Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.250 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`Alan P. Block (SBN 143783)
`ablock@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 694-1200
`Facsimile: (213) 694-1234
`
`Ryan B. McBeth (TX SBN 24078955)*
`rmcbeth@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 7000
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 485-7300
`Facsimile: (713) 485-7344
`
`Ashley N. Moore (TX SBN 24074748)*
`amoore@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 978-4000
`Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
`
`*Admitted pro hac vice
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Samesurf, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`Samesurf, Inc.,
`
`vs.
`
`Intuit, Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`PLAINTIFF SAMESURF, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`INTUIT INC.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PURSUANT TO
`FED.R.CIV.P. 12(B)(6)
`
`Hearing Date: June 27, 2022
`Ctrm: 2B, Hon. Linda Lopez
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.251 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`Factual and Procedural Background ......................................................... 1
`II.
`The Asserted Patents ................................................................................. 3
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................. 4
`I. Motion to Dismiss ..................................................................................... 4
`II.
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................. 5
`A. Alice Step One ................................................................................ 6
`B. Alice Step Two ................................................................................ 8
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................. 9
`I.
`Intuit Has Not Met its Burden of Proving that Claim 1 of the ’591
`Patent is Representative of All Other Asserted Claims and
`Therefore the Court Should Consider Each Asserted Claim
`Separately .................................................................................................. 9
`The Asserted Patents Are Directed To Patent Eligible Subject
`Matter....................................................................................................... 12
`A. Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Not Abstract .............. 12
`1.
`The Asserted Claims Solve Computer Problems and
`Improve Computer Capabilities and Therefore Are Not
`Directed to an Abstract Idea ............................................... 13
`Intuit Cannot Meet its Burden of Proving that the
`Asserted Claims are Directed to an Abstract Idea .............. 17
`B. Alice Step Two: Intuit Has Not Provided Clear and
`Convincing Evidence That the Asserted Patents Lack an
`Inventive Concept ......................................................................... 22
`1.
`The Asserted Claims Include Inventive Concepts .............. 22
`2.
`At A Minimum, Step Two of Alice Raises Questions
`of Fact that Preclude Granting Intuit’s Motion .................. 25
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 25
`
`
`
`II.
`
`2.
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.252 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`CASES
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................... 5, 22, 25
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .......................................................................................... 5, 6
`Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 25
`Ancora Techs. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................6, 7, 16
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 8, 24
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................. 4
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................. passim
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 244653 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018) ............................... 25
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.,
`955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 22
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 22
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................7, 8, 14
`Cosmokey Sols. GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC,
`15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 9
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................... 7, 14, 20, 23
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.253 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 20, 21
`Dowers v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC,
`852 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................ 4
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................... 7, 8, 14, 18
`Erickson v. Pardus,
`551 U.S. 89 (2007) ................................................................................................ 4
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................... 7, 16
`Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................ 5, 8
`In re Greenstein,
`778 Fed. App’x 935 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................. 18
`Innovation Scis., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`778 Fed. App’x 859 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................. 15
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH,
`942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 7
`Lending Tree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.,
`656 Fed. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 18
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 8, 18
`Mytee Prods. v. Harris Research, Inc.,
`439 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 23
`Nice Ltd. v. Callminer, Inc.,
`2020 WL 529709 (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2020) ............................................................ 10
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 7
`PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs.,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2019) .................................. 10, 11, 12
`iii
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.254 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecomms. Lab’ys, Inc.,
`114 F. Supp. 3d 192 (D. Del. 2015) .................................................................... 18
`RICMIC, Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Salient Networks, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-2015-CAB-MDD, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67793 (S.D. Cal. Apr.
`7, 2021) ............................................................................................................... 24
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................. passim
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................................. passim
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 6
`Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo Winery,
`510 F. Supp. 3d 926 (E.D. Cal. 2021) ................................................................ 10
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`212 F. Supp. 887 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................................... 18
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ passim
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Fourteenth Amendment ............................................................................................ 10
`Rule 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................................... 4, 5
`U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8, Cl. 8 .................................................................................... 10
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.255 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`Plaintiff Samesurf, Inc. (“Samesurf”) opposes the motion by Intuit Inc. (“Intuit”
`or “Defendant”) to dismiss as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the asserted claims of
`the three Samesurf patents at issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,483,448 (the “’448 Patent”),
`9,185,145 (the “’145 Patent”), and 8,527,591 (the “’591 Patent”)1, (collectively, the
`“Asserted Patents” or “Patents-in-Suit”).
`INTRODUCTION
`Intuit’s Motion is premised on precisely the type of oversimplification and
`conclusory treatment of patent claims that the Federal Circuit has repeatedly warned
`against. Intuit’s disregard of this clear and binding precedent is no accident. By lumping
`together all asserted claims across the three Asserted Patents and declaring that they are
`all directed to the same high-level idea, Intuit ignores dozens of distinctive claim
`features and leans on their legally deficient analysis of just one claim. This approach
`falls far short of the clear and convincing evidence required to invalidate patent claims
`under § 101.
`In contrast, a legally correct § 101 analysis shows that the asserted claims more
`than pass muster under both steps of the Alice test—particularly in the 12(b)(6) context
`where Samesurf’s allegations must be taken as true and all reasonable inferences must
`be construed in its favor. As explained in detail below, the asserted claims are directed
`to computer-specific problems, recite concrete techniques for solving those problems,
`and provide a leap in innovation over existing technologies and therefore are directed
`to patentable subject matter under § 101.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Factual and Procedural Background
`Samesurf was established in 2009 by co-founders K. David Pirnazar, Jerry A.
`Greenberg and Adam Flaherty to transform the synchronized web-browsing industry
`
`1 True and correct copies of the ’448 Patent, the ’145 Patent, and the ’591 Patent are
`attached to the accompanying Declaration of Alan Block as Exhibits 1-3, respectively.
`
`1
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.256 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`by creating a simpler, more robust and ultra-secure mechanism for real time
`collaboration on the web. Compl. (ECF No. 1) (“Compl.”) ¶ 35. With this pursuit in
`mind, Mr. Pirnazar invented and established a new standard for visual communication
`that is highly efficient and protects sensitive information during synchronized browsing
`sessions. Id. This technology is now popularly known as co-browsing, synchronized
`browsing, collaborative browsing, and/or shared web browsing. Id.
`Intuit recognized Samesurf as a pioneer of co-browsing technology, reaching out
`to Samesurf prior to this lawsuit to integrate Samesurf’s co-browsing technology into
`Intuit’s TurboTax and QuickBooks products. Compl. ¶¶ 41-54. As a result of this
`dialogue, and in anticipation that Intuit would hire and/or otherwise enter into a
`business relationship with Samesurf, Samesurf provided valuable technical information
`about Samesurf’s co-browsing technology and how to integrate it into Intuit’s
`platforms. Id. Intuit then proceeded to integrate Samesurf’s co-browsing technology
`into Intuit’s TurboTax Online, QuickBooks Online, TurboTax Live, QuickBooks Live,
`Smartlook, and other co-browse enabled Intuit products, as well as the underlying
`infrastructure supporting these products, without Samesurf. Compl. ¶ 48.
`Intuit now moves to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that (1) each and every claim
`of all three Asserted Patents is invalid under § 101. Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 16-1)
`(“Mot.”). Intuit is wrong. The Asserted Patent claims disclose groundbreaking
`technology
`that solves computer-specific problems and
`improve computer
`functionality, such that they are not abstract. In addition, the technology of the Asserted
`Patent claims transformed the way people engage with the Internet by pioneering co-
`browsing, which is an “inventive concept” reflecting “something more than well-
`understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” The
`Court should therefore deny Intuit’s Motion in its totality.
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.257 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`II. The Asserted Patents
`The Asserted Patents claim an innovative co-browsing solution, which is a vast
`improvement over earlier technologies, such as desktop sharing and/or screen sharing
`through, for example, video conferencing platforms. Among other advancements, co-
`browsing is ultra-secure, uses significantly less data than traditional systems, is less
`processor intensive than traditional systems, allows for advanced yet ultra-secure
`interactivity between users, has performance advantages for sharing rich media content
`and video, and is highly scalable in terms of supported participant counts. Compl. ¶ 58.
`For example, desktop sharing and screen sharing were effectuated by
`continuously encoding and uploading screen captures from the sharing user’s computer.
`This resulted in “large files or packets and require[d] high levels of bandwidth and
`computer processing power.” ʼ591 Patent at 2:23-27. The Asserted Patents eliminate
`this issue by replicating the web browsing interactions from the sharing device to other
`device(s) through a “synchronization server.” Further, with traditional desktop sharing,
`all participants see the host’s screen and thus see the host’s private information, such
`as user names or passwords when entered by the host. ’591 Patent at 2:31-36.
`In sum, the Asserted Patents direct both the sharing user’s device and the
`recipient devices to independently fetch website elements as coordinated by a
`synchronization server rather than traditional methods of constantly taking, processing,
`and sending screenshots to one or more recipient devices. Id.; ’591 Patent at 15:42-
`17:36. This significantly lowers latency and bandwidth requirements, greatly reduces
`the processing power needed to co-browse web content with others, provides the ability
`to secure the host’s private information from being shared with others, allows for
`scalability to large groups of remote users in various locations around the world, and
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.258 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`allows for the crystal-clear, lag free synchronous viewing of rich media content by
`multiple users. Compl. ¶¶ 60, 63; see e.g. ’591 Patent at 2:5-36.2
`Thus, the claimed inventions broke the mold and took the concept of
`synchronized visual interactions in a completely new direction.3 Instead of following
`the path set by prior systems (e.g. uploading and downloading large amounts of data to
`and from a server, peer-to-peer communication, etc.), the Asserted Patents use a novel
`synchronization server to avoid the bandwidth and processing bottlenecks inherent in
`prior systems.
`These features, and others, are claimed in the asserted claims—Claims 1-4, 6-8,
`11-14, and 16 of the ’448 Patent; Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-17 of the ’145 Patent; and
`Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 14-16 of the ’591 Patent (collectively the “Asserted Claims”).
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`I. Motion to Dismiss
`To defeat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide enough
`factual detail to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds
`upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).4 In
`considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts accept as true plaintiff’s nonconclusory
`allegations, construe all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, and resolve all doubts
`in plaintiff’s favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Dowers v.
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`2 The specifications of the Asserted Patents are essentially the same, except that the
`column and line numbers for the same text may be slightly different. For convenience,
`Samesurf has provided specification citations from the ’591 Patent. The same
`disclosures are contained in the ’448 and the ’145 Patents, but at slightly different
`column and line numbers.
`3 The real-world result of Mr. Pirnazar’s invention can be seen in the promotional video
`on Samesurf’s website (https://www.samesurf.com/technology) demonstrating how
`Samesurf operates its co-browsing sessions. Compl. ¶ 55.
`4 Unless otherwise noted, all citations and internal quotation marks have been omitted.
`4
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.259 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 852 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
`Patent eligibility can be determined at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage “only when there
`are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question
`as a matter of law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d
`1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For example, a factual dispute concerning “[w]hether the
`claim elements or the claimed combination are well understood, routine, [or]
`conventional” will preclude granting a motion to dismiss. Id. at 1128; see also
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And because patents are
`presumed valid, “[a]ny fact . . . that is pertinent to the invalidity conclusion must be
`proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`II.
`Section 101 defines patent eligible subject matter as “any new and useful process,
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are certain exceptions to § 101, such as laws of nature,
`natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, which are not entitled to patent protection. Alice
`Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). However, “[a]t some level, . .
`. all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`phenomena, or abstract ideas,” so “an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent
`simply because it involves an abstract idea.” Id. at 217 (emphasis added). Courts must,
`therefore, “tread carefully in construing th[e] exclusionary principle lest it swallow all
`of patent law.” Id.
`Intuit, as the party challenging the validity of the Asserted Patents, bears the
`burden of proof on its § 101 challenge. Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., 967
`F.3d 1319, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`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
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.260 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`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
`
`A. Alice Step One
`To determine patent-eligibility under § 101, the Supreme Court has established
`a two-part test. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. At step one, the court determines whether the
`claims at issue are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020). To make this determination, courts ask “what
`the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art” considering
`the Asserted Claims “in light of the specification.” Id.
`In cases (like this one) involving software inventions, the Federal Circuit has
`found that claims are patent eligible when they focus on (1) “specific asserted
`improvements in computer capabilities,” and/or (2) “a solution to a problem specifically
`arising in the realm of computer networks or computers.” TecSec, Inc., 978 F.3d at
`1293. Computers are improved not only through changes in hardware; “[s]oftware can
`make nonabstract improvements to computer technology[.]” Ancora Techs. v. HTC
`Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
`The Federal Circuit, in numerous precedential opinions, has “routinely held
`software claims [to be] patent eligible under Alice step one when they are directed to
`improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” Uniloc
`USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims
`“directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, namely the
`reduction of latency experienced by parked secondary stations in communication
`systems” not abstract); see also, e.g., TecSec, Inc., 978 F.3d at 1296 (“In light of what
`the claim language and specification establish, we conclude that the claims are directed
`to improving a basic function of computer data-distribution network, namely, network
`security.”); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The
`claims are directed to using a specific technique—using a plurality of network monitors
`that each analyze specific types of data on the network and integrating reports from the
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.261 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`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
`
`monitors—to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks: identifying
`hackers or potential intruders into the network.”); Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout
`Sys., 965 F.3d 1299, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claim directed to “solving a discrete
`technical problem: relating disjointed connection flows to each other” is not directed to
`an abstract idea); Ancora Techs. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(claim is not directed to an abstract idea, because it is “directed to a solution to a
`computer-functionality problem: an improvement in computer functionality that has
`‘the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one
`claiming a way of achieving it.’”) (quoting SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
`F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339 (claims not directed to an
`abstract idea, because “the self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a
`specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and
`retrieves data in memory.”); Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880
`F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims not directed to an abstract idea, because the
`claim “limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information
`to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic
`index on a computer. . . [and therefore] these claims recite a specific improvement over
`prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices.”);
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`(claims “are patent-eligible because they are directed to a non-abstract improvement in
`an existing technological process (i.e., error checking in data transmissions).”); Finjan,
`Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claim not directed
`to an abstract idea, because it “employs a new kind of file that enables a computer
`security system to do things it could not do before” and recites “specific steps—
`generating a security profile that identifies suspicious code and linking it to a
`downloadable—that accomplish the desired result.”); Data Engine Techs. LLC v.
`Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“when read as a whole, in light of
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.262 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`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
`
`the specification, claim 12 is directed to more than a generic or abstract idea as it claims
`a particular manner of navigating three-dimensional spreadsheets, implementing an
`improvement in electronic spreadsheet functionality.”)
`At step one, courts must be cautious to avoid oversimplifying the claims or
`describing them “at too high a level of abstraction” or “untethered from the language
`of the claim,” because to do so would “all but ensure[] that the exceptions to § 101
`swallow the rule.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337; Core Wireless, 880 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018) (“courts must ‘articulate what the claims are directed to with enough
`specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful.’”). The court must further
`articulate “an accurate characterization of what the claims require and of what the patent
`asserts to be the claimed advance.” TecSec, Inc., 978 F.3d at 1294 (finding an accused
`infringer’s characterization of claims “materially inaccurate” because it “disregard[s]
`elements of the claims at issue that the specification makes clear are important parts of
`the claimed advance in the combination of elements.”)
`Thus, to avoid such oversimplification of the claims, courts “must look to the
`claims as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual
`steps.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`2016); BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (courts may incorporate specific claim limitations into its articulation
`of the idea to which a claim is directed) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337).
`Alice Step Two
`B.
`The Court reaches step two “only if” the Asserted Claims fail step one. Illumina,
`Inc., 967 F.3d at 1325. Step two “consider[s] the elements of each claim both
`individually and as an ordered combination” to determine whether they recite an
`“inventive concept” sufficient to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-
`eligible application.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366.
`* * *
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.263 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`Ultimately, “[w]hile prior cases can be helpful in analyzing eligibility, whether
`particular claim limitations are abstract or, as an ordered combination, involve an
`inventive concept that transforms the claim into patent eligible subject matter, must be
`decided on a case-by-case basis in light of the particular claim limitations, patent
`specification, and invention at issue.” Cosmokey Sols. GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec.
`LLC, 15 F.4th 1091, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`ARGUMENT
`Intuit Has Not Met its Burden of Proving that Claim 1 of the ’591 Patent is
`Representative of All Other Asserted Claims and Therefore the Court
`Should Consider Each Asserted Claim Separately
`Intuit contends that Claim 1 of the ’591 Patent is representative of all other
`Asserted Claims (i.e., Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, and 16 of the ’448 Patent; Claims 1-5, 7-
`14, and 16-17 of the ’145 Patent; and Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 14-16 of the ’591 Patent).
`Mot. 3-5.
`Specifically, Intuit contends that independent Claim 10 of the ’591 Patent is the
`same as Claim 1, but in apparatus form, and that dependent Claims 2-9 and 11-18 of
`the ’591 Patent “add trivial or conventional additional limitations to the independent
`Claims, such as additional steps or usage of common Internet components,” but only
`addressing dependent Claims 2 and 3 of the ’591 Patent (thereby failing to address
`Asserted Claims 4-6, 10-12, and 14-16 of the ’591 Patent). Mot. 3. Intuit then asserts
`that “Independent claim 1 of the ’591 patent is representative of all claims across the
`Asserted Patents,” contending that “[a]ll claims are very similar in scope and recite the
`same basic steps,” addressing only dependent Claims 2 and 3 of the ’145 patent and
`only dependent Claims 2 and 3 of the ’448 patent (thereby failing to address Asserted
`Claims 4-5, 7-14, and 16-17 of the ’145 Patent; and Asserted Claims 4, 6-8, 11-14, and
`16 of the ’448 Patent) and repeating that “[a]ny differences between claims are trivial
`or conventional added limitations that do not impact the analysis of patentable subject
`matter.” Mot. 3-5.
`
`OPPOSITION TO INTUIT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL Document 19 Filed 06/13/22 PageID.264 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`The Constitution authorizes Congress “[t]o promote the Progress” of “useful
`Arts, by securing for limited Times to * * * Inventors the exclusive Right to their * * *
`Discoveries.” U.S. Const. Art. 1, § 8, Cl. 8. As a patent is a property right, to deprive
`an invento