Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`OPENTV, INC., et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 33
`
`
`
`Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves, under Section 101 of the Patent Act, to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dismiss for invalidity two of five asserted patent infringement claims brought by Plaintiffs
`
`OpenTV, Inc., Nagravision S.A., and Nagra France S.A.S. (collectively “Plaintiffs” or
`
`“OpenTV”). The two patents at issue in the current motion are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,148,081 (the
`
`“‘081 patent” or “‘081”) and 7,644,429 (the “‘429 patent” or “‘429”). Dkt. No. 1, Exs. 1 and 2,
`
`and Dkt. No. 33. In addition, Defendant filed supplemental information in support of its motion to
`
`dismiss, in which it limited the scope of the motion to claims 1-3 and 23-24 of the ‘081 patent and
`
`claims 1, 2, and 4-6 of the ‘429 patent. Dkt. No. 71 at 2. The current order addresses the patent
`
`eligibility of these claims.
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to
`
`claims 1-3 and 23-24 of the ‘081 patent and claims 1, 2, and 4-6 of the ‘429 patent.
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`I.
`
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
`
`The technology of the patents at issue relates to the secure transmission of digital content
`
`directly to a user’s television, personal computer, or mobile device. Id. at 12-13. While
`
`technology in the field of interactive television systems gives digital content providers the
`
`flexibility to transmit their content directly to a user’s device, such flexibility also makes the
`
`delivery process unsafe. Id. To better secure the delivery process, these providers use Digital
`
`Rights management (DRM) and authentication. Id. The patents at issue (i.e. ‘081 and ‘429) relate
`
`to the use and implementation of these security measures to secure the delivery process of digital
`
`content.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ‘081 Patent
`
`The ‘081 patent is directed to a method and system of controlling an interactive television
`
`application’s1 right to access other interactive applications. ‘081 at 9:7-15 and 10:4-12. The
`
`embodiment that best illustrates the above concept in practice involves a user’s ability to make a
`
`purchase online with the use of a credit card transaction application. Id. at 9:10-41 and 10:4-17.
`
`A user may browse an online shopping application and choose to purchase an item listed.
`
`However, the producer that operates the shopping application can vary from the one that operates
`
`the credit card application. Consequently, the user’s ability to complete the purchase (i.e. make
`
`payment using the credit card application) will depend on the scope of rights granted by the credit
`
`card application to the shopping application.2 Id. If the access rights granted to the shopping
`
`application permit it to use the credit card application, then the user may successfully complete the
`
`
`1 An “interactive television application” is defined as a set of one or more program modules that
`share common access rights and are “owned by the same producer.” ‘081 at 4:32-37. A “module”
`comprises application code, raw data or graphical information. Id. at 4:31-33. A “credential” is
`defined as “a collection of information” that can be used to identify and verify the privileges and
`limitations of particular modules. Id. at 4:47-49 and 8:61-65.
`
` 2
`
` The credit card application may not share the same access rights as the shopping application and
`may be owned and operated by a different producer. ‘081 at 9:7-15.
`2
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`purchase. If the credit card application does not grant access rights to the shopping application,
`
`the user will be unable to make the purchase using the application. Id. at 10:4-7 & 9:10-41.
`
`
`
`The ‘081 patent attempted to capture the above practice in the following three steps recited
`
`in claim 1: loading an interactive application with an associated credential in the interactive
`
`television system, verifying the credential, and allowing an interactive application to perform one
`
`or more functions based on the permission information contained in the credential. System claim
`
`23 links the steps recited in method claim 1 above to conventional hardware components such as a
`
`control unit (i.e. a general purpose computer) and conventional memory (such as SRAM and
`
`DRAM), which are collectively configured to perform these steps. Id. at 6:1-5. The control unit is
`
`configured to execute the interactive applications and verify credentials, while the convention
`
`memory component is responsible for storing these applications and credentials. Id. at 6:4-16 &
`
`claims 23 and 24.
`
`
`
`Dependent claims 2 and 3 include various process limitations such as “storing” credential
`
`information and “verifying whether an expiration date has expired.” Id. at Abstract & 11:9-19; see
`
`also Id. at Claims 2 and 3. Dependent claim 24 simply recites a limitation that defines the control
`
`unit as a general-purpose computer. Id. at 6:4-16 & claim 24.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ‘429 Patent
`
`The ‘429 patent is directed to a system that reduces the time it takes for a user to access
`
`pay per view (“PPV”) programming. ‘429 at 1:28-32 & 2:26-33. Traditionally, users would
`
`expend a significant amount of time on the phone with human operators to access PPV content.
`
`Id. at 1:39-47. These operators would request product specific information from and grant the
`
`users access to a product (a PPV, for example) after checking the user’s financial status (i.e.
`
`whether the users paid product subscription fees for example). Id. at 1:40-52. To reduce the
`
`delays associated with such phone conversations, human operators were replaced with automatic
`
`voice servers, and the automatic servers were replaced with interactive screen based systems. Id.
`
`Despite these improvements, however, users were required to continue manually inputting
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`information to access content. Id. at 2:5-9. The ‘429 patent attempts to solve this problem by
`
`granting the user faster product access and automatically renewing access rights to digital content
`
`after the user initially inputs the necessary information into a database.3 It purports to achieve this
`
`by providing users with the ability to communicate directly with the entity (Subscriber
`
`Authorization System or “SAS”) responsible for generating the access right (thereby bypassing the
`
`human operators). Id. at 8:54-63 & 15:26-41.
`
`
`
`System claim 1 recites the components that carry out the processes of automatic renewal
`
`and faster product access. These components include: a subscriber management system (“SMS”)
`
`for storing user subscription information, a SAS for generating an Entitlement Management
`
`Message (“EMM”)4 and renewing a user’s access rights, a communications server for transmitting
`
`the EMM to the user, and a direct link through which the EMM is transmitted to the user’s
`
`receiver to enable the user to access content (i.e. PPV programming). The SMS is simply a
`
`database that contains user files and pay per view details. ‘429 at 7:44-49. The SAS is a
`
`mainframe computer connected to a keyboard and monitor. ‘429 at 8:42-47. The communications
`
`server and the receiver are conventional components well known in the industry. Finally, the
`
`dependent claims of the ‘429 patent include system limitations that describe the routine operation
`
`of well-known electronic components.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Plaintiff commenced the instant action on May 5, 2015 in the Northern District of
`
`California. Dkt. No. 1. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on June 26, 2015. Dkt. No.
`
`33. Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on July 17, 2015, to which Defendant filed a reply on July
`
`29, 2015. Dkt. Nos. 47 and 51. A hearing was held regarding this matter on October 1, 2015.
`
`
`3 While the user was previously required to input information manually on an interface or provide
`this information to a human operator, he could input the necessary user information by inserting a
`smartcard directly into his Set-Top-Box. See ‘429 at 15:27-32.
`
` 4
`
` EMM gives the user access to the product. ‘429 at 2:13-16. It is a mechanism by which the
`encrypted data representative of a product is decrypted for a particular user to grant him product
`access (pay per view programming for example). ‘429 at 2:13-19.
`4
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Motion to Dismiss
`
`A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F. 3d 729, 732 (9th Cir.
`
`2001). Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
`
`relief may be granted. For purposes of evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court “must presume all
`
`factual allegations of the complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`
`nonmoving party.” Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F. 2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). To survive
`
`a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a claim to relief that is
`
`“plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`
`
`
`This “facial plausibility” standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more
`
`than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
`
`678 (2009). While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations, the pleading must offer
`
`more than mere “labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
`
`action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545 (2007); see Papsan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1985)
`
`(holding that federal courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual
`
`allegation”).
`
`
`
`In order to state a claim for patent infringement, “a patentee need only plead facts
`
`sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice. This requirement ensures that the accused
`
`infringer has sufficient knowledge of the facts alleged to enable it to answer the complaint and
`
`defend itself.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Gen. Auto. Ins. Servs., 29 F. Supp. 3d 1264, 1267 (N.D.
`
`Cal. 2013) (quoting Phonometrics, Inc. v. Hospitality Franchise Sys., Inc., 203 F.3d 790, 794 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000)).
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Burden of Proof
`
`There is a dearth of direct authority addressing the appropriate burden of proof to be
`
`applied to determine patent eligibility at the pleading stage. Neither the Supreme Court nor the
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit has directly addressed this issue. See Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.
`
`Ct. 2347 (2014) (deciding the issue of patent eligibility without addressing the question of burden
`
`of proof); see Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)
`
`(same); see also Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F. 3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J.,
`
`concurring) (noting that the Supreme Court has “never mentioned…any presumption of
`
`eligibility” standard in a Section 101 analysis, and arguing that the presumption of validity should
`
`not apply in such cases).
`
`
`
`District courts are split regarding the appropriate burden of proof that applies. see Modern
`
`Telecom Sys. LLC v. Earthlink, Inc., No. 14-CV-0347-DOC, 2015 WL 1239992, at *7-9 (C.D.
`
`Cal. Mar. 17, 2015) (rejecting the clear and convincing standard); see also OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple,
`
`Inc., No. 14-CV-01622-HSG, 2015 WL 1535328, at *2 (N.D. Cal. April 6, 2015) (rejecting the
`
`clear and convincing standard and granting motion to dismiss prior to formal claim construction);
`
`see also Cogent Med. Inc. v. Elsevier, Inc., 13-CV-4479-RMW, 2014 WL 4966326, at *3 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Sept. 30, 2014) (same); but see Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1011 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2014) (applying the clear and convincing standard); Wolf v. Capstone Photography, No. 13-
`
`CV-07573-CAS, 2014 WL 7639820, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2014) (same). However, regardless
`
`of the applicable standard, the asserted claims of the ‘081 and ‘429 patents currently at issue
`
`contain ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the Court does not need to resolve this disagreement
`
`in the current motion.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that 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 Supreme Court has long held that this provision
`
`contains the important implicit exception that natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract
`
`ideas are not patentable. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
`
`(1981)). In applying this exception, courts “must distinguish between patents that claim the
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something
`
`more.” Id. at 2354. While Alice is considered the leading case on abstract idea ineligibility, it
`
`relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010),
`
`and Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1289. See Shortridge v. Found. Constr. Payroll Serv., LLC, No. 14-CV-
`
`04850-JCS, 2015 WL 1739256, at *7 (N.D. Cal. April 14, 2015) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2355-57).
`
`
`
`In determining whether claims are patent ineligible, a court must first decide whether they
`
`are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2355
`
`(quoting Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980)). A principle in the abstract is either
`
`a fundamental truth, original cause, or a motive. Id. at 2356; see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
`
`63, 67 (1972); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F. 3d 1366, 1371 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011) (holding that mental processes do not constitute patent-eligible subject matter because
`
`applying human intelligence to solve practical problems is no more than a claim to a fundamental
`
`principle).
`
`
`
`The court’s next inquiry, upon determining that the claims are directed to an abstract idea,
`
`is whether the claims constitute an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea
`
`into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Such a transformation, however,
`
`requires more than just the recitation of the abstract idea followed by the words “apply it.” Id. at
`
`2357. Moreover, simply adding a generic computer to an otherwise abstract concept is not
`
`sufficient to save the patent from ineligibility. Id. at 2358 (“The mere recitation of a generic
`
`computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
`
`Rather, to satisfy the inventive concept requirement, a computer-implemented invention must
`
`involve more than the performance of “well-understood, routine [and] conventional activities
`
`previously known in the industry.” Id. at 2359.
`
`Finally, many courts also turn to the “machine-or-transformation” test set forth in Bilski to
`
`determine if there is an inventive concept present in a patent. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 594. Under this
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`test, a claimed process is patentable if it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus or if it
`
`transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. Id. at 594. While the machine-or-
`
`transformation test is not dispositive, it is useful in determining whether there is an additive
`
`concept to an abstract idea that is sufficient to render the idea patent-eligible. Bancorp Servs.,
`
`LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F. 3d. 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`VI. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The ‘081 Patent
`
`
`
`i.
`
`Abstract Idea
`
`Plaintiffs assert that the ‘081 patent is not drawn to an abstract idea because it provides a
`
`practical technological solution to a specific problem. Dkt. No. 47 at 12. In addition, Plaintiffs
`
`contend that the ‘081 patent is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem
`
`specifically arising in the realm of computer and content security. Dkt. No. 47 at 12-13. The
`
`Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`The ‘081 patent relates to controlling the scope of a particular interactive television
`
`application’s right to access the content and capability of other interactive applications.5 The
`
`practice of controlling access to information by verifying credentials (via well-known encryption
`
`methods6) is neither novel nor specific to interactive television systems. See Intellectual Ventures
`
`II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13-CV-3777-AKH, 2015 WL 1941331, at *12 (S.D. N.Y.
`
`Apr. 28, 2015) (reasoning that protecting access to digital information by enforcing certain rules is
`
`a conventional concept); see also Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11. It is a long-standing and well-
`
`understood business practice that predates the internet. Cf OpenTV, Inc., 2015 WL 1535328, at
`
`*3 (“The limitations that such information be confidential, verified…do[es] nothing to
`
`
`5 An embodiment described in the specification discusses controlling an online shopping
`application’s right to access an electronic commerce application (for processing a credit card
`payment) by verifying a credential. ‘081 9:7-20 and 10:4-7.
`
` 6
`
` The ‘081 patent states that there are a variety of security systems that use “public key”
`encryption and certain embodiments of the ‘081 patent use this encryption method. ‘081 at 10:37-
`44.
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`render…[an abstract idea] concrete or tangible.”) (emphasis added); see also Paone v. Broadcom
`
`Corp., No. 15-CV-0596-BMC-GRB, 2015 WL 4988279, at *7 (E.D. N.Y. Aug. 19, 2015)
`
`(reasoning that encryption in general represents a basic building block of human ingenuity that has
`
`been used for hundreds of years). Method claim 1 of the ‘081 patent merely applies this practice
`
`to a specific technological environment (i.e. internet based interactive television applications) with
`
`the use of a general purpose computer7, which performs credential verification. DDR Holdings,
`
`LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F. 3d 1245, 1258 (finding that claims that offer media content in
`
`exchange for viewing an advertisement along with routine additional [steps such as…restrictions
`
`on public access…recite an abstract idea])(emphasis added); see Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11
`
`(“[P]rohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the
`
`use of… [the abstract idea] to a particular technological environment.”); see also OpenTV, Inc.,
`
`2015 WL 1535328, at *3.
`
`
`
`Independent system claim 23 then recites generic components (such as a “memory” and “a
`
`control unit”) configured to perform the routine and conventional steps enumerated in method
`
`claim 1. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2360 (explaining that components such as a “data processing
`
`system,” and a “data storage unit” are purely functional and generic components that make a
`
`system claim patent ineligible if they are a recitation of the method claims on a generic
`
`computer)(emphasis added); see also ‘081 at claim 24. None of these generic components
`
`constitute meaningful limitations beyond the implementation of the method steps of claim 1 on a
`
`general purpose computer. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F. 3d. 1306, 1327
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The presence of a general purpose computer to facilitate operations through
`
`uninventive steps does not change the fundamental character of an invention.”).
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, the ‘081 patent claims are also not necessarily rooted in
`
`computer technology to solve a problem “specifically arising” in the realm of computer and
`
`content security. These claims merely apply the well-known concept of credential verification to
`
`
`7 The control unit comprises a general-purpose computer. See Claim 24 of ‘081.
`9
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`web-based interactive television applications. See Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 2015 WL
`
`1941331, at *12; see also Essociate, Inc. v. 4355768 Canada Inc., No. 14-CV-0679-JVS, 2015 WL
`
`4470139, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015) (“[T]he performance of some business practice known
`
`from the pre-internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the internet…is not
`
`necessarily rooted in computer technology.”)(emphasis added); see also Versata Dev. Group, 793
`
`F. 3d. at 1333 (reasoning that claims that limit known business processes to particular
`
`technological environments are not necessarily rooted in computer technology and are patent in-
`
`eligible); see also Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ‘081
`
`patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of controlling access rights of software applications
`
`to access other software applications in the technological environment of interactive television
`
`systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`
`Inventive Concept
`
`Plaintiffs next assert that the ‘081 patent constitutes “significantly more” than an abstract
`
`idea because its claims satisfy the machine-or-transformation test and are “grounded in the
`
`concrete technological context” of interactive television systems. Dkt. No. 47 at 16 and 18. This
`
`argument is similarly unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`As already noted, the fact that the ‘081 claims are directed to an abstract idea is not fatal to
`
`patentability. The Court may still deem a patent valid if its claims add an inventive concept
`
`sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
`
`Therefore, the determinative inquiry regarding the ‘081 claims is whether they add an inventive
`
`concept sufficient to transform the concept of controlling access rights to software applications
`
`into a patent eligible application. Such a transformation, however, requires more than just the
`
`recitation of the abstract idea followed by the words “apply it” or a generic computer’s
`
`implementation of routine and well-understood business practices. Id. at 2359 (holding that a
`
`computer-implemented invention must involve more than the performance of “well-understood,
`
`routine [and] conventional activities previously known in the industry” to be deemed patentable).
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Both the steps recited in claim 1 and the components used to perform these steps are
`
`conventional and routine. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (concluding that a data processing system,
`
`a communications controller, and data storage unit are purely functional, generic and part of nearly
`
`every computer); see also Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l
`
`Assoc., 776 F. 3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (rejecting the argument that an inventive concept
`
`could be found in cases where the claim limitations are routine, well known, and conventional).
`
`The component responsible for executing the interactive television applications and verifying
`
`credentials (via well-known encryption methods) within these applications in order to control
`
`access rights is a general purpose computer8, which is well-known. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2351
`
`(holding that an instruction to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer is not enough to
`
`transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.); see also Paone, 2015 WL 4988279, at
`
`*7.
`
`
`
`In addition, the ‘081 claims, when viewed individually or as a whole, neither improve the
`
`functioning of the computer itself nor effect an improvement in the technological field of
`
`interactive television systems. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2350 (finding that claims that merely apply an
`
`abstract idea to a generic computer and neither improve the functioning of the computer itself nor
`
`effect an improvement in a technical field are patent ineligible). The ‘081 patent claims simply
`
`apply the known concept of credential verification to web-based software applications and use a
`
`general purpose computer to perform the verification. DDR Holdings, 773 F. 3d at 1258 (“[T]he
`
`court cautioned that ‘not all claims purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible
`
`for patent.’”); see also Intellectual Ventures II LLC, 2015 WL 1941331, at *14 (concluding that
`
`features such as encryption and decryption and the use of an access mechanism to enforce certain
`
`rules constitute well understood and conventional practices); see also Blue Spike LLC v. Google,
`
`Inc., No. 14-CV-01650-YGR, 2015 WL 5260506, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) (“[I]nclusion of
`
`
`8 The control unit includes all the components of a typical computer such as a microprocessor,
`microcontroller, and memory. See ‘081 at 6:4-9; see also claim 24.
`11
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`generic computer components…do[es] not save…claims from invalidity.”).
`
`
`
`Next, Plaintiffs argument that the machine-or-transformation test is satisfied because the
`
`‘081 patent claims are tied to “concrete machines” and require a “particular tangible machine” and
`
`“particular components” to perform certain tasks is unpersuasive. The transformation prong of the
`
`analysis is not applicable here because the ‘081 patent claims neither improve the components
`
`recited nor alter the form of any data or credential provided in the specification in a meaningful
`
`way. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2350 (reasoning that applying the abstract idea onto a generic
`
`computer without improving the functionality of the computer itself or effecting an improvement
`
`in a technical field is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).
`
`Therefore, the key inquiry regarding the machine or transformation test is whether the ‘081 patent
`
`claims are tied to a machine.
`
`
`
`As stated above, the ‘081 patent claims require nothing more than a general purpose
`
`computer and certain generic and well known components (recited in claim 23) to perform the
`
`method steps recited in claim 1. Components, such as “a control unit,” “memory” and “receiver,”
`
`collectively responsible for performing all of the steps outlined in claim 1, are not in any way
`
`unique or specifically designed to implement these steps. They consist of conventional
`
`components that perform normal and basic functions.9 As such, these claims fail to transform a
`
`patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept. See California Inst. of Tech. v.
`
`Hughes Comm., Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 974, 987 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (“[A]bstract ideas may
`
`become patentable if they are tied to uniquely designed machines with specific purposes…[b]ut
`
`Courts must remember that generic recitation of hardware will not save a claim.”); see also
`
`Versata Dev. Group, Inc., 793 F. 3d at 1335 (holding that the normal and basic functions of a
`
`computer do not transform a general purpose computer into a specific machine); see also Blue
`
`Spike LLC, 2015 WL 5260506, at *7 (“[I]nclusion of generic computer components…do[es] not
`
`save…claims from invalidity.”). Therefore, the claims of the ‘081 fail to satisfy the machine-or-
`
`
`9 See ‘081 6:4-20.
`
`Case No.: 5:15-cv-02008-EJD
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`
`Case 5:15-cv-02008-EJD Document 72 Filed 01/28/16 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`transformation test.
`
`
`
`In sum, the ‘081 patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of controlling the rights of
`
`software applications to access other software applications and fail to contain an inventive concept
`
`sufficient to transform this abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. In addition, the recited
`
`claim limitations, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, fail to add anything
`
`transformative to the patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The ‘429 Patent
`
`
`
`i.
`
`Abstract Idea
`
`Plaintiffs assert that the ‘429 patent is not directed to an abstract idea because it contains a
`
`novel arrangement of specific components directed towards a specific purpose and is necessarily
`
`rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of “digital
`
`content access and distribution.” Dkt. No. 47 at 22. The Court disagrees.
`
`
`
`The ‘429 patent claim 1 is drawn to the abstract idea of granting and automaticall