Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 23 PageID# 1991
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`
`
`
` No: 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA
`
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD,
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`This matter comes before the Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by
`
`Apple Inc. (Dkt. No. 82). Upon consideration of the Motion, and for the reasons set forth below,
`
`the Court will grant the Motion.
`
`I.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) is the owner of six patents relating
`
`to the geolocation of mobile devices. (Dkt. No. 1) (“Compl.” ¶¶ 12–30).1 Location-based services
`
`utilize geographic data to provide information to a user or to perform another function based on
`
`the user’s location. Id. ¶ 36. For mobile devices, location-based services “generally rely on the
`
`mobile devices being able to determine their [own] location,” also referred to as “geolocation.” Id.
`
`¶ 39. There are various methods by which a mobile device can geolocate itself, each with its own
`
`
`1
`The six patents at issue in the Complaint are: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,561,104 (“the ’104 Patent”);
`8,400,358 (“the ’358 Patent”); 8,786,494 (“the ’494 Patent”); 8,406,753 (“the ’753 Patent); 9,097,784 (“the
`’784 Patent”); and 8,320,264 (“the ’264 Patent”). The ’104 Patent, ’358 Patent, and ’494 Patent share the
`same specification and are collectively referred to as the ’104 Patent Family.
`
`
`Although the parties’ briefing addressed the patent eligibility of the ’264 Patent and ’784 Patent,
`the Court, pursuant to a stipulation of partial judgment, subsequently entered judgment of noninfringement
`of the asserted claims of the ’264 Patent and of invalidity of the asserted claim of the ’784 Patent (as well
`as claim 52 if the ’358 Patent). (Dkt. No. 107). For that reason, this Opinion only addresses the remaining
`patents at issue (the ’104 Patent Family and the ’753 Patent), which are hereinafter referred to as the
`“Asserted Patents.”
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 2 of 23 PageID# 1992
`
`drawbacks. Id. ¶¶ 39–46. Geoscope alleges that the Asserted Patents “claim novel inventions that
`
`address [these] challenges and improve the accuracy, speed, and efficiency of geolocation of
`
`mobile devices.” Id. ¶ 47.
`
`On December 1, 2022, Geoscope filed a Complaint against Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”)
`
`alleging infringement of the Asserted Patents. On July 6, 2023, the Court held a claim construction
`
`hearing on ten disputed claim terms (Dkt. No. 88), and entered its order on claim construction on
`
`July 19, 2023 (Dkt. No. 92).
`
`On June 27, 2023, Apple filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 82)
`
`(“Motion”) on grounds that each of the Asserted Patents is directed to patent-ineligible subject
`
`matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Dkt. Nos. 82, 83 (“Def. Mem.”)). Geoscope filed an
`
`opposition to the Motion (Dkt. No. 90 (“Opp.”)), and Apple filed a reply brief (Dkt. No. 93). The
`
`Court heard argument on the Motion on August 11, 2023. (Dkt. No. 100).
`
`Following the hearing and based on the Court’s construction of the disputed claim terms,
`
`the parties filed a stipulation of (1) judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the ’264
`
`Patent, and (2) judgment of invalidity of claim 11 of the ’784 Patent and claim 52 of the ’358
`
`Patent. (Dkt. No. 103). On September 18, 2023 the Court entered partial judgment of
`
`noninfringement and invalidity pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. (Dkt. No. 107). Accordingly,
`
`the Court only addresses the Motion as it relates to the remaining asserted claims in this action:
`
`claims 1 and 2 of the ’104 Patent; claims 15 and 18 of the ’358 Patent; claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35
`
`of the ’494 Patent; and claims 1 and 32 of the ’753 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the
`
`pleadings after the pleadings are closed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A Rule 12(c) motion is reviewed
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 3 of 23 PageID# 1993
`
`under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474
`
`(4th Cir. 2014). “Therefore, a motion for judgment on the pleadings ‘should only be granted if,
`
`after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and drawing all
`
`reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor, it appears certain that the
`
`plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.’” Id. (citing
`
`Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)).
`
`In the context of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, courts resolve questions of
`
`eligibility at the Rule 12 stage when, after drawing all reasonable inferences from the intrinsic
`
`record and the Rule 12 record in favor of the non-movant, there is no plausible factual dispute.
`
`Cooperative Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 130 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also SAP
`
`Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166–67 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patent eligibility may be
`
`resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “where the undisputed facts, considered under the standards
`
`required by that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the substantive standards of law”).
`
`“[C]onclusory statements regarding eligibility” in a complaint—without supporting factual
`
`allegations—need not be accepted and “d[o] not preclude dismissal.” Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc
`
`2017 LLC, 813 F. App’x 495, 498–99 (Fed. Cir. 2020). And “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. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d
`
`905, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
`
`B.
`
`PATENT ELIGIBILITY
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter: A patent may be
`
`obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
`
`new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The provision, however, “contains an
`
`important implicit exception[.] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 4 of 23 PageID# 1994
`
`patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).
`
`Allowing patent claims for such purported inventions would “impede innovation more than it
`
`would promote it.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012).
`
`Courts must, however, “tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all
`
`of patent law.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Because “all inventions”—at some level—“embody, use,
`
`reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” “applications of
`
`such concepts to a new and useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.” Id. (cleaned up).
`
`To assess whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, courts employ a two-step
`
`approach. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 218, 221. Under the first step of the inquiry, a court must
`
`determine whether a claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural
`
`phenomenon, or abstract idea. At this stage, “[t]he claims are considered in their entirety to
`
`ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet Pats.
`
`Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit has
`
`approached this inquiry “by asking what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance
`
`over the prior art. In conducting that inquiry, [courts] must focus on the language of the [a]sserted
`
`[c]laims themselves, considered in light of the specification.” TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d
`
`1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). As the Federal Circuit has explained, the Supreme Court
`
`“has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ sufficient to
`
`satisfy the [inquiry’s] first step”; it is “sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already
`
`found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
`
`F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`If the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, the inquiry proceeds to the
`
`second step. At this step, the court “examine[s] the limitations of the claims to determine whether
`
`the claims contain an ‘inventive concept’ to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into patent
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 5 of 23 PageID# 1995
`
`eligible subject matter.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). “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). Here, the court
`
`must assess whether the limitations “do more than simply recite a ‘well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activity.’” Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1346 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). Claims using “generic functional language” to achieve
`
`their purported solutions without reciting “how the desired result is achieved” generally cannot
`
`survive step two of the inquiry. Two-Way Medical Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874
`
`F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Circ. 2017) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
`
`1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`THE ’104 PATENT FAMILY
`
`The ’104 Patent Family—the ’104 Patent, ’358 Patent, and ’494 Patent—share the same
`
`specification. See generally Exs. A–C to Compl. (Dkt. Nos. 1-1–1-3). The patents of the ’104
`
`Patent Family generally relate to determining the location of a mobile device by comparing
`
`previously-gathered calibration data with observed data that has been modified. Compl. ¶¶ 48, 51.
`
`Geoscope’s alleged advancement involves the modification of the observed data to account for
`
`inconsistencies between sets of data caused by environmental or other factors. Id. ¶¶ 44–51.
`
`1.
`
`Asserted Claims & Representativeness
`
`Geoscope alleges that Apple infringes claims 1 and 2 of the ’104 Patent; claims 15 and 18
`
`of the ’358 Patent; and claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 of the ’494 Patent. These claims are recited or
`
` 5
`
`
`
`described below.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 6 of 23 PageID# 1996
`
`Claim 1 of the ’104 Patent states:
`
`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, wherein said network includes a first transmitter and a second
`transmitter;
`
`collecting observed network measurement data including a first signal characteristic from
`said first transmitter and a second signal characteristic from said second transmitter;
`
`determining which of said first and second signal characteristics has a greater magnitude;
`
`
`
`modifying said observed network measurement data using the greater magnitude signal
`characteristic; and
`
`comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of calibration
`data to thereby determine the location of the mobile station.
`
`
`Ex. A to Compl. (Dkt. No. 1-1) (’104 Patent) at 11:65–12:15. Claim 2 of the ’104 Patent recites
`
`the method in claim 1 “wherein said database comprises previously-gathered calibration data for
`
`one or more non-uniform grid points within said region.” Id. at 12:16–18.
`
`Claim 15 of the ’358 Patent recites:
`
`15. A system for determining a location of a mobile station, comprising:
`
` a
`
` database of previously-gathered calibration data for a predetermined region in a
`wireless network;
`
`circuitry for collecting observed network measurement data;
`
`circuitry for modifying said observed network measurement data; and
`
`circuitry for comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of
`calibration data to thereby determine the location of the mobile station.
`
`Ex. B to Compl. (Dkt. No. 1-2) (’358 Patent) at 13:7–17. Claim 18 of the ’358 Patent recites the
`
`method of claim 15 “wherein said database comprises previously-gathered calibration data for one
`
`or more non-uniform grid points within said region.” Id. at 13:27–29.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 7 of 23 PageID# 1997
`
`Claim 1 of the ’494 Patent—which Apple argues is representative of the asserted claims
`
`of the ’104 Patent Family—states:
`
`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;
`
`collecting observed network measurement data, the observed network measurement data
`collected by the mobile station and transmitted to the network or collected by the
`network;
`
`modifying said observed network measurement data; and
`
`comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of calibration
`data to thereby determine the location of the mobile station.
`
`
`Ex. C to Compl. (Dkt. No. 1-3) (’494 Patent) at 12:10–22. Claim 4 of the ’494 Patent recites the
`
`method of claim 1 “wherein said database comprises previously-gathered calibration data for one
`
`or more non-uniform grid points within said region.” Id. at 12:31–33.
`
`
`
`The final independent asserted claim of the ’104 Patent Family, claim 25 of the ’494
`
`Patent, states:
`
`25. 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;
`
`collecting observed network measurement data from each of a plurality of transmitters
`including a signal characteristic from each one of said plural transmitters, the observed
`network measurement data collected by the mobile station and transmitted to the network
`or collected by the network;
`
`determining an average value for select ones of said signal characteristics;
`
`modifying said observed network measurement data using said average value; and
`
`comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of calibration
`data to thereby determine the location of the mobile station.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 8 of 23 PageID# 1998
`
`’494 Patent at 14:7–23. Claim 26 of the ’494 Patent recites the method of claim 25 “wherein said
`
`database comprises previously-gathered calibration data for one or more non-uniform grid points
`
`within said region.” Id. at 14:24–26. Finally, claim 35 of the ’494 Patent recites the method of
`
`claim 25 “wherein at least one of said plurality of transmitters is not a member of said wireless
`
`network.” Id. at 15:4–6.
`
`For the purposes of patent eligibility, a court may “treat a claim as representative . . . if the
`
`patentee does not present any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim
`
`limitations not found in the representative claim.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). Apple contends that claim 1 of the ’494 Patent is representative of the asserted
`
`claims of the ’104 Patent Family. As set forth above, claim 1 of the ’494 Patent recites a method
`
`of “providing” a database of data, “collecting” different data, “modifying” that collected data, and
`
`“comparing” data to determine a location. Apple argues that the remaining independent claims are
`
`“materially the same” to this claim and, at most, “add abstract ideas or well-known and
`
`conventional components operating as intended to perform the same method of location
`
`determination.” Def. Mem. at 6. Apple further argues that the dependent claims only add minor
`
`limitations related to the data collection or the analysis performed.
`
`Geoscope contests Apple’s assertion that claim 1 of the ’494 Patent is representative,
`
`identifying three categories of claims that are distinct from claim 1 of the ’494 Patent. First,
`
`Geoscope argues that certain other asserted claims describe how data is modified by referencing
`
`an “average value” (specifically, claims 25, 26, and 35 of the ’494 Patent) and the “magnitude” of
`
`“signal characteristics,” including the greater of two signal characteristics (specifically, claims 1
`
`and 2 of the ’104 Patent). Opp. at 23 & n.4. Geoscope argues that because the other asserted claims
`
`of the ’104 Patent Family include these additional limitations that refute Apple’s arguments about
`
`why the ’104 Patent Family claims are patent ineligible, claim 1 of the ’494 Patent cannot be
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 9 of 23 PageID# 1999
`
`representative of all asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family. Second, Geoscope identifies claims
`
`that recite “non-uniform grid points” as distinct from claim 1 of the ’494 Patent, which does not
`
`reference grid points. Opp. at 23. Geoscope does not specifically state in its Opposition which
`
`particular claims make such references, but those appear to be claim 2 of the ’104 Patent, claim 18
`
`of the ’358 Patent, and claims 4 and 26 of the ’494 Patent. Third, Geoscope argues that dependent
`
`claims reciting that one of the data transmitters be outside the network relates to a particular
`
`configuration not referenced in claim 1 of the ’494 Patent, and that a new configuration of
`
`conventional hardware can be patent eligible. Opp. at 23–24. Again, Geoscope does not identify
`
`the particular claims that fall under this third category, but it appears that claim 35 of the ’494
`
`Patent is the only remaining asserted claim that refers to such outside-the-network transmitters.
`
`Although many of the asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family are “substantially similar”
`
`and are all linked to the “same abstract idea” of data collection, modification, and analysis, see
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014), the Court finds that claim 1 of the ’494 Patent is not representative of all of the
`
`asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family. In particular, the references to mathematical components
`
`(claims 25, 26, and 35 of the ’494 Patent and claims 1 and 2 of the ’104 Patent); circuitry (claims
`
`15 and 18 of the ’358 Patent); and grid points (claim 2 of the ’104 Patent, claim 18 of the ’358
`
`Patent, and claims 4 and 26 of the ’494 Patent) distinguish these claims from claim 1 of the ’494
`
`Patent. In the Alice analysis below, the Court will therefore address the distinguishing
`
`characteristics of these claims and why—notwithstanding these distinctions—the asserted claims
`
`are still not patent eligible.
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 10 of 23 PageID# 2000
`
`2.
`
`Alice Analysis
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Step One
`
`
`
`The first step of the Alice test entails determining whether the claims at issue are directed
`
`to an abstract idea. At this step, the Court considers “what the patent asserts to be the focus of the
`
`claimed advance over the prior art.” Yu v. Apple, Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The
`
`Court finds that the asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`determining location based on data. Specifically, the claims are directed to providing a database,
`
`collecting data, modifying the collected data, and comparing the modified data against the database
`
`to determine a location of a mobile device.
`
`Looking first at claim 1 of the ’494 Patent, which Apple contends is representative of the
`
`asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family, the principal steps of that claim are both broad and
`
`generic. The claim recites a method for “determining a location of a mobile station” by (1)
`
`“providing a database” of previously-collected data; (2) “collecting” observed network
`
`measurement data, (3) “modifying” that data; and (4) “comparing” the modified data with the
`
`database. But the basic function of determining location based on the collection and analysis of
`
`data has been performed by humans throughout history. This function is fundamentally a “method
`
`of organizing human activity,” which courts have characterized as abstract. See Alice, 573 U.S. at
`
`220; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“fundamental,
`
`long-prevalent practice[s]” and “well-established method[s] of organizing activity” qualify as
`
`abstract ideas). And the specification recognizes that doing so in the context of mobile devices is
`
`not novel. See (Dkt. No. 1-3) (’494 Patent) at 1:28–31.
`
`Indeed, the Federal Circuit has consistently concluded that claims requiring the mere
`
`collection, analysis, and outputting of data are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. E.g.,
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (claims
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 11 of 23 PageID# 2001
`
`abstract where computer employed in normal manner to “collect[] information” and to
`
`“comprehend[] the meaning of that collected information[] and indication of the results”); Elec.
`
`Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 (claims focused on “collecting information, analyzing it, and
`
`displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” considered abstract); Content Extraction,
`
`776 F.3d at 1347 (abstract concepts of “data collection, recognition, and storage” were functions
`
`that had always been performed by humans); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335,
`
`1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (displaying data considered abstract); Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v.
`
`Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App’x 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims concerning “collecting data from
`
`sensors, analyzing that data, and determining results based on the analysis of data” directed to an
`
`abstract idea); cf. GeoComply Solutions Inc. v. Xpoint Services LLC, No. 22-cv-1273, 2023 WL
`
`1927393, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023) (Bryson, J.) (claims directed to abstract idea of
`
`“determining the location of a device based on geolocation information and programs present on
`
`the device” held patent ineligible). So too here. As evidenced by claim 1 of the ’494 Patent, the
`
`asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family focus on the abstract concept of data collection and
`
`modification for the purpose of geolocation of mobile devices.
`
`Geoscope relies in large part on Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017), to argue that the asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family are not directed to an abstract
`
`idea. Opp. at 14–15. In Thales, the Federal Circuit held that claims related to a “system for tracking
`
`the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame” were patent eligible because they
`
`were not merely directed to the abstract idea of “using mathematical equations for determining the
`
`relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame,” but rather “to systems and
`
`methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the
`
`relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame.” Id. at 1344,
`
`1348–49 (cleaned up). In doing so, the Federal Circuit also observed that “[t]he claims specify a
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 12 of 23 PageID# 2002
`
`particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the
`
`sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving
`
`platform.” Id. at 1349. Geoscope argues that “[l]ike the new use of ‘raw data from the sensors’ in
`
`Thales, the ‘modifying’ in the ’104 Patent Family constituted a new use of data that directly
`
`addressed a technological problem in conventional geolocation systems.” Opp. at 13. Although the
`
`Federal Circuit indeed observed that the claims in Thales specified a particular method of “using
`
`raw data,” the patent eligibility of the claimed invention in Thales turned not on the mere use of
`
`raw data in a new setting but also on the unconventional arrangement of sensors—a “new and
`
`useful technique” for using sensors that more efficiently tracked an object on a moving platform.
`
`850 F.3d at 1348–49. The asserted claims here do not require the use of technology in an
`
`unconventional manner. Nor do they require an unconventional configuration of components. At
`
`bottom, unlike in Thales, Geoscope’s purported technological improvement is simply the
`
`modification of data, which is itself an abstract idea that is not patent eligible.
`
`That is not to say that patents involving the geolocation of mobile devices are categorically
`
`patent ineligible; rather, such patents must recite a specific solution to make the alleged
`
`improvement sufficiently concrete in order to confer eligibility under § 101. See Hawk Tech. Sys.,
`
`LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Realtime Data LLC v. Array
`
`Networks Inc., Nos. 2021-2251, 2021-2291, 2023 WL 4924814, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2023)
`
`(finding claims related to compression of data abstract where “none of the claims at issue specifies
`
`any particular technique to carry out the compression of data” and merely “call[] for
`
`unparticularized analysis of data and achievement of general goals”). Geoscope argues that the
`
`asserted claims of the ’104 Patent Family are directed to “specific technological improvements to
`
`geolocation systems that change how geolocation is performed,” Opp. at 12–13, but the asserted
`
`claims proffer no such concrete improvement. The core of the purported advancement to
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 13 of 23 PageID# 2003
`
`“geolocation systems” is the modification of data—under Geoscope’s theory, the asserted claims
`
`improve on conventional geolocation methods by “modifying the observed data to account for”
`
`disparities between calibration data (typically collected outdoors) with data collected indoors, as
`
`well other disparities caused by various environmental factors. See id. at 3–4, 11 (citing Compl.,
`
`’104 Patent).
`
`Geoscope’s argument, however, is undermined by the fact that the language of the asserted
`
`claims themselves are not so limited. Although Geoscope identifies some language in the
`
`specification and the Complaint about the elimination of disparities in collecting and comparing
`
`indoor and outdoor data, see Opp. at 11, its arguments are “not tethered to the asserted claims”
`
`themselves. See Trinity InfoMedia, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
`
`The Court’s analysis must focus on the asserted claims, considering their character “as a whole”
`
`and “in light of the specification.” Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d
`
`1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2019). While the specification “may help illuminate the true focus of a claim,
`
`when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim
`
`language in identifying that focus.’” Id. (citing ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
`
`759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Here, the language of the claims themselves do not recite any specific
`
`improvement. Rather, as discussed above, the language of the “modifying” step of claim 1 of the
`
`’494 Patent is written in extremely broad terms: it simply recites a method whereby one must
`
`“modify[] said observed network measurement data,” without any specificity as to how to carry
`
`out the “modifying” function. Geoscope cannot use the specification to “import details from the
`
`specification if those details are not claimed.” ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769 (“Even a specification
`
`full of technical details about a physical invention may nonetheless conclude with claims that claim
`
`nothing more than the broad law or abstract idea underlying the claims, thus preempting all use of
`
`that law or idea.”).
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 14 of 23 PageID# 2004
`
`Moreover, and notwithstanding that Geoscope’s alleged improvements do not appear in
`
`the language of the asserted claims themselves, neither the specification nor the language of the
`
`claims require a specific technological improvement to geolocation systems that would push the
`
`claims into the realm of the non-abstract. To be patent eligible, improvements to a technological
`
`process must be directed to “non-abstract improvements to the functionality of” the existing
`
`technological process. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1309 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020). But here, Geoscope’s claimed advance—modifying data—is itself an abstract concept.
`
`See Univ. of Fla. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(holding ineligible claims directed to the “abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating
`
`data”); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of
`
`information . . . by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information
`
`collection and analysis”). Claims that add the abstract concept of modifying or manipulating data
`
`do not involve an improvement to the functionality of a technological process. See Simio, LLC v.
`
`FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Geoscope argues that claims merely involving data manipulation and transmission but that
`
`are not directed to these concepts may nonetheless be patent eligible, citing Uniloc v. LG, 957 F.3d
`
`1303. Opp. at 17–18. In Uniloc, the specification explained that with conventional communication
`
`systems, a “primary station alternates between polling and sending inquiry messages.” 957 F.3d at
`
`1308. Unlike the asserted claims here, the claims at issue in Uniloc “recite[d] a specific
`
`improvement in the functionality of the communication system itself.” Id. at 1309. Specifically,
`
`those claims required “adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data
`
`field for polling at least one secondary station”—something the Federal Circuit described as a
`
`fundamental “change [to] the normal operation” of the communication system itself because that
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 109 Filed 09/18/23 Page 15 of 23 PageID# 2005
`
`the primary stations could simultaneously send inquiry and polling transmissions. Id. at 1307–08.
`
`Therefore, the claimed invention in Uniloc, although involving the addition of a data field, offered
`
`a precise and concrete technological solution to an existing technology in that it “enable[d] the
`
`communication system to accommodate additional devices, such as battery-operated secondary
`
`stations, without compromising performance.” Id. at 1308. Here, the asserted claims do not recite
`
`any such specific or concrete improvement to the method of geolocation. They merely require one
`
`to “modify[ ] observed network measurement data,” ’494 Patent at 12:19, without a fundamental
`
`“change” to the “normal operation” of any existing technology.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’494 Patent therefore fails to recite how the invention purportedly improves
`
`geolocation systems beyond merely modifying or manipulating data. Where a claim fails to “recite
`
`a specific solution to make the alleged improvement . . . concrete and at most recite[s] abstract
`
`data manipulation,” the claim is directed to an abstract idea. See Hawk, 60 F.4th at 1358 (cleaned
`
`up). Here, the claims are written with a “result-oriented generality” that amount to a “mere
`
`implementation of an abstract idea.” See id. (cleaned up); see also GeoComply, 2023 WL 1927393,
`
`at *5 (“in determining whether a method claim is directed to an abstract idea, the Federal Circuit
`
`has focused on whether the claim is purely fu