Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.219 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (CSB No. 191605)
`msacksteder@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 415.281.1350
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`INTUIT INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`DEFENDANT INTUIT INC.’S
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R.
`CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`
`Hearing Date: June 27, 2022
`
`PER CHAMBERS RULES, NO
`ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS
`SEPARATELY ORDERED BY
`THE COURT
`
`Judge: Hon. Linda Lopez
`Courtroom: 2B
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Samesurf, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Intuit Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.220 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Patents ............................................................................. 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................. 5
`
`Abstract Idea ......................................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Focus of the Asserted Claims is Directed to the
`Abstract Idea of Sending and Receiving Information for
`Simultaneous Interactions ........................................................... 7
`
`The Asserted Claims Neither Provide a Solution to a
`Technology-Specific Problem Nor Address such a
`Problem. .................................................................................... 12
`
`The Asserted Claims Do Not Have an Inventive Step ....................... 16
`
`The Dependent Claims Remain Directed to the Same Abstract
`Idea of Sending and Receiving Information for Simultaneous
`Interactions, and Do Not Add an Inventive Step ................................ 21
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`i
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.221 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs. GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 13, 18
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................... passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ................................................................................. 6, 19, 23
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 7
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Content Aggregation Sols. LLC v. BLU Prods., Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00527-BEN-KSC,
`2016 WL 6995490 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2016)...................................... 4, 9, 10, 18
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
`Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................... 4, 20
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 14
`
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 11, 22
`
`Data Scape Ltd. v. W. Digital Corp.,
`816 F. App’x 461 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 20
`
`Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 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
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.222 Page 4 of 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Evolutionary Intell., LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`137 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2015),
`aff’d, 677 F. App’x 679 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................... 11
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 5, 22
`
`In re Greenstein,
`778 F. App'x 935 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................. 9, 13
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 6, 11, 18
`
`Innovation Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`778 F. App’x 859 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................... 13, 22
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 18
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 9, 10, 22
`
`Lendingtree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
`656 F. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 9
`
`Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs., Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 7, 23
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Quora, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-06518-VC, 2020 WL 415919 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2020),
`aff’d, 838 F. App’x 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................... 13
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
`576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 17
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecomms. Lab'ys, Inc.,
`114 F. Supp. 192 (D. Del. 2015) ................................................................ 7, 8, 22
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 19
`
`Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. v. IntelliCentrics, Inc.,
`No. 2021-1906, 2022 WL 794981 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) .............. 5, 6, 13, 22
`
`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
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`iii
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.223 Page 5 of 29
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Sensormatic Elecs., LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc.,
`No. 2020-2320, 2021 WL 2944838 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) ..................... 13, 22
`
`Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc.,
`931 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 21
`
`Sungkyunkwan Univ. Rsch. Bus. Found. v. LMI Techs. (USA) Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-06966-VC, 2017 WL 1900737 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) ............... 14
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 21
`
`TriDim Innovations LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`207 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (N.D. Cal. 2016).............................................................. 18
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 4, 14, 22
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 16, 19, 23
`
`Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................... 11, 22
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`212 F. Supp. 3d 887 (C.D. Cal. 2016),
`aff'd 683 F. App’x 956 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................... 9, 22
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2019),
`aff’d, 835 F. App’x 610 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (per curiam) ................................ 14, 15
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`iv
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.224 Page 6 of 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 21
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ........................................................................... 4
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) ..................................................... 1, 3
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) ............................................................................. 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
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`v
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.225 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For generations, business professionals, educators, and students have worked
`
`collaboratively on the same materials, for example, by gathering around an overhead
`
`projector or document camera while taking turns making suggested revisions. The
`
`claims of the three patents asserted in this suit do nothing more than implement this
`
`abstract method of organizing human activity, using only conventional, generic
`
`computers and networks developed by others. Specifically, the claims purport to
`
`cover an interactive web browsing experience and the simultaneous sharing of
`
`information over the Internet.
`
`10
`
`Such abstract claims are routinely held not to be patent-eligible. Indeed, courts
`
`11
`
`have held that patents claiming interactive web browsing and simultaneous screen
`
`12
`
`sharing—the purported technology at issue here—are invalid for failure to claim
`
`13
`
`patentable subject matter. And the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit hold that the
`
`14
`
`mere use of computers, conventional devices, and the Internet as tools to carry out or
`
`15
`
`assist human activity does not satisfy the requirement for patent-eligible subject
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`16
`
`matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, like the many patents covering methods
`
`17
`
`of organizing human activity that came before them, the asserted patents are invalid
`
`18
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`19
`
`Defendant Intuit Inc. respectfully requests the Court to dismiss Plaintiff
`
`20
`
`Samesurf, Inc.’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
`
`21
`
`of Civil Procedure for failure to allege infringement of a patentable claim.
`
`22
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`23
`
`Samesurf filed its complaint on March 29, 2022. See Compl. (Dkt. 1).
`
`24
`
`Samesurf alleges Intuit infringes claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, and 16 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`25
`
`9,483,448 (the “’448 patent”), claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`26
`
`9,185,145 (the “’145 patent”), and claims 1-6, 10-12, and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`27
`
`8,527,591 (the “’591 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) (’448 patent
`
`28
`
`claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, and 16, ’145 patent claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-17, and ’591
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`1
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.226 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`patent claims 1-6, 10-12, and 14-16, are collectively referred to as the “Asserted
`
`Claims”). Compl. ⁋ 49; see id. ⁋⁋ 113, 153, 189. Samesurf accuses Intuit’s
`
`“TurboTax Online, QuickBooks Online, TurboTax Live, QuickBooks Live,
`
`Smartlook, and other co-browse enabled Intuit products and/or online experiences,”
`
`“as well as the underlying infrastructure supporting these products,” of infringement.
`
`Id. ⁋ 49; see, e.g., id. ⁋⁋ 81, 89.
`
`A. The Asserted Patents
`
`
`
`The ’591 patent was filed on May 20, 2010, and issued on September 3, 2013.
`
`See Compl. Ex. C at 1. The ’145 patent is a continuation of and claims priority to the
`
`10
`
`’591 patent, was filed on July 26, 2013, and issued on November 10, 2015. See
`
`11
`
`Compl. Ex. B at 1. The ’448 patent claims priority to U.S. Patent App. 12/783,735,
`
`12
`
`has a priority date of May 20, 2010, was filed on August 19, 2015, and issued on
`
`13
`
`November 1, 2016. See Compl. Ex. A at 1.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`The ’591 and ’145 patents are related family members and share a common
`
`15
`
`specification. The ’448 patent has substantially the same specification as the ’591
`
`16
`
`and ’145 patents. All three Asserted Patents are directed toward methods “for joining
`
`17
`
`a synchronized browsing session administered by a synchronization server,
`
`18
`
`comprising activating a hyperlink associated with the synchronized browsing
`
`19
`
`session, sending a request to join the synchronized browsing session to the
`
`20
`
`synchronization server in response to the activation of the hyperlink, and joining the
`
`21
`
`synchronized browsing session.” ’591 patent 2:54-60. The foregoing is
`
`22
`
`accomplished through the use of generically described components such as
`
`23
`
`computers, servers, and the Internet. See, e.g., id. at 10:6-9 (“Fig. 2(a) shows host
`
`24
`
`device 10, synchronization server 13 and guest device 14 transmitting data
`
`25
`
`communication to initialize a synchronized browsing session between host device 10
`
`26
`
`and guest device 14.”), 6:6-11 (“host device 10 may comprise a personal computer,
`
`27
`
`mobile phone, Smartphone, IPAD®, or other type of electronic device with a visual
`
`28
`
`user interface and a network connection such that a user may access and view a third
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`2
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.227 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`party website such as one provided by website server 12 over internet 11.”).
`
`
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ’591 patent recites as follows:
`
`1. A method for a guest device performing a synchronized browsing session
`
`administered by a synchronization server, comprising:
`
`detecting an activation of a hyperlink associated with the synchronized
`
`browsing session by a guest device;
`
`sending a request by the guest device to join the synchronized browsing
`
`session to the synchronization server in response to the activation of the
`
`hyperlink;
`
`receiving from the synchronization server a notification that guest device
`
`has joined the synchronized browsing session;
`
`receiving data from the synchronization server, where the data relates to a
`
`website being accessed in real-time by a host device; and wherein the
`
`data comprises a URL of the website and cookie information associated
`
`with the website and the host device; and
`
`operating a browser by the guest device based on the data received from
`
`the synchronization server.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`18
`
`Independent claim 10 of the ’591 patent similarly claims the foregoing in apparatus
`
`19
`
`form. Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, and claims 11-18 depend from claim 10. The
`
`20
`
`dependent claims add trivial or conventional additional limitations to the independent
`
`21
`
`claims, such as additional steps or usage of common Internet components. See, e.g.,
`
`22
`
`’591 patent cl. 2 (“further comprising receiving an invitation”), cl. 3 (“wherein the
`
`23
`
`invitation comprises the hyperlink associated with the synchronized browsing
`
`24
`
`session.”).
`
`25
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’591 patent is representative of all claims across
`
`26
`
`the Asserted Patents. 1 All claims are very similar in scope and recite the same basic
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1 In Alice, the Supreme Court considered a representative method claim and, after
`
`
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.228 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`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
`
`steps: (1) sending a request by a first device to join a synchronized browsing session;
`
`(2) receiving information at a second device about the website content accessed; and
`
`(3) accessing the website content by the second device for synchronizing the session.
`
`The Asserted Patents’ dependent claims are also very similar in scope to one another.
`
`See, e.g., ’145 patent cl. 2 (“said invitation comprises a hyperlink associated with
`
`said synchronized browsing session.”), cl. 3 (“wherein said invitation is received via
`
`
`
`finding the method claim ineligible, found the asserted system claims invalid as
`
`“add[ing] nothing of substance to the underlying [] idea” without performing a claim-
`
`by-claim analysis. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2360
`
`(2014). Following Alice, district courts and the Federal Circuit have done the
`
`same. In Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the
`
`district court found 242 claims of four patents ineligible under Section 101 based on
`
`its analysis of two representative claims, even where the parties had not agreed
`
`beforehand on the set of representative claims. 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014). The Federal Circuit rejected the Patent Owner’s contention that the district
`
`court erred by failing to address each claim individually, finding that such an analysis
`
`was “unnecessary.” Id. The Federal Circuit found the claims of the patents, which,
`
`like here, shared a common specification, all drawn to the same abstract idea, and
`
`noted that the Patent Owner failed to identify any claim that was distinguishable from
`
`the representative claims. Id. at 1347-48. Claims from one patent can be
`
`representative of claims from related patents when analyzing patentable subject
`
`matter under Section 101. See, e.g., Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
`
`Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that related
`
`patents with “substantially the same specification” are representative across all
`
`claims of the patents, and conducting the subject matter analysis on the representative
`
`claim for all patents). For completeness, dependent claims are addressed in Section
`
`D, infra.
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`4
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.229 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`a viable means of communication.”); ’448 patent cl. 2 (“receiving a notification
`
`message indicative of the invitee device joining the synchronized browsing
`
`session.”), cl. 3 (“activating a hyperlink on a website to initialize the sending of the
`
`request.”). Any differences between claims are trivial or conventional added
`
`limitations that do not impact the analysis of patentable subject matter. Moreover,
`
`the Asserted Patents share substantially similar specifications, and are directed
`
`toward the same subject matter. Accordingly, all arguments made throughout this
`
`brief similarly apply to all claims in the Asserted Patents.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`10
`
`A complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 if it does not
`
`11
`
`include “enough facts” that, when taken as true, “state a claim to relief that is
`
`12
`
`plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`
`13
`
`Challenges to patentable subject matter are appropriate in Rule 12 motions to dismiss.
`
`14
`
`See, e.g., Repifi Vendor Logistics, Inc. v. IntelliCentrics, Inc., No. 2021-1906, 2022
`
`15
`
`WL 794981, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022); Content Aggregation Sols. LLC v. BLU
`
`16
`
`Prods., Inc., No. 16-cv-00527-BEN-KSC, 2016 WL 6995490, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Nov.
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`17
`
`29, 2016).
`
`18
`
`19
`
`A.
`
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Courts apply a two-step analysis to evaluate patent eligibility under Section
`
`20
`
`101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014). First, the
`
`21
`
`Court “determine[s] whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`22
`
`concept,” such as an abstract idea. Id. at 218. Courts consider “whether the claims
`
`23
`
`focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead,
`
`24
`
`on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked
`
`25
`
`merely as a tool’” to perform an abstract idea. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`
`26
`
`879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). One example is a “method
`
`27
`
`for organizing human activity.” See Repifi, 2022 WL 794981, at *2.
`
`28
`
`Second, if the Court finds the claims are directed to an abstract idea, it then
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`5
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.230 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`should hold the claims ineligible unless it finds an additional “inventive concept”—
`
`beyond the abstract idea—in the claims. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. The Court
`
`considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered
`
`combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of
`
`the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`
`823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). It is insufficient to implement
`
`an abstract idea using well-known computer components or functions, limit the idea
`
`to a particular technological environment, or add other token steps. Alice, 573 U.S.
`
`at 221-26; see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602, 610-12 (2010).
`
`B. Abstract Idea
`
`The Asserted Patents claim an abstract idea directed toward organizing human
`
`12
`
`activity. Cf. Repifi, 2022 WL 794981, at *2. When distilled to their primary
`
`13
`
`elements, the Asserted Patents claim steps to send and receive information for
`
`14
`
`simultaneous interaction. These are the very activities that make humans human.
`
`15
`
`Courts routinely find these types of claims to be non-patentable abstract ideas
`
`16
`
`because they have long been the subject of organized human activity. Humans have
`
`17
`
`simultaneously interacted without electronic devices since the dawn of humanity.
`
`18
`
`Even before we could speak, we could successfully interact with one another just by
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`19
`
`pointing.
`
`20
`
`The Asserted Claims’ use of computers, other devices, and the Internet fail to
`
`21
`
`convert them to patentable claims as a matter of law. The claims’ use of devices to
`
`22
`
`facilitate a “synchronized browsing session” do not save them, because they are
`
`23
`
`merely generic devices that permit the same simultaneous interaction humans have
`
`24
`
`engaged in since the dawn of man. And because the Asserted Claims are directed to
`
`25
`
`organized human activity and interaction, the language of the claims themselves do
`
`26
`
`not provide a solution to a technology-specific problem. In fact, the Federal Circuit
`
`27
`
`has held that the Asserted Patents’ alleged improvements to operability and security
`
`28
`
`are still nonetheless abstract. Regardless, the text of the Asserted Claims does not
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`6
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.231 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`describe how to achieve these alleged improvements, but instead uses result-focused,
`
`functional objectives and conventional components. Accordingly, the Asserted
`
`Claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`1.
`
`The Focus of the Asserted Claims is Directed to the Abstract
`Idea of Sending and Receiving Information for
`Simultaneous Interactions
`
`To assess whether the Asserted Claims are directed to an abstract idea, the
`
`court first examines the “focus of the claims.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`
`899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also Elec. Power Grp.
`
`v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have described the
`
`10
`
`first-stage inquiry as looking at the ‘focus’ of the claims, their ‘character as a whole.’”
`
`11
`
`(citations omitted)). Here, the claim language makes clear that sending and receiving
`
`12
`
`information for simultaneous interactions is the focus of the Asserted Claims.2 This
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2 See, e.g., ’591 patent cl. 1 (“sending a request by the guest device to join the
`
`synchronized browsing session … receiving from the synchronization server a
`
`notification that guest device has joined the synchronized browsing session … a
`
`website being accessed in real-time by a host device…”); ’145 patent cl. 1 (“receiving
`
`from the synchronization server a session invitation … activating the session
`
`invitation to send a request to join said synchronized browsing session … receiving
`
`web browsing interaction data … associated with: a website …, and the host device
`
`that has initiated the session invitation…”); ’448 patent at cl. 1 (“sending a request
`
`to establish the synchronized browsing session … receiving a confirmation message
`
`… sending an invitation to an invitee device to join the synchronized browsing
`
`session … sending a request for webpage content to a website … receiving,
`
`responsive to sending the request for webpage content … the requested webpage
`
`content from the website.”).
`
`The dependent claims similarly focus on the same abstract idea, and add only
`
`further steps or conventional components to carry out the abstract idea. See, e.g.,
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`7
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.232 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`is an abstract idea. Courts have routinely invalidated patents directed to such
`
`organized human activity, finding they fail the first step of the Alice test.
`
`In Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecomms. Lab’ys, Inc., the court
`
`analyzed U.S. Patent No. 8,438,314. 114 F. Supp. 3d 192, 196 (D. Del. 2015). U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,438,314 disclosed and was directed to collaborative screen sharing. See
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,438,3143 at abstract (“[T]he connection between the customer with
`
`the question and the agent with the answer is done quickly and efficiently with both
`
`parties sharing screens of common information.”) (emphasis added), 10:56-59
`
`(“Screens appearing on the agents computer appear on the customer’s computer, as
`
`10
`
`what the customer sees is an exact duplicate of what the agent sees.”), 10:64-66 (“The
`
`11
`
`above combining of ACD, SVD and WWW building blocks allows collaborative
`
`12
`
`screen sharing between customers and ACD agents.” (emphasis added)), cl. 1
`
`13
`
`(claiming a server and call center to “forward” and “receive data,” “a remote help
`
`14
`
`option,” and “a contact channel” through an IP address to connect the customer and
`
`15
`
`call center), cl. 4 (“wherein the established communication between the call centre and
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`16
`
`the user of the customer terminal is performed in real-time”) (emphasis added).
`
`17
`
`The court held the patent was directed to “the abstract idea of communication
`
`18
`
`between a customer and a business using a call center,” and that the claims only
`
`19
`
`“automated and obfuscated” the communication “along the way using certain
`
`20
`
`computer, telephonic and network services.” See Pragmatus Telecom, 114 F. Supp.
`
`21
`
`3d at 200. The court further stated that even though “this invention might be faster,
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`’591 patent cl. 2 (“further comprising receiving an invitation”); ’145 patent at cl. 2
`
`(“wherein said invitation comprises a hyperlink”); ’448 patent at cl. 2 (“further
`
`comprising receiving a notification message.”); see also infra Section D.
`
`3 https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=
`
`PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8,4
`
`38,314.PN.&OS=PN/8,438,314&RS=PN/8,438,314 (last visited May 20, 2022).
`
`INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`8
`
`Case No.: 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 16-1 Filed 05/23/22 PageID.233 Page 15 of 29
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`automated, and more streamlined using web pages,” “the idea at its core is connecting
`
`customers to call centers.” Id.
`
`The court in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC held similar simultaneous screen
`
`sharing claims to be abstract. The patents there were method claims comprising
`
`“(1) the creation of a ‘graphical display representative of a classroom,’ . . and (2) the
`
`creation of windows for displaying data streams on two different computer systems
`
`that are ‘displayed simultaneously.’” 212 F. Supp. 3d 887, 897 (C.D. Cal. 2016).
`
`The court held the claims were directed to an abstract idea even though it “create[s]
`
`a virtual environment that permits multiple users to view content and interact
`
`10
`
`simultaneously.” Id. (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit agreed. 683 F. App’x
`
`11
`
`956 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirmed per curiam without opinion).
`
`12
`
`The Federal Circuit routinely finds claims that send, receive, and display
`
`13
`
`information and data are directed toward abstract ideas. See, e.g., In re Greenstein,
`
`14
`
`778 F. App'x 935, 936-37 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (sending and receiving requests using
`
`15
`
`software, a computer, and the Internet); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`
`
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`16
`
`850 F.3d 1315, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (a device pointing to remote data sources is
`
`17
`
`directed to the abstract idea of remotely accessing user specific information);
`
`18
`
`Lendingtree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 F. App’x 991, 993, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`19
`
`(receiving, storing, and displaying documents in a website to coordinate loans);
`
`20
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`21
`
`(receiving, processing, and outputting data via email is an abstract idea, because “it
`
`22
`
`was [a] long-prevalent practi