Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.
`Exhibit 2021
`Bentley v. Jaguar
`IPR2019-01502
`
`Ex. 2021-0001
`
`
`Exhibit 2021
`Bentley v. Jaguar
`IPR2019-01502
`
`Ex. 2021-0001
`
`
`
`Vehicles
`
`(“SUVs”)
`
`including the
`
`Jaguar
`
`F—Pace,
`
`Land Rover
`
`Discovery Sport, Land Rover Discovery, Range Rover Evoque, Range
`
`Rover Velar, Range Rover Sport, and The Range Rover.
`
`Id.
`
`fl
`
`l4.
`
`JLR’s patented Terrain Response technology is included on these
`
`vehicles. Ed; fl 15.
`
`Defendant Bentley Motors Limited is a British corporation,
`
`id; fi 3, and Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. is the U.S.-based sales
`
`company for and wholly-owned subsidiary of Bentley Motors Limited,
`
`ig;_ fl 6.
`
`Defendant Bentley' Motors,
`
`Inc.
`
`is incorporated in
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business in Virginia. Ed; fl
`
`4. Bentley designs, develops, manufactures and sells luxury motor
`
`vehicles. 3g; fl 40.
`
`B. The Patent
`
`On May 8, 2018,
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. RE46,828, titled “Vehicle Control.” gg; fl
`
`8; see also igL, EX. A (“the ’828 patent”).
`
`Jaguar Land Rover's
`
`Terrain Response technology is embodied in the '828 patent.
`
`3g;
`
`V 21.
`
`The ’828 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,349,776.
`
`3g; fl 10; see also igL, EX. B (“the ’776 patent”).
`
`JLR held all
`
`right, title, and interest in the ’828 and '776 patents. Ed;
`
`flfl
`
`9-10.
`
`The '828 patent generally “relates to the control of vehicles,
`
`in particular to the coordinated control of a number of subsystems
`
`of a vehicle.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. Various systems are known in which operation
`
`2
`
`Ex. 2021-0002
`Ex. 2021-0002
`
`
`
`of various
`
`subsystems of
`
`a vehicle can operate in different
`
`configuration modes so as to suit different conditions.”
`
`’828
`
`patent, col 1:14-20. Like other vehicle control systems,
`
`the ’828
`
`patent operates as follows: “the control of a number of the vehicle
`
`subsystems is coordinated by a central vehicle controller, which
`
`can be switched between a number of modes thereby controlling all
`
`of
`
`the subsystems in a coordinated way which is simple for the
`
`driver to control."
`
`EQL, col 1:41—46. Other systems, however,
`
`“do[
`
`] not provide the driver with the ability to provide direct
`
`input regarding the surface terrain in an attempt to better select
`
`the appropriate subsystem configuration modes.
`
`This deficiency
`
`results in the less than optimal stability, handling, and safety
`
`performance of the vehicle.”
`
`EQL, col 1:52-57.
`
`Specifically,
`
`the Terrain Response technology electronically
`
`controls various vehicle subsystems,
`
`including the engine,
`
`the
`
`transmission,
`
`the brakes,
`
`the traction control,
`
`the suspension and
`
`the steering,
`
`to operate in a manner that is suitable for driving
`
`on a particular off-road surface.
`
`gg; fi 16.
`
`The driver of the
`
`vehicle uses an input panel to select from several off-road driving
`
`surfaces including Grass/Gravel/Snow, Mud
`
`and. Ruts, Sand,
`
`and
`
`Rocks.
`
`Id. Claim 18 recites:
`
`for
`input
`system having a driver
`A 'vehicle control
`selecting a surface terrain,
`the vehicle control system
`arranged to control a plurality of vehicle subsystems
`each of which is operable in a plurality of subsystem
`configuration modes, wherein the vehicle control system
`
`Ex. 2021 -0003
`Ex. 2021-0003
`
`
`
`is operable in a plurality of driving modes in each of
`which
`it
`is
`arranged
`to
`select
`the
`subsystem
`configuration modes
`in a manner
`suitable
`for
`a
`respective surface terrain.
`
`'828 patent, col 19:65—20:5.
`
`The Terrain Response controller then instructs each of
`
`the subsystems to operate in a manner or mode that is suitable
`
`for driving on the selected surface.
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`fl 16.
`
`Claims 19 and 20 recite:
`
`A vehicle control system according to claim 18, wherein
`one of
`the plurality of vehicle
`subsystems
`is
`a
`suspension subsystem.
`
`A vehicle control system according to claim 19, wherein
`the plurality of vehicle subsystems further comprise a
`steering subsystem,
`a
`brake
`subsystem,
`an
`engine
`management subsystem, and a transmission subsystem.
`
`’828 patent, col 20:6—12.
`
`The technology also allows the driver
`
`to further adjust the operation of the subsystems.
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`fl
`
`17.
`
`The claimed elements
`
`in combination is alleged to be
`
`implemented in an unconventional and non—trivial manner, and are
`
`not generic vehicle components, but a control system that is not
`
`standard and cannot be purchased off—the—shelf.
`
`Id.
`
`fi 32.
`
`C. Infringement
`
`In 2016, Bentley launched its first SUV,
`
`the Bentayga, which
`
`is a direct competitor to JLR’S Range Rover model.
`
`Id.
`
`The
`
`Bentayga has a Drive Dynamics system, which can be equipped with
`
`an
`
`“All Terrain Specification”
`
`that provides
`
`four
`
`off—road
`
`settings: “Snow, Ice & Wet Grass,” “Dirt & Gravel," “Mud & Trail,”
`
`Ex. 2021 -0004
`Ex. 2021-0004
`
`
`
`and “Sand."
`
`lg; On information and belief,
`
`the off-road settings
`
`in the All Terrain Specification adjust various vehicle subsystems
`
`including the electronic stability—control
`
`system,
`
`traction-
`
`control
`
`system,
`
`engine,
`
`gearbox,
`
`and suspension settings
`
`to
`
`improve performance on different off—road driving surfaces.
`
`gg;
`
`1] 41.
`
`The Amended Complaint alleges on information and belief, that
`
`Bentley knowingly copied the Terrain Response system installed on
`
`JLR's Range Rover.
`
`3g; fl 41. Bentley became aware of the ’776
`
`patent by at least February 5, 2016.
`
`gg; fl 11.
`
`On February 5,
`
`2016,
`
`JLR sent a letter to Bentley stating that
`
`the Bentley
`
`Bentayga has a “Driver Assistance” system that infringed upon the
`
`’776 patent.
`
`lg; On or about February 5, 2018, representatives
`
`from JLR met with representatives from Bentley,
`
`and informed
`
`Bentley that JLR had received a Notice of Allowance for the ’828
`
`patent and expected it to be granted shortly. Ed; fl 12.
`
`On May
`
`24, 2018,
`
`JLR sent a letter to Bentley indicating that the ’828
`
`patent had issued on May 8, 2018, and reiterating that the Bentley
`
`Bentayga infringes upon JLR's patents.
`
`lg; fl 13.
`
`Specifically,
`
`JLR asserts that Bentley has infringed upon at
`
`least claims 21, 41, and 46 of the '828 patent.
`
`lg; fl 50. Claim
`
`21 recites:
`
`A vehicle control system having a driver input device
`for selecting a driving surface,
`the vehicle control
`system arranged to control
`a plurality of vehicle
`
`5
`
`Ex. 2021 -0005
`Ex. 2021-0005
`
`
`
`subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of
`subsystem configuration modes, wherein the vehicle
`control system is operable in a plurality of driving
`modes
`in each of which it is arranged to select
`the
`subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for
`a respective driving surface, and further wherein the
`plurality of driving modes
`includes at
`least two off—
`road modes
`in which the subsystem configurations are
`controlled in a manner
`suitable
`for driving on
`respective off—road driving surfaces,
`and an on-road
`mode
`in which
`the
`subsystem configurations
`are
`controlled in a manner suitable for driving on—road and
`still further wherein one of
`the off-road modes
`is a
`
`sand mode in which the vehicle subsystems are controlled
`in a manner suitable for driving on sand.
`
`’828 patent, col 20:13-28. That is, claim 21 and its dependents
`
`are directed to a vehicle control system that optimizes control of
`
`the vehicle on a sand surface.
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`fi 29. When a vehicle
`
`is driven on sand, “the build up of matter in front of the wheels
`
`under braking can improve braking performance.”
`
`’828 patent at
`
`col 4:54-56.
`
`Low wheel spin at low speeds “prevent[s]
`
`the wheel
`
`from digging into the sand” but high wheel spin at high speeds
`
`“[is]
`
`less of a problem and can even improve traction.”
`
`’828
`
`patent at col
`
`8:37—40.
`
`Claim 21
`
`and its dependents
`
`recite
`
`limitations that would capture these benefits through specific
`
`implementations;
`
`for
`
`instance, by “allow[ing]
`
`lower
`
`levels of
`
`wheel spin when the vehicle is travelling at
`
`lower speeds than
`
`when
`
`the vehicle
`
`is
`
`travelling at higher
`
`speeds”
`
`because
`
`“responsiveness to movement of
`
`the throttle pedal
`
`is lower at
`
`relatively low vehicle speeds than it is at higher vehicle speeds,"
`
`’828 patent at col 20:35—37 (claim 22), col 20:39-42 (claim 23),
`
`Ex. 2021 -0006
`Ex. 2021-0006
`
`
`
`or
`
`through a brake subsystem which “is arranged to allow a
`
`relatively high degree of wheel slip under braking relative to the
`
`on-road mode and/or a second off—road mode,”
`
`'828 patent at col
`
`20:45-48 (claim 24).
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`1] 29.
`
`Claim 41 recites:
`
`A vehicle control system having a driver input device
`for selecting a driving surface,
`the vehicle control
`system arranged to control
`a plurality of vehicle
`subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of
`subsystem configuration modes, wherein the vehicle
`
`control system is operable in a plurality of driving
`modes
`in each of which it is arranged to select
`the
`subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for
`a respective driving surface, and further wherein the
`plurality of driving modes
`includes at
`least two off—
`road modes
`in which the subsystem configurations are
`controlled in a manner
`suitable
`for driving on
`respective off-road driving surfaces,
`and an on—road
`mode
`in which
`the
`subsystem configurations
`are
`controlled in a manner suitable for driving on—road and
`still
`further wherein one of
`the
`subsystems
`is a
`suspension subsystem and,
`in a second off-road mode,
`the
`suspension system is arranged to provide a higher ride
`height than in a first off-road mode.
`
`’828 patent, col 22:52-23:2. That is, claim 41 and its dependent
`
`(claim 42) are directed to a vehicle control system that optimizes
`
`control through adjustment of the suspension system based on the
`
`particular driving surface.
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`fl 30. When traveling at
`
`high speeds on flat surfaces with good levels of friction,
`
`a
`
`suspension ride height
`
`that “is
`
`set at
`
`‘low’
`
`for
`
`low wind
`
`resistance and good stability” is optimal.
`
`'828 patent at col
`
`10:7—11. Claim 41 and its dependent recite limitations that would
`
`capture these benefits through specific implementations,
`
`such as
`
`7
`
`Ex. 2021-0007
`Ex. 2021-0007
`
`
`
`requiring an off—road mode where “the suspension system is arranged
`
`to provide a higher ride height
`
`than in the on—road mode,” ’828
`
`patent at col 23:4-6 (claim 42).
`
`Claim 46 recites:
`
`A vehicle control system having a driver input device
`for selecting a driving surface,
`the vehicle control
`system arranged to control
`a plurality of vehicle
`subsystems each of which is operable in a plurality of
`subsystem configuration modes, wherein the vehicle
`control system is operable in a plurality of driving
`modes
`in each of which it is arranged to select
`the
`subsystem configuration modes in a manner suitable for
`a respective driving surface, and further wherein the
`plurality of driving modes
`includes at
`least
`two off—
`road modes
`in which the subsystem configurations are
`controlled in a manner
`suitable
`for driving on
`respective off—road driving surfaces,
`and an on-road
`mode
`in which
`the
`subsystem configurations
`are
`controlled in a manner suitable for driving on-road, and
`still further wherein one of the subsystems is a speed
`control
`system arranged to control
`the speed of
`the
`vehicle when descending a hill, and wherein the speed
`control system is arranged to be switched on in at least
`one of the off-road modes and switched off in the on—
`road mode.
`
`’828 patent, col 23:66-24:17. That is, claim 46 is directed to a
`
`vehicle control system that optimizes control
`
`through adjustment
`
`of the speed control system. Am. Compl.
`
`fl 31.
`
`To provide maximum
`
`control on hills, a vehicle has “the standard default target speed
`
`of 6 kph.”
`
`'828 patent at 14:53—55. Claim 46 recites limitations
`
`that would capture this benefit through a specific implementation
`
`that requires a speed control system “arranged to control the speed
`
`of the vehicle when descending a hill” and “arranged to be switched
`
`Ex. 2021-0008
`Ex. 2021-0008
`
`
`
`on in at least one of the off—road modes and switched off in the
`
`on-road mode."
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`fl 31 (quoting claim 46).
`
`D. Procedural History
`
`On
`
`June 14,
`
`2018,
`
`Jaguar Land Rover filed its original
`
`complaint in this Court.
`
`ECF No. 1. On October 19, 2018, Bentley
`
`filed a motion to dismiss.
`
`ECF No. 29.
`
`On November 1, 2018,
`
`JLR
`
`filed the Amended Complaint.
`
`ECF No. 31.
`
`The Amended Complaint contains a single count, alleging that
`
`Bentley infringed upon the '828 Patent.
`
`Am. Compl., ECF No. 33 fifl
`
`49-122. Defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss.
`
`ECF No.
`
`33.
`
`The motion and accompanying memorandum of
`
`law argues that
`
`’828 patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`then filed a response, Pl. Resp., ECF No. 38, and Defendants filed
`
`a reply, Def. Reply, ECF No. 39.
`
`The matter
`
`is now ripe for
`
`decision.
`
`II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`The well-established Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review permits
`
`dismissal when a complaint fails “to state a claim upon which
`
`relief can be granted."
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`A complaint
`
`fails to state a claim if it does not allege “enough facts to state
`
`a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp.
`
`v. Twomblx, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although a complaint need
`
`not be detailed,
`
`the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise
`
`Ex. 2021-0009
`Ex. 2021-0009
`
`
`
`a right to relief above the speculative level.”
`
`Id. at 555; see
`
`Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint
`
`without resolving factual disputes, and a district court “‘must
`
`accept as true all of
`
`the factual allegations contained in the
`
`complaint' and ‘draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
`
`the
`
`plaintiff.’” Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty.,
`
`684 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir. 2012)
`
`(citation omitted).2 Although
`
`the truth of the facts alleged is presumed, district courts are
`
`not bound by the “legal conclusions drawn from the facts" and “need
`
`not
`
`accept
`
`as
`
`true
`
`unwarranted
`
`inferences,
`
`unreasonable
`
`conclusions, or arguments.”
`
`E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. Assocs. Ltd.
`
`P’ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000),- sg HE, 556 U.S. at
`
`678
`
`(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`“Threadbare recitals of
`
`the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
`
`statements,
`
`do not suffice.”
`
`Egbal,
`
`556 U.S. at 678
`
`(citing
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss under
`
`Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must include ‘more than an unadorned,
`
`the—defendant—unlawfully—harmed-me accusation.'"
`
`Johnson v. Am.
`
`Towers, LLC, 781 F.3d 693, 709 (4th Cir. 2015)
`
`(quoting 2992;! 556
`
`U.S. at 678).
`
`2 For procedural questions not unique to patent law including the standard for
`a motion to dismiss,
`the Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit,
`which in this case is the Fourth Circuit.
`See, e.g., Cleveland Clinic Found.
`v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert.
`denied, 138 S. Ct. 2621, 201 L. Ed. 2d 1026'
`(2018).
`
`10
`
`Ex.2021-0010
`Ex. 2021-0010
`
`
`
`A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in
`
`conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Rule
`
`8(a)(2)
`
`requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim
`
`showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`8(a)(2),
`
`so as to “.
`
`.
`
`. give the defendant fair notice of what
`
`the .
`
`.
`
`. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”
`
`Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,
`
`47 (1957)). Fair notice is provided by setting forth enough facts
`
`for the complaint to be “plausible on its face” and “raise a right
`
`to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all
`
`the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful
`
`in
`
`fact).
`
`.
`
`.
`
`." Ed; at 555 (internal citations omitted).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff's patent
`
`infringement claim
`
`should be dismissed because Plaintiff's patents are invalid for
`
`failure to claim patent—eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`101 .
`
`The
`
`Intellectual Property Clause
`
`of
`
`the United States
`
`Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o promote
`
`the progress of
`
`science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to
`
`authors and inventors the exclusive right
`
`to their respective
`
`writings and discoveries." U.S. Const. art. I,
`
`§ 8. Pursuant to
`
`such authority, Congress has defined the subject matter eligible
`
`for patent protection by providing that “[w]hoever
`
`invents or
`
`11
`
`EX. 2021-0011
`Ex. 2021-0011
`
`
`
`discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,
`
`may obtain a patent
`
`therefor,
`
`subject
`
`to the conditions
`
`and
`
`requirements of this title.”
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101. However, as the
`
`Supreme Court reiterated in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
`
`International, “this provision contains an implicit exception:
`
`[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
`
`ideas are not
`
`patentable.’”
`
`573 U.S. 208,
`
`216
`
`(quoting Ass'n for Molecular
`
`Pathology ‘V. Myriad. Genetics,
`
`569 U.S. 576,
`
`589
`
`(2013)).
`
`In
`
`explaining such an implicit exception,
`
`the Supreme Court noted:
`
`[w]e
`
`have described the
`
`concern that drives
`
`this
`
`Laws of
`exclusionary principle as one of pre—emption.
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
`ideas are the
`basic
`tools
`of
`scientific and
`technological work.
`Monopolization of
`those tools through the grant of a
`patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would
`tend to promote it, thereby thwarting the primary object
`of the patent laws. We have repeatedly emphasized this
`.
`.
`concern that patent
`law not
`inhibit
`further
`discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these
`building blocks of human ingenuity.
`
`At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
`exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent
`law. At some level, all inventions .
`.
`. embody, use,
`reflect,
`rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`phenomena, or abstract ideas.
`
`in applying the § 101 exception, we must
`Accordingly,
`distinguish between patents that claim the building
`blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
`building
`blocks
`into
`something
`more,
`thereby
`transforming them into a patent-eligible invention. The
`former would risk disproportionately tying up the use of
`the underlying ideas, and are therefore ineligible for
`patent protection.
`The latter pose no comparable risk
`
`12
`
`EX. 2021-0012
`Ex. 2021-0012
`
`
`
`of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the
`monopoly granted under our patent laws.
`
`
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 216-17 (internal citations and quotation marks
`
`omitted). Accordingly, with those preemption principles in mind,
`
`an invention claims patent—eligible subject matter
`
`if
`
`it
`
`is
`
`directed to a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`
`matter” and does not constitute an attempt
`
`to patent a law of
`
`nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
`
`Congress has established that
`
`the burden of demonstrating
`
`that a patent claims ineligible subject matter lies with the party
`
`challenging validity. Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282,
`
`Each claim of a
`[a] patent shall be presumed valid.
`patent
`(whether in independent, dependent, or multiple
`dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of
`the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple
`dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though
`dependent
`upon an
`invalid claim.
`The burden of
`
`establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof
`shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282.
`
`The statutory presumption of validity that
`
`attaches to a patent is recognized by the Federal Circuit to extend
`
`to the determination of abstractness under
`
`§ 101.
`
`CertusView
`
`Techs., LLC v. S & N Locating Servs., LLC, 287 F. Supp. 3d 580,
`
`586 (E.D. Va. 2018)
`
`(citing CLS Bank Int'l. v. Alice Corp. Pty.
`
`Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
`
`In addition, “‘[a] party seeking to establish that particular
`
`claims are invalid must overcome the presumption of validity in 35
`
`U.S.C.
`
`§ 282 by clear and convincing evidence.’” Nystrom v. TREX
`
`13
`
`Ex. 2021-0013
`Ex. 2021-0013
`
`
`
`Co.,
`
`424 F.3d 1136,
`
`1149
`
`(Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)
`
`
`(quoting State
`
`Contracting & Eng'g Corp. v. Condotte Am.,
`
`Inc., 346 F.3d 1057,
`
`1067 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`The Fourth Circuit has established the
`
`following “clear and convincing evidence” standard:
`
`“[C]lear and convincing has been defined as evidence of
`such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of
`fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as
`to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,
`and, as well, as evidence that proves the facts at issue
`to be highly probable.”
`
`United States V. Hall,
`
`664 F.3d 456,
`
`461-62
`
`(4th Cir.
`
`2012)
`
`(alteration in original)
`
`(quoting Jimenez v. DaimlerChrxsler
`
`Corp., 269 F.3d 439, 450 (4th Cir. 2001)).
`
`To determine whether
`
`the patents—in-suit
`
`claim patent—
`
`ineligible subject matter,
`
`the Court must apply the two-step
`
`
`framework that the Supreme Court set forth in Alice. First,
`
`the
`
`Court must “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
`
`one of
`
`[the] patent-ineligible concepts,” that is,
`
`laws of nature,
`
`natural phenomena, and abstract
`
`
`ideas. Alice,
`
`573 U.S. at 217
`
`(citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
`
`U.S. 66, 75 (2012)).
`
`To determine whether a claim is directed to
`
`a patent—ineligible abstract idea, a court must evaluate the claims
`
`“[o]n their face” to determine to which “concept” the claims are
`
`
`“drawn.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 219; see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561
`
`U.S. 593, 609 (2010).
`
`In other words, a court “must identify the
`
`purpose of the claim .
`
`.
`
`. what the claimed invention is trying to
`
`14
`
`EX. 2021-0014
`Ex. 2021-0014
`
`
`
`achieve .
`
`.
`
`. and ask whether the purpose is abstract.” Cal. Inst.
`
`of Tech. v. Hughes Commc'ns Inc.,
`
`59 F. Supp. 3d 974, 991 (C.D.
`
`Cal. 2014).
`
`Importantly,
`
`though the Supreme Court has not “delimit[ed]
`
`the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas' category” of patent
`
`
`ineligible subject matter, Alice, 573 U.S. at 221,
`
`the Court has
`
`indicated that such category is not limited simply to “preexisting,
`
`fundamental truth[s] that exist in principle apart from any human
`
`action," id; at 220 (alteration in original) (citation and internal
`
`quotation marks omitted).
`
`The Supreme Court has suggested that a
`
`“method of organizing human activity” or “fundamental economic
`
`practice"
`
`can fall within the patent-ineligible category of
`
`abstract
`
`ideas.
`
`See id; However, as noted above,
`
`the Supreme
`
`Court has warned courts to “tread carefully” when wielding this
`
`invalidity tool, since “all inventions .
`
`.
`
`. embody, use, reflect,
`
`rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
`
`ideas.” 3g; at 217.
`
`Second,
`
`if
`
`an
`
`invention is directed toward a patent-
`
`ineligible abstract idea,
`
`the Court must “consider 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.” Alice, 573 U.S.
`
`at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78).
`
`Those additional elements
`
`“must
`
`be more
`
`than
`
`‘well-understood,
`
`routine,
`
`conventional
`
`15
`
`EX. 2021 -001 5
`Ex. 2021-0015
`
`
`
`activity.'" Ultramercial,
`
`Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(quoting Mayo,
`
`566 U.S. at 79). Whether
`
`the
`
`additional elements are well—understood, routine, or conventional
`
`activity should be assessed at the time the patent application is
`
`filed.
`
`In re BRCAl- & BRCAZ-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent
`
`Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 764 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Content Extraction &
`
`Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343,
`
`1347—48
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`“Whether
`
`the claim elements or
`
`the
`
`claimed
`
`combination
`
`are well-understood,
`
`routine,
`
`[or]
`
`conventional
`
`is a question of fact." Aatrix Software,
`
`Inc. v.
`
`Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
`
`see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`
`881 F.3d 1360,
`
`1368
`
`(Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) .
`
`This second step is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ —
`
`i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to
`
`ensure that the patent
`
`in practice amounts to significantly more
`
`than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
`
`
`itself.’” Alice, 573
`
`U.S.
`
`at
`
`218—19
`
`(quoting Mayo,
`
`566 U.S.
`
`at 72-73).
`
`Yet,
`
`“transformation into a patent—eligible application requires ‘more
`
`than simply stat[ing]
`
`the [abstract idea] while adding the words
`
`
`‘apply it.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
`
`72). Moreover, “the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas
`
`‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit
`
`the use of
`
`the
`
`formula to a particular
`
`technological environment’ or adding
`
`16
`
`EX. 2021 -001 6
`Ex. 2021-0016
`
`
`
`‘insignificant postsolution activity,'” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610—
`
`11 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 (1981)). and
`
`the narrowness of an abstract idea does not render patentable an
`
`otherwise patent-ineligible idea,
`
`see buySAFE,
`
`Inc. v. Google,
`
`
`Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(citing Mayo, 566 U.S.
`
`at 88). Nor does “the mere recitation of a generic computer
`
`transfornl a patent—ineligible abstract
`
`idea into a patent—
`
`
`eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.
`
`A. Abstract Idea
`
`First,
`
`
`the Court addresses Alice Step 1 — whether the claims
`
`are directed to an abstract
`
`idea.
`
`The Court must examine the
`
`claims of the patent
`
`in their entirety to understand what their
`
`“character as a whole” is “directed to.” Electric Power Group,
`
`LLC V. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“[WJe
`
`have described the first—stage inquiry as looking at the ‘focus'
`
`of
`
`the
`
`claims,
`
`their
`
`‘character
`
`as
`
`a whole[.]’”)
`
`(citation
`
`omitted); Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH 'v. Guidewire Software,
`
`
`Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(“[T]he court must first
`
`identify and define whatever fundamental concept appears wrapped
`
`up
`
`in the
`
`claim.")
`
`(internal quotation marks
`
`and citation
`
`omitted)).
`
`In distilling the character of a claim,
`
`the Court is
`
`careful not to express the claim's focus at an unduly “high level
`
`of abstraction .
`
`.
`
`. untethered from the language of the claims,”
`
`but rather at a level consonant with the level of generality or
`
`17
`
`EX. 2021 -001 7
`Ex. 2021-0017
`
`
`
`abstraction expressed in the claims themselves.
`
`Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also
`
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
`
`Cir.
`
`2017)
`
`(“We must
`
`therefore ensure at
`
`step one
`
`that we
`
`articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity
`
`to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful.”).3
`
`Here,
`
`the Court finds that the claims of the '828 patent are
`
`“directed to" manipulating multiple vehicle subsystems to allow a
`
`vehicle to better adapt to driving on various types of on-road and
`
`off-road surfaces. Having determined the “character as a whole"
`
`of the claims,
`
`the Court
`
`turns to the question of whether it is
`
`directed to an abstract idea. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (citation
`
`omitted). When engaging in “abstract idea” analysis, courts will
`
`generally compare the claims at
`
`issue to prior § 101 cases, as
`
`well as refer to several basic principles,
`
`including: 1) whether
`
`the claims are directed to an improvement to computer (or any other
`
`technological)
`
`functionality,
`
`and 2) whether
`
`the
`
`claims are
`
`directed to a mental process or a process that can be performed
`
`3 The Court notes that although typically each claim of a patent is analyzed
`separately, courts are not required to evaluate each claim separately if it
`were clear that
`they do not “differ in any manner
`that
`is material
`to the
`patent-eligibility inquiry." Mortg. Grader,
`Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs.,
`
`Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Here,
`the claims asserted
`(claims 21, 41, 46) recite different components of the overall technology. For
`instance, claim 41 controls the suspension subsystem and claim 46 controls the
`vehicle's speed. Therefore,
`the Court will analyze the claims jointly.
`
`18
`
`Ex. 2021-0018
`Ex. 2021-0018
`
`
`
`with a pen and paper. Procter & Gamble Co. v. QuantifiCare Inc.,
`
`288 F. Supp. 3d 1002, 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
`
`1. Functionality
`
`The parties largely dispute which of these two principles is
`
`more pertinent. Plaintiff argues that the claims are directed to
`
`an improvement
`
`in computer functionality because the technology
`
`permits the manipulation of multiple vehicle subsystems at once.
`
`Defendants dispute this characterization.
`
`The Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims directed
`
`towards merely performing a “function” and claims directed to “a
`
`particular way of performing that
`
`function.” Affinity Labs of
`
`Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(finding that claims directed to “providing out—of—region access
`
`to regional broadcast content" were directed to an abstract idea
`
`because
`
`“providing out—of—region access
`
`to regional broadcast
`
`content” was a “broad and familiar concept concerning information
`
`distribution that is untethered to any specific or concrete way of
`
`implementing it” and “entirely functional in nature.”). The former
`
`generally falls into the abstract—idea category, while the latter
`
`generally does not. Ed; Claims that improve the functioning of
`
`a computer provide a particular means to perform a function, and
`
`therefore, fall in the latter category and are not directed towards
`
`an abstract idea. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (finding claims were
`
`“directed to an improvement to computer functionality [instead of]
`
`19
`
`Ex. 2021 -001 9
`Ex. 2021-0019
`
`
`
`
`being directed to an abstract idea."); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at
`
`225 (stating that a claim is not abstract if it “improve[s]
`
`the
`
`functioning of the computer itself" or “effect[s] an improvement
`
`in any other technology or technical field.”).
`
`When
`
`considering
`
`claims
`
`purportedly
`
`directed
`
`to
`
`“an
`
`improvement of computer functionality,” the Court must “ask[
`
`]
`
`whether
`
`the focus of
`
`the claims
`
`is on the specific asserted
`
`improvement
`
`in computer capabilities .
`
`.
`
`. or,
`
`instead,
`
`on a
`
`process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea' for which computers
`
`are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335—36; see
`
`
`also McRO,
`Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
`Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
`
`1315
`
`(Fed. Cir.
`
`2016)
`
`(finding the claimed process was not an
`
`abstract idea as it “uses a combined order of specific rules that
`
`renders information into a specific format that is then used and
`
`applied to create desired results.”). Although inventiveness is
`
`
`the critical question at step 2 of the Alice framework, because
`
`improvements to technology are not directed towards an abstract
`
`idea, it is “relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an
`
`improvement in computer functionality versus being directed to an
`
`abstract
`
`idea,
`
`even at
`
`the first step of
`
`
`the Alice analysis.”
`
`Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that the Terrain Response technology is a
`
`technological improvement to vehicle control systems.
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`fl 22. Prior to the ’828 patent, drivers had to know the appropriate
`
`20
`
`Ex. 2021 -0020
`Ex. 2021-0020
`
`
`
`configurations of various subsystems when driving off-road on
`
`particular driving surfaces,
`
`the subsystems had to be manually
`
`changed one at a time, and a limited number of subsystems could be
`
`manipulated at one time.
`
`Id; fl 23.
`
`The
`
`'828 patent
`
`improves
`
`vehicle control
`
`technology by permitting a driver
`
`to control
`
`multiple subsystems at once and provides preset configurations of
`
`various
`
`subsystems
`
`for particular surfaces.
`
`Id;
`
`flfl 23,
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`analogizes
`
`this
`
`technology to a
`
`technology that
`
`generated food menus with certain features.
`
`Apple,
`
`Inc. v.
`
`Amaranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1235, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“The
`
`patents describe a preferred embodiment of the invention for use
`
`in the restaurant industry.
`
`In that embodiment, a menu consists
`
`of categories such as appetizers and entrees,
`
`items such as chicken
`
`Caesar salad, modifiers such as dressing, and sub-modifiers such
`
`as Italian and blue cheese.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`The menu may be displayed to a
`
`user and then another menu may be generated “in response to and
`
`comprised of the selections made.”).
`
`As
`
`further discussed below,
`
`the
`
`technology does
`
`appear
`
`directed to improvements in functionality.
`
`2. Mental Process
`
`On the other hand, Defendants characterize the claims as mere
`
`computerization of what drivers already do in their mind — for
`
`instance, by slowing down while going downhill. Courts have found
`
`that merely using computers to perform what people can otherwise
`
`21
`
`EX. 2021 -0021
`Ex. 2021-0021
`
`
`
`do is patent—ineligible. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 609 (finding that a
`
`program that applies economic principles to hed
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
