Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 155 Filed 08/28/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 6070
`M O R R I S , N I C H O L S , A R S H T & T U N N E L L L L P
`1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
`P.O. BOX 1347
`WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
`
`(302) 658-9200
`(302) 658-3989 FAX
`
`August 28, 2019
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`JACK B. BLUMENFELD
`(302) 351-9291
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`United States District Court
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 12-1596-LPS
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Microsoft Mobile, Inc., C.A. No. 12-1599-LPS
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, et al., C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Sony Mobile Commc’ns (USA) Inc., e. al., C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`Dear Chief Judge Stark:
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s August 19, 2019 Order (e.g., D.I. 132 in C.A. No. 12-1595),
`Defendants1 in the above entitled actions submit this letter brief responding to Plaintiff Arendi
`S.A.R.L.’s (“Arendi”) August 23, 2019 letter brief (e.g., D.I. 134 in C.A. No. 12-1595).
`The Court’s claim constructions support Defendants’ Section 101 motion. Defendants
`consistently have maintained that the claims are abstract regardless of which proposed
`constructions apply. (e.g., D.I. 116 at 15-16 in C.A. No. 12-1595). However, the Court’s claim
`constructions further support a finding that the asserted claims are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101. The Court’s constructions of the two terms pointed to by Arendi: “computer program”
`and “document,” confirm Defendants’ position. Indeed, the construction of “computer program”
`as a “self-contained set of instructions, as opposed to a routine or library, intended to be executed
`on a computer so as to perform some task” says nothing more than “do it on a computer”; the
`construction does not refer to or require any concrete or unconventional hardware, any specific
`or unusual actions, or any defined or unique programming. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., v CLS Bank
`Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014) (“if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere
`instruction to "implemen[t]" an abstract idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart
`patent eligibility.”) (internal citations omitted).
`indisputably
`to
`Similarly,
`the Court’s construction of “document” refers only
`conventional “word processing, spreadsheet, or similar file[s] into which text can be entered.”
`Nothing in this construction makes the asserted claims concrete or unconventional in any way.
`
`1 The Blackberry defendants (C.A. No. 12-1597) did not join the Motion and therefore do not
`join this letter brief.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 155 Filed 08/28/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 6071
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`August 28, 2019
`Page 2
`
`Arendi’s argument that the construction somehow “cements” eligibility by limiting a document
`to a “word processing, spreadsheet or similar file” ignores the established rule that, “[l]imiting
`the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not
`render any claim less abstract.” Affinity Labs. Of Texas v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358).
`The patent eligibility of the ’843 and ’993 patents is not impacted by the Court’s rulings
`regarding the definiteness of certain disputed claim elements in those patents. Defendants did
`not, and do not, argue that the claims are invalid under Section 101 because certain of the claim
`elements are indefinite under Section 112.2 Rather, Defendants maintained in their motion, and
`continue to maintain, that the asserted claims are abstract because they claim only results-based,
`functional aspirations and completed actions without concrete details as to how to engineer or
`program the underlying generic computer components to accomplish those aspirations and
`actions. (e.g., D.I. 116 at 12 in C.A. No. 12-1595). Arendi offers no cogent explanation as to
`how or why patent-eligibility is specifically impacted by the Court’s constructions; and, in fact,
`the Court’s constructions make clear that the asserted claims do not include any concrete,
`technical details about how to accomplish the claimed functions in a non-abstract way.
`Importantly, Arendi agrees with Defendants’ proposed representative claims for the ’843,
`’993 and ’356 patents. But the Court should reject Arendi’s request to dive into the dependent
`claims if the representative claims are patent-ineligible because Arendi has provided no
`argument either in its opposition to the Section 101 Motion or its letter brief articulating why the
`dependent claims would be patent-eligible if the representative claims are not. Arendi’s failure
`to address the dependent claims in the briefing, especially in light of the fact that Defendants put
`forth analyses for each and every asserted claim in its opening brief, further supports the
`conclusion that the dependent claims are also patent-ineligible.
`Finally, Defendants Google and Oath believe that the Court should resolve the patent-
`eligibility of all asserted claims of the ’854 patent, including the claims that were found
`indefinite in the Court’s Claim Construction Order. As discussed in Defendants’ letter brief, the
`Court may resolve the patent-eligibility of all asserted claims of the ’854 patent using either
`claim 13 or claim 93 as a representative claim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JBB/bac
`
`cc:
`
`
`
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`All Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`2 Defendants have raised other indefiniteness arguments for the asserted claims and may ask
`the Court to address them in the future at the appropriate time.
`
`