
`Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012). In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
`
`U.S. 208 (2014), the Court confirmed a two-step test for determining whether claims are patent-
`
`eligible under Section 101: (1) whether the claims are directed to a “patent-ineligible concept,”
`
`such as an abstract idea, and (2) if so, whether the “elements of the claim[s]” contain an “inventive
`
`concept” that “ensure[s] that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
`
`upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. at 217–18 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Here, the asserted claims of the six patents-in-suit are not patent-eligible under Section
`
`101. At Alice Step One, all of the claims are directed to abstract ideas relating to the age-old
`
`concept of location determination—figuring out where something or someone is. The ’104 Family
`
`and ’753 patent claims are directed to determining location based on data. The ’784 patent claims
`
`are directed to associating observed location data with known points on a map. The ’264 patent
`
`claims are directed to using an existing communication channel to determine signal loss. The
`
`claims do nothing more than recite basic functions, such as collecting, modifying, and/or
`
`comparing data (’104 Family, ’753 patent, and ’784 patents), or calculating a value and using a
`
`channel (’264 patent). Although the claims arise in a technical context and use technical jargon,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 11 of 52 PageID# 1677
`
`they are no different than claims that courts regularly find to be abstract at Alice Step One. They
`
`employ purely functional language without specifying how to perform those functions and require
`
`no specific technological improvements to implement them.
`
`At Step Two of the Alice test, the asserted claims recite no inventive concept that amounts
`
`to significantly more than the abstract ideas to which they are directed. Instead, they recite only
`
`well-known technology functioning in a conventional way, such as a “mobile” device or
`
`“circuitry” (’104 Family, ’753 patent), conventional wireless devices and databases (’784 patent),
`
`and conventional networking equipment (’264 patent). Thus, judgment on the pleadings should
`
`be granted on the basis that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not patent-eligible.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`Geoscope filed the complaint against Apple on December 1, 2022, and Apple answered on
`
`January 10, 2023. See No. 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA (“Apple Action”), Dkts. 1, 29. Geoscope
`
`filed the complaint against Google on November 22, 2022 and Google answered on March 1, 2023.
`
`See No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA (“Google Action”), Dkts. 1, 48. Claim construction briefing
`
`was complete as of June 9, 2023. See Apple Action, Dkts. 39, 78; Google Action, Dkts. 83, 84.
`
`The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for July 6, 2023. See Apple Action, Dkt.
`
`81; Google Action, Dkt. 91.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings should be granted where “‘there
`
`are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the [patent] eligibility question as a
`
`matter of law.’” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(citation omitted). The Federal Circuit has recognized that patent eligibility “may be, and
`
`frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion,” even “before claim construction
`
`or significant discovery has commenced” and “based on intrinsic evidence from the specification
`
`without need for ‘extraneous fact finding outside the record.’” See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 12 of 52 PageID# 1678
`
`LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics
`
`LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873
`
`F.3d 905, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`The Federal Circuit has made clear that “conclusory statements regarding eligibility” in a
`
`complaint need not be accepted and “d[o] not preclude dismissal.” See, e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC, 813 F. App’x 495, 498–99 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Federal Circuit also has held
`
`that “a court need not ‘accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial
`
`notice or by exhibit,’ such as the claims and the patent specification.” Secured Mail Sols., 873
`
`F.3d at 913.
`
`Patent Eligibility. The legal question of patent eligibility involves a two-step “threshold
`
`inquiry.” In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 950 (2008), aff’d sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593
`
`(2010). Step One asks whether the claims are directed to an ineligible “concept[],” such as an
`
`“abstract idea.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
`
`The Step One “directed to” inquiry “ask[s] what the patent asserts to be the focus of the
`
`claimed advance over the prior art,” and whether that focus is on patent-ineligible subject matter,
`
`such as an abstract idea. Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Affinity Labs of
`
`Tex., LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that Step One “look[s]
`
`at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a
`
`whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter”). The Federal Circuit has explained that this
`
`determination “must focus on the language of the [a]sserted [c]laims themselves, considered in
`
`light of the specification.” Yu, 1 F.4th at 1043 (citation omitted). “The ‘abstract ideas’ category
`
`[of patent ineligible subject matter] embodies the longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not
`
`patentable,” id. at 218, and is the basis under which courts have found claims ineligible where they
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 13 of 52 PageID# 1679
`
`are directed to, e.g., algorithms, mathematical calculations, or fundamental concepts such as risk-
`
`hedging. Alice, 573 U.S. at 218–19.
`
`If the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter, at Step Two the court “must
`
`examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an ‘inventive
`
`concept’ to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.” Ultramercial,
`
`Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). Because
`
`the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly held” that “invocations of computers and networks that are not
`
`even arguably inventive are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept,’” part of the Step
`
`Two inquiry is to determine whether the claims “require[] anything other than conventional
`
`computer and network components operating according to their ordinary functions.” See Elec.
`
`Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
`
`Comcast Cable Commc’ns, 874 F.3d 1329, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As the Federal Circuit has made
`
`clear, however, even “adding novel or non-routine components is not necessarily enough to survive
`
`a § 101 challenge.” ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 773. “Instead, the inventive concept must be
`
`‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more’ than a patent on the
`
`abstract idea.” Id. (emphasis added). Claims that “merely require generic computer
`
`implementation, fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573
`
`U.S. at 221.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’104 FAMILY
`A.
`
`Background
`
`
`
`The ’104 Family patents share the same specification, and generally relate to determining
`
`the location of a “mobile station” (e.g., a mobile device like a cell phone) using observed network
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 14 of 52 PageID# 1680
`
`data and previously collected “calibration data.” Dkt. 1-31 (’494 patent), Abstract.2 The patents
`
`concede that prior art mobile devices were already capable of using observed data at an unknown
`
`location, along with previously collected calibration data—e.g., “signal strength, round trip time,
`
`time difference of arrival (TDOA), etc.” at known locations—to determine the device’s location.
`
`Id. at 1:28–31. The patents state that when data is collected indoors, “the signal strengths of signals
`
`received from the serving and/or neighboring base stations tend[ed] to be lower than the strength
`
`of the signals received by a wireless device located outdoors.” Id. at 1:40–43. The patents contend
`
`that the lower signal strengths indoors could cause poor location estimates, and propose
`
`“[m]odifying the calibration data obtained outdoors” as “a way to simulate indoor calibration data
`
`characteristics.” Id. at 1:48–49.
`
`
`
`The asserted claims of the ’104 Family, however, are not limited to modifying outdoor
`
`calibration data to account for devices located indoors. Instead, the claims broadly recite
`
`“modifying” observed network measurement data before using that modified data to determine the
`
`location. The patents’ specification makes clear that this “modifying” step can be achieved simply
`
`by “subtracting or adding” to and from the data. Id. at 7:7–10. Yet, the claims themselves do not
`
`even specify how to modify the data. Independent claim 1 of the ’494 patent is representative:
`
`1. A method for determining a location of a mobile station, comprising:
`providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data for a predetermined
`region in a wireless network;
`the observed network
`collecting observed network measurement data,
`measurement data collected by the mobile station and transmitted to the network or
`collected by the network;
`modifying said observed network measurement data; and
`
`
`1 Citations to Dkt. 1 and its exhibits are to both the Apple Action and the Google Action, as Dkt.
`1 and its exhibits are substantially identical in all respects relevant here.
`2 Citations are to the ’494 patent, but the ’358 and ’104 patents share the same disclosures.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 15 of 52 PageID# 1681
`
`
`comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of
`calibration data to thereby determine the location of the mobile station.
`
`Claim 1 recites nothing more than “providing” a database of data, “collecting” different data,
`
`“modifying” that collected data, and “comparing” data to determine a location. And as with the
`
`“modifying step,” the claim fails to specify or otherwise limit how to perform these basic functions.
`
`The remaining independent claims are materially the same, and at most add abstract ideas
`
`or well-known and conventional components operating as intended to perform the same method
`
`of location determination. Infra Section IV.B.2; App’x A. Claim 25 of the ’494 patent recites
`
`analyzing the data to compute the average of different signal characteristics and using—in no
`
`particular recited way—that average in the “modifying” step. Claim 15 of the ’358 patent, for
`
`example, is a system claim that performs the same method with generic “circuitry.” Claim 1 of
`
`the ’104 patent adds determining the greater of two signal characteristics and then using—again,
`
`in no specified way—the larger one in the modifying step. As with claim 1 of the ’494 patent,
`
`these claims require no technological improvements to perform these basic functions. Finally, the
`
`dependent claims, which are addressed more fully below, add trivial limitations related to the data
`
`collection (e.g., location or data type) or the analysis performed. Infra Section IV.B.2; App’x A.
`
`Thus, claim 1 of the ’494 patent is representative of the asserted claims of the ’104 Family.
`
`See Appendices A, B; see, e.g., Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App’x
`
`989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming grant of Rule 12(c) motion on the basis of ineligibility of four
`
`patents and in view of two representative claims); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
`
`Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming grant of motion to
`
`dismiss on the basis of ineligibility and representative claims where all asserted claims were
`
`“linked to the same abstract idea”); Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 319 F. Supp.
`
`3d 818, 821 (E.D. Va. 2018), aff’d, 778 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal on the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 16 of 52 PageID# 1682
`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 16 of 52 PagelD# 1682
`
`basis of ineligibility of three patents in view of one representative claim). Even if each claim is
`
`considered independently, each claim is similarly ineligible for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Claimsof the ’104 Family Are Ineligible Under Section 101
`
`Theasserted claims of the ’104 Family are not patent-eligible under Section 101. At Alice
`
`Step One, the claims are directed to the fundamental abstract idea of determining location based
`
`on data, and the claims lack any inventive concept at Alice Step Two.
`
`1.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea
`of Determining Location Based on Data
`
`The Claims Are Focused on Determining Location Based on Data. Theasserted claims
`
`of the ’104 Family are directed to the abstract idea of determining location based on data. The
`
`concept of determining location based on data is not a technological improvement. It is not even
`
`a technological idea. Humanshavecarried out this basic function of determining location based
`
`on data throughout history, even before the invention of computers. For example, humans have
`
`long been able to determine where they are located based on visible landmarks and other
`
`information they can perceive in their environment(e.g., the location of a mountain or building,
`
`stars, or sounds of running water). This concept also is not new in the context of mobile devices.
`
`Indeed, the ’104 Family specification admits that mobile devices have long been able to determine
`
`their location based on data. Dkt. 1-3 (494 patent), 1:28-31.
`
`The language of the asserted claims itself confirms that at the heart of the claims is this
`
`abstract idea of determining location based on data:
`
`Claim1ofthe ’358 patent
`A method for determining a location of a mobile station,|Abstract idea of determining a
`comprising:
`mobile station’s location based
`on data
`
`providing a database ofpreviously-gathered calibration data
`
`for a predetermined region in a wireless network;
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 06/27/23 Page 17 of 52 PageID# 1683
`
`
`comparing said modified network measurement data with
`said database of calibration data by positioning determining
`equipment to thereby determine the location of the mobile
`station.
`
`Comparing data and outputting
`the result (as a location)
`
`Controlling Authority Establishes That the Claims Are Abstract. As shown in the
`
`above table, the asserted claims of the ’104 Family at most require collecting, modifying, and
`
`comparing data, and outputting the result of the comparison. The Federal Circuit repeatedly has
`
`held ineligible directly analogous claims to collecting, analyzing, and outputting data, regardless
`
`of the field of use. E.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–55 (holding that “collecting
`
`information, including when limited to particular content,” “analyzing information by steps people
`
`go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms,” and “presenting the results of abstract