Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 33 PageID# 1855
`
`
`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
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`JOINT MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 33 PageID# 1856
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’104 FAMILY ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER
`SECTION 101 ......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Determining Location Based on Data ......................................................................1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Geoscope Contends That the Claimed Advance Is “Modifying” Data, but
`That Is Nothing More Than a Broad, Abstract Function .............................1
`
`Geoscope Fails to Meaningfully Address Defendants’ Cited Cases ...........4
`
`Geoscope’s Misplaced Reliance on Other Cases Should Be Rejected ........6
`
`Geoscope’s Remaining Arguments Fail ......................................................7
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack an Inventive Concept ........................9
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’753 PATENT ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER
`SECTION 101 ....................................................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Organizing Data and Determining Location Based on Data .................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Claim Step of “Generating One or More Grid Points” Lacks the
`Necessary Specificity and Is Therefore Abstract .......................................10
`
`Geoscope’s Contentions Contradict Binding Precedent ............................12
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack an Inventive Concept .......................14
`
`III.
`
`CLAIM 11 OF THE ’784 PATENT IS INELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 101 ...............15
`
`A.
`
`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 ....................15
`
`1.
`
`Geoscope Contends That the Claimed Advance Is an “Unconventional
`Approach to Correcting Calibration Data,” Which Is an Unclaimed
`Feature and Therefore Irrelevant to the Inquiry .........................................15
`
`2.
`
`Geoscope’s Remaining Arguments Fail ....................................................17
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Claim Lacks Any Inventive Concept ..................................19
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 33 PageID# 1857
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d.)
`
`Page
`
`IV.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’264 PATENT ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER
`SECTION 101 ....................................................................................................................20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Using
`an Existing Communication Channel to Determine Signal Loss...........................20
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack an Inventive Concept .......................22
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Judgment on the Pleadings Is Appropriate. .......................................................................22
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 4 of 33 PageID# 1858
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`55 F.4th 900 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................13
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................2
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...................................................................................................................9
`Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`967 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................1, 2, 16, 19
`Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`723 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................4, 5
`In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ.,
`991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................3
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................4, 10, 14, 17, 22
`CalAmp Wireless Networks Corp. v. ORBCOMM, Inc.,
`233 F. Supp. 3d 509 (E.D. Va. 2017) ....................................................................................4, 5
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................2, 3, 11, 16
`Data Scape Ltd. v. Western Digital Corp.,
`816 F. App’x 461 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................8
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................22
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................23
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................4, 5, 6, 8, 17, 19
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`955 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................13, 14
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..........................................................................................13, 14
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 5 of 33 PageID# 1859
`
`
`GeoComply Solutions Inc. v. Xpoint Servs. LLC,
`2023 WL 1927393 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023) ...............................................................................5
`Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC,
`60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ......................................................................3, 8, 11, 14, 15, 21
`IBM Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,
`50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................1, 6, 10, 20, 23
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................8, 19
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................2, 11
`Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd.,
`721 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................17
`Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc.,
`65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................................11, 14
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................11, 15
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................13, 14
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..............................................................................................1, 3
`SRI Int’l Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................5, 13
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................6, 21
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.,
`--- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 4536366 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023)...............................................2, 4, 16
`Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp.,
`425 F. Supp. 3d 601 (E.D. Va. 2019) ......................................................................................13
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................8, 19
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................7
`Univ. of Fla. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................3
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 6 of 33 PageID# 1860
`
`
`Weisner v. Google LLC,
`51 F.4th 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................16, 17, 18
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 7 of 33 PageID# 1861
`
`
`Abbreviation
`’104 patent
`’358 patent
`’494 patent
`’753 patent
`’264 patent
`’784 patent
`Apple
`Google
`Asserted Claims
`
`Geoscope or Plaintiff
`’104 Family
`Br.
`
`Opp.
`
`CC Order
`
`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 ’104 patent, ’358 patent, and ’494 patent
`Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Joint Motion for
`Judgment on the Pleadings (No. 1:22-cv-1331-MSN-JFA, Dkt. 93;
`No. 1:22-cv-1373-MSN-JFA, Dkt. 83).
`Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
`Pleadings Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (No. 1:22-cv-1331-MSN-
`JFA, Dkt. 102; No. 1:22-cv-1373-MSN-JFA, Dkt. 90).
`Memorandum Opinion & Order (No. 1:22-cv-1331-MSN-JFA, Dkt.
`105; No. 1:22-cv-1373-MSN-JFA, Dkt. 92).
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 8 of 33 PageID# 1862
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,327,144
`
`Ex.
`A
`
`B
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0243936
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 9 of 33 PageID# 1863
`
`
`Geoscope’s arguments in its opposition brief cannot save the Asserted Claims from
`
`ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At each step, Geoscope seeks to recast the claims to focus on
`
`features not recited in the claims, and then uses those features to argue that the claims are patent-
`
`eligible under Section 101 because they purport to provide a technological improvement. In doing
`
`so, Geoscope repeatedly asserts that the Court must credit its bare legal conclusions in the
`
`Complaint at the Rule 12 stage. Federal Circuit precedent directly forecloses each of those
`
`arguments. Unclaimed features are “irrelevant” to the Section 101 inquiry. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc.
`
`v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 967 F.3d 1285, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2020). A claim must be “directed to
`
`non-abstract” technological improvements to pass the Section 101 threshold. Simio, LLC v.
`
`FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2020).1 And “a district court need
`
`not accept a patent owner’s conclusory allegations of inventiveness.” IBM Corp. v. Zillow Grp.,
`
`Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Under the correct legal standards, each of the Asserted
`
`Claims is ineligible under Section 101.
`
`I.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’104 FAMILY ARE INELIGIBLE UNDER
`SECTION 101
`A.
`
`Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to the Abstract Idea of
`Determining Location Based on Data
`1.
`
`Geoscope Contends That the Claimed Advance Is “Modifying” Data,
`but That Is Nothing More Than a Broad, Abstract Function
`
`Geoscope disputes that the asserted claims of the ’104 Family are directed to the abstract
`
`idea of determining location based on data. Opp. 11. The focus of Geoscope’s central argument
`
`is the claims’ step of “modifying” data, a function indisputably performed for the purpose of
`
`“determining a location.” See, e.g., ’494 patent, cl. 1. In particular, Geoscope argues that the
`
`claims require modifying data collected indoors to “eliminate the disparities” between that data
`
`
`1 All emphasis in quotations is added except where noted.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 10 of 33 PageID# 1864
`
`and outdoor data, which Geoscope contends “improv[es] the accuracy of geolocation” and
`
`represents a “technological improvement.” Opp. 11. This argument fails for several reasons.
`
`As an initial matter, the claims are not limited to modifying indoor data to “eliminate the
`
`disparities” between that indoor data and outdoor data. For instance, representative claim 1 of the
`
`’494 patent merely recites “modifying said observed network measurement data”—it does not
`
`specify whether the data is indoor or outdoor data, or even how “disparities” between indoor and
`
`outdoor data are to be “eliminated.”2 The Federal Circuit consistently has held that “‘[t]he § 101
`
`inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves,’ and the specification
`
`cannot be used to import details from the specification if those details are not claimed.”
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
`
`The court therefore has rejected a patentee’s arguments where they are “not tethered to the asserted
`
`claims” themselves, holding that such arguments are “irrelevant” to both steps of the Alice test.
`
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., --- F.4th ---, 2023 WL 4536366, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July
`
`14, 2023); Am. Axle, 967 F.3d at 1293. Here, because the very core of Geoscope’s central
`
`argument is not even recited in the claims and misrepresents what the claims actually require,
`
`Geoscope’s argument should be rejected. See Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d
`
`1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the
`
`‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.’”).
`
`A simple review of the claim language confirms that what the claims actually require for
`
`the step of “modifying” data is only a broad, abstract function performed to carry out the abstract
`
`
`2 To the extent Geoscope suggests that the asserted claims are patent-eligible simply because they
`encompass the patent-eligible concept of “modifying” indoor data in particular for the purpose of
`“eliminating disparities” between that data and outdoor data (Opp. 11), that is wrong as a matter
`of law. Even if “modifying” indoor data specifically was non-abstract—it is not, and Geoscope
`has failed to explain otherwise—the Federal Circuit has made clear that “where there are multiple
`covered embodiments, and not all covered embodiments are patent-eligible,” the claims are patent-
`ineligible. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294–95 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 11 of 33 PageID# 1865
`
`idea of determining location based on data. Br. 10. The claims do not even specify how to perform
`
`that function (or any other recited function). As discussed above, representative claim 1 of the
`
`’494 patent merely recites “modifying said observed network measurement data” and nothing
`
`more. That other independent claims may use well-known mathematical concepts as part of this
`
`step—e.g., claim 25 of the ’494 patent (determining an average of a signal characteristic) and claim
`
`1 of the ’104 patent (determining which signal characteristic has a greater magnitude)—also does
`
`not save the claims from ineligibility because mathematical concepts are themselves abstract and
`
`ineligible. Id. (citing, e.g., In re Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1250
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Courts have long held that mathematical algorithms for performing calculations,
`
`without more, are patent ineligible under § 101.”)); ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 771 (“[a]dding one
`
`abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render [a] claim non-abstract”).
`
`Nevertheless, Geoscope contends
`
`that “modifying” data represents a “specific
`
`technological improvement in geolocation systems” and provides “benefits.” Opp. 11–13. But
`
`the claims require no specific improvement to the existing technology to perform the function of
`
`“modifying” data—and Geoscope identifies none. The Federal Circuit repeatedly has made clear
`
`that, for patent eligibility, a claim must be “directed to non-abstract improvements to the
`
`functionality of” the existing technology itself. Simio, 983 F.3d at 1361 (citation omitted). The
`
`court has held in numerous instances that modifying or manipulating data itself is an abstract
`
`concept that is insufficient for eligibility. Br. 9 (citing, e.g., Univ. of Fla. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen.
`
`Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding ineligible claims directed to the “abstract
`
`idea of ‘collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data.’”)). For example, the Federal
`
`Circuit in Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023),
`
`recently held ineligible claims that “fail[ed] to recite a specific solution to make the alleged
`
`improvement” “‘concrete’ and at most recite[d] abstract data manipulation.” The court also has
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 12 of 33 PageID# 1866
`
`held that purported “benefits” provided by a claim are insufficient for eligibility if the benefits
`
`merely “flow from performing an abstract idea in conjunction with” “well-known” technology.
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Here, as with the ineligible claims in Hawk Tech. and the numerous other cases that
`
`Defendants discussed in their opening brief (Br. 9–10; infra Section I.A.2), “modifying” data as
`
`recited in the claims is nothing more than an abstract function, and thus cannot alone provide the
`
`“non-abstract,” concrete technological improvement required for patent eligibility. Indeed,
`
`representative claim 1 of the ’494 patent and most of the other asserted claims recite no specific
`
`technology at all for “modifying” data or performing any other recited function. And although
`
`claims 15 and 18 of the ’358 patent recite “circuitry for modifying” the data, “circuitry”
`
`indisputably is conventional computer technology and the claims require no specific improvements
`
`to it. Accordingly, any possible “benefit” from the claims is merely the result of carrying out the
`
`abstract idea of determining location based on data by performing basic functions, such as
`
`“modifying” data, using only well-known technology.
`
`2.
`
`Geoscope Fails to Meaningfully Address Defendants’ Cited Cases
`
`Geoscope fails to distinguish Defendants’ cited cases involving ineligible claims directed
`
`to collecting, analyzing, and outputting data, regardless of the field of use. Br. 8–9 (citing, e.g.,
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims to “collecting
`
`information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”)); see also
`
`Trinity Info Media, 2023 WL 4536366, at *4 (same). In particular, Defendants explained that the
`
`Federal Circuit and other courts, including ones in this District, have followed this precedent to
`
`hold in numerous instances that claims to collecting, analyzing, and outputting data—including in
`
`the context of geolocation and location determination—were ineligible. Br. 8–9 (citing, e.g.,
`
`Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018), CalAmp
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 13 of 33 PageID# 1867
`
`Wireless Networks Corp. v. ORBCOMM, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 3d 509, (E.D. Va. 2017), and
`
`GeoComply Solutions Inc. v. Xpoint Servs. LLC, 2023 WL 1927393, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 10, 2023)).
`
`Geoscope rejects all of these cases based on two conclusory arguments. Opp. 15–17. First,
`
`Geoscope contends that Defendants have “rewrit[ten] the claims to improperly oversimplify them”
`
`as “merely ‘collecting,’ ‘modifying,’ or ‘comparing’ data.” Opp. 11, 15–16. Yet, Geoscope fails
`
`to identify what the asserted claims require beyond these functions. Indeed, “collecting,”
`
`“modifying,” and “comparing” data are words taken straight from the language of the asserted
`
`claims themselves, and are no different from those recited in the geolocation and location-
`
`determination patent claims held ineligible in Automated Tracking (“receiv[ing]” and
`
`“generat[ing]” data in a system for “locating, identifying and/or tracking of an object,” 723 F.
`
`App’x at 993); CalAmp (“obtain[ing]” data and “determin[ing]” results based on that data to
`
`“determin[e] whether an article tracking device is within a spatial zone,” 233 F. Supp. 3d at 512);
`
`and GeoComply (“collecting,” “transmitting,” “receiving,” and “providing” data to “determin[e] a
`
`geo-location,” 2023 WL 1927393, at *1). Geoscope entirely fails to explain otherwise.
`
`Second, although Geoscope acknowledges the Federal Circuit’s holding that the ineligible
`
`claims in Electric Power were directed to the abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing
`
`it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” rather than “any particular
`
`assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions” (830 F.3d at 1354), Geoscope
`
`again repeats its argument that the asserted claims of the ’104 Family are patent-eligible because
`
`“they are directed to an improvement in an existing technological process.” Opp. 17; id. at 11, 16.
`
`But the quote from SRI Int’l Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019), on
`
`which Geoscope relies for this assertion (Opp. 17)—that claims may be patent-eligible if they are
`
`“directed to a technological solution to a technological problem”—only further confirms the
`
`ineligibility of the asserted claims. As discussed, “modifying” data is nothing more than an
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 14 of 33 PageID# 1868
`
`abstract function, and thus it cannot possibly be the “non-abstract,” “technological solution” or
`
`improvement required for eligibility. Supra Section I.A.1. Geoscope fails to identify in the claims
`
`any “particular assertedly inventive technology for performing” this basic function of “modifying”
`
`data. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. Nor could Geoscope identify any. As Defendants have
`
`explained, the ’104 Family’s specification makes clear that “modifying” data can be achieved
`
`simply by “subtracting or adding” from and to the data. Br. 5 (citing ’494 patent, 7:7–10).
`
`3.
`
`Geoscope’s Misplaced Reliance on Other Cases Should Be Rejected
`
`Geoscope relies only on inapplicable cases involving claims that, unlike those asserted
`
`here, expressly required specific technological improvements and unconventional configurations.
`
`Geoscope’s lead case (Opp. 14–15), Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343,
`
`1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2017), dealt with claims that are nothing like those asserted here. In Thales,
`
`the Federal Circuit held that claims to a “system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a
`
`moving reference frame” were patent-eligible because they used “inertial sensors in a non-
`
`conventional manner” and required a “particular,” “unconventional configuration of [the] sensors”
`
`“to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving
`
`reference frame.” Id. at 1344, 1348–49. In contrast, the asserted claims here do not require the
`
`use of any technology in a “non-conventional manner” or any “particular” “unconventional
`
`configuration” of components. The claims either recite no particular components at all for
`
`performing the functions of “collecting,” “modifying,” and “comparing” data, or involve only
`
`well-known, conventional technology (e.g., “circuitry”) functioning in its routine manner. Supra
`
`Section I.A.1. Geoscope’s conclusory assertion that the “claims are directed to particular
`
`configurations” like those in Thales (Opp. 15)—without identifying what those configurations are
`
`or a limitation requiring any particular configuration—should be rejected. IBM, 50 F.4th at 1379.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 15 of 33 PageID# 1869
`
`
`The patent claims at issue in Geoscope’s other cited cases have no relation to location
`
`determination, and in any event involved claims that also required specific changes and
`
`improvements to the operation of the existing technology. Opp. 14, 16–18. For example,
`
`Geoscope relies on Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020), to
`
`argue that “claims involving data manipulation and transmission” are not necessarily patent-
`
`ineligible. Opp. 17. In Uniloc, however, the Federal Circuit held that claims to an improved
`
`communication system technology were patent-eligible because they provided a specific
`
`technological improvement that fundamentally “change[d] the normal operation of [a]
`
`communication system itself.” Id. at 1308. The specification explained that “[i]n conventional
`
`systems,” “primary [base] stations alternate[d] between sending inquiry messages to identify new
`
`secondary stations and polling secondary stations . . . to determine whether they ha[d] information
`
`to transmit.” Id. at 1305. The Uniloc claims, however, required specifically manipulating the
`
`“inquiry messages” to include a “data field for polling,” which “changed the normal operation”
`
`of the base station itself so that “primary base stations” could now simultaneously send inquiry
`
`and polling transmissions. Id. These concrete claim limitations “eliminate[d] or reduce[d] the
`
`delay present in conventional systems,” and thus specifically improved base stations by allowing
`
`them to “accommodate additional devices, such as battery-operated secondary stations, without
`
`compromising performance.” Id. at 1308. Here, in contrast, the asserted claims of the ’104 Family
`
`require no such “change” to the “normal operation” of the existing technology—whether to
`
`“modify” data or to perform any of the other functions recited in the claims.
`
`4.
`
`Geoscope’s Remaining Arguments Fail
`
`None of Geoscope’s additional arguments saves the claims from ineligibility.
`
`Functional Claim Language. Geoscope, for instance, argues that the claims need not
`
`“specify how the steps of the claims occur.” Opp. 18–19. But that argument is directly at odds
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 16 of 33 PageID# 1870
`
`with Federal Circuit precedent recognizing that the use of purely functional claim language, such
`
`as “collecting,” “comparing,” and “modifying,” is indicative of ineligibility, and that the
`
`“essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of
`
`claims held ineligible under § 101.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356; Br. 10. The court has reasoned
`
`that these types of claims “[a]re drafted in such a result-oriented way that they amount[] to
`
`encompassing ‘the principle in the abstract’ no matter how implemented.” Interval Licensing LLC
`
`v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
`
`Commc’ns, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding ineligible claims that “d[id] not
`
`sufficiently describe how to achieve” results “in a non-abstract way”). Here, although Geoscope
`
`argues that the claims “explain what data is collected, what data is modified, and how the
`
`modifications relate to the final determination of location” (Opp. 19), it never explains whether
`
`the claims specify how these functions, including “modifying” data, are to be performed. The
`
`claims contain no such limitation, and thus fall squarely in the category of claims that the Federal
`
`Circuit has repeatedly held ineligible under Section 101.
`
`Representative Claim. Geoscope also disputes that claim 1 of the ’494 patent is
`
`representative of the other asserted claims of the ’104 Family. Opp. 22–23. But Geoscope fails
`
`to identify any limitation in the other claims that would materially affect the analysis. The Federal
`
`Circuit repeatedly has upheld determinations of ineligibility, including at the Rule 12 stage, based
`
`on a representative claim where, as here, the patentee failed to “present any ‘meaningful argument
`
`for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations’ not found in” that claim. Data Scape Ltd.
`
`v. Western Digital Corp., 816 F. App’x 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also Hawk Tech., 60 F.4th
`
`at 1353 n.1 (affirming dismissal on the basis that a representative claim was ineligible, where the
`
`patentee did “not meaningfully argue that there [was] any distinctive significance between the”
`
`claims at issue “for eligibility purposes”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 93 Filed 07/20/23 Page 17 of 33 PageID# 1871
`
`
`For instance, Geoscope refers to claims that recite the use of “an average value” or “greater
`
`magnitude signal characteristic” as part of the step of “modifying” data. Id. at 23. But this simply
`
`repeats Geoscope’s central—and flawed—argument that “modifying” data is the claimed advance.
`
`Supra Section I.A.1. And although Geoscope concludes that “claims containing mathematical
`
`concepts may be patent-eligible,” it fails to explain how these known mathematical concepts
`
`require or provide a specific technological improvement. Br. 10, 12.
`
`Geoscope also identifies claims that recite collecting data for “non-uniform grid points.”
`
`Opp. 23. But these claims merely involve collecting a preexisting type of data (i.e., non-uniform
`
`grid point data), without requiring any new or improved manner of collecting, using, or even
`
`creating that data. Br. 13–14. Geoscope entirely fails to explain how these claims require a
`
`materially different inquiry. Finally, Geoscope identifies claims requiring that “one of the data
`
`transmitters be outside the network.” Opp. 24. Although Geoscope contends that this is a “new
`
`configuration of conventional hardware” (id.), it identifies no support for the assertion and does
`
`not even try to explain how the “configuration” requires a specific technological improvement.
`
`Nor does it attempt to articulate how this limitation renders those claims meaningfully different
`
`for purposes of eligibility. These empty arguments should be rejected.
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Lack an Inventive Concept
`
`In their opening brief, Defendants provided a limitation-by-limitation analysis for each
`
`asserted claim, and explained that each lacks an inventive concept. Br. 11–14. In its opposition,
`
`Geoscope fails to identify any claim elements that could confer an “inventive concept” amounting
`
`to “significantly more than” the covered abstract idea. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 57