Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`No. 2018-1404
`No. 2018-1404
`
`
`IN THE
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`Zilniteb iptate Court of RppeaU
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`v.
`HTC AMERICA, INC., HTC CORPORATION,
`HTC AMERICA, INC., HTC CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`Case No. 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ
`Case No. 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ
`
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLEES
`BRIEF OF APPELLEES
`HTC AMERICA, INC. AND HTC CORPORATION
`HTC AMERICA, INC. AND HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`IRFAN A. LATEEF
`IRFAN A. LATEEF
` Counsel of Record
`Counsel of Record
`JOSEPH R. RE
`JOSEPH R. RE
`BRIAN C. CLAASSEN
`BRIAN C. CLAASSEN
`DANIEL C. KIANG
`DANIEL C. KIANG
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Irvine, CA 92614
`(949) 760-0404
`(949) 760-0404
`
`Attorneys for Appellees
`Attorneys for Appellees
`HTC AMERICA, INC. and HTC
`HTC AMERICA, INC. and HTC
`CORPORATION
`CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 23, 2018
`April 23, 2018
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`Counsel for Appellees HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation hereby
`Counsel for Appellees HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation hereby
`certify the following:
`certify the following:
`1.
`1.
`
`The full name of every party represented by me is:
`The full name of every party represented by me is:
`
`HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation
`HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation
`
`2.
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the
`The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the
`2.
`caption is not the real party in interest):
`caption is not the real party in interest):
`
`
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`3.
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own
`3.
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own
`more than 10 percent or more of the stock of the party represented by me are:
`more than 10 percent or more of the stock of the party represented by me are:
`
`HTC America, Inc. is a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of HTC Corp.
`HTC America, Inc. is a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of HTC Corp.
`
`4.
`The names of all law firms and the partners and associates that have
`The names of all law firms and the partners and associates that have
`4.
`appeared for the party in the lower tribunal or are expected to appear for the
`appeared for the party in the lower tribunal or are expected to appear for the
`party in this court and who are not already listed on the docket for the current
`party in this court and who are not already listed on the docket for the current
`case are:
`case are:
`
`
`Colin B. Heideman and Craig S. Summers of Knobbe, Martens, Olson &
`Colin B. Heideman and Craig S. Summers of Knobbe, Martens, Olson &
`Bear, LLP
`Bear, LLP
`
`
`5.
`The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in
`The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in
`5.
`this or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected
`this or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly affected
`by this court’s decision in the pending appeal:
`by this court's decision in the pending appeal:
`
`None
`None
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 23, 2018
`April 23, 2018
`
`
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
` By: /s/ Irfan A. Lateef
`By: /s/ Irfan A. Lateef
`
`Irfan A. Lateef
`Irfan A. Lateef
`
`Attorney for Appellees
`Attorney for Appellees
`
`-i-
`-i-
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`Page No.
`
`I. 
`I.
`
`II. 
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3 
`INTRODUCTION
`3
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................... 5 
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE
`5
`
`A. 
`A.
`
`B. 
`B.
`
`The ’941 Patent ..................................................................................... 5 
`The '941 Patent
`5
`
`The District Court Proceedings Below ................................................. 7 
`The District Court Proceedings Below
`7
`
`III. 
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................ 11 
`11
`III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`IV.  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................. 14 
`14
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. 
`A.
`
`B. 
`B.
`
`Standard of Review ............................................................................. 14 
`14
`Standard of Review
`
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 14 
`14
`Legal Standard
`
`V. 
`V.
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT ALL
`THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT ALL
`CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER SECTION 101. .................................... 17 
`CLAIMS ARE INVALID UNDER SECTION 101.
`17
`
`A. 
`A.
`
`The ’941 Patent Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea. ................. 17 
`The '941 Patent Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`17
`
`1. 
`1.
`
`2. 
`2.
`
`3. 
`3.
`
`4. 
`4.
`
`5. 
`5.
`
`6. 
`6.
`
`The District Court Did Not Ignore the Text of the
`The District Court Did Not Ignore the Text of the
`Claims. ...................................................................................... 18 
`Claims.
`18
`
`The District Court Did Not Ignore the Specification. .............. 20 
`The District Court Did Not Ignore the Specification.
`20
`
`DDR Holdings, Enfish, McRo, and Trading Techs Are
`DDR Holdings, Enfish, McRo, and Trading Techs Are
`Inapposite. ................................................................................. 21 
`21
`Inapposite.
`
`The ’941 Patent Claims Are Not Directed to a Change
`The '941 Patent Claims Are Not Directed to a Change
`to Computer Hardware. ............................................................. 24 
`24
`to Computer Hardware
`
`The ’941 Patent Uses a Conventional Computer
`'941 Patent Uses a Conventional Computer
`The
`Merely as a Tool. ...................................................................... 26 
`26
`Merely as a Tool.
`
`is Not Directed Toward a
`’941 Patent
`The
`The
`is Not Directed Toward a
`'941 Patent
`Technological Improvement. .................................................... 27 
`Technological Improvement.
`27
`
`-ii-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Cont’d)
`(Cont'd)
`
`Page No.
`Page No.
`
`7. 
`7.
`
`the
`The District Court Properly Analyzed
`The District Court Properly Analyzed
`the
`Representative Claim. ............................................................... 31 
`Representative Claim.
`31
`
`B. 
`B.
`
`The ’941 Patent Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept. .......... 32 
`The '941 Patent Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept.
`32
`
`1. 
`1.
`
`2. 
`2.
`
`3. 
`3.
`
`4. 
`4.
`
`Claim 1 Fails to Recite Significantly More than the
`Claim 1 Fails to Recite Significantly More than the
`Abstract Idea ............................................................................. 33 
`Abstract Idea
`33
`
`The Patent Office Record Does Not Provide an
`The Patent Office Record Does Not Provide an
`Inventive Concept. .................................................................... 35 
`Inventive Concept.
`35
`
`Novelty Alone Does Not Make a Claim Patent-
`Novelty Alone Does Not Make a Claim Patent-
`Eligible. ..................................................................................... 36 
`Eligible.
`36
`
`The District Court Properly Understood the Scope of
`The District Court Properly Understood the Scope of
`Claim 1. ..................................................................................... 37 
`Claim 1.
`37
`
`VI.  THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR BY DECIDING
`VI. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR BY DECIDING
`PATENT ELIGIBILITY ON THE PLEADINGS. ....................................... 38 
`PATENT ELIGIBILITY ON THE PLEADINGS.
`38
`
`VII.  CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT-ELIGIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE
`VII. CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT-ELIGIBLE SIMPLY BECAUSE
`THEY PREEMPT FEWER THAN ALL APPLICATIONS OF AN
`THEY PREEMPT FEWER THAN ALL APPLICATIONS OF AN
`IDEA. ............................................................................................................. 41 
`41
`IDEA.
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 42 
`42
`VIII. CONCLUSION
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 45 
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page No(s).
`Page No(s).
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................... 8, 16, 20, 21, 32
` 8, 16, 20, 21, 32
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. passim
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`passim
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................ passim
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)
`passim
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 1, 25
`1, 25
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 41, 42
`41, 42
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 20
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`20
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 33, 34
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`33, 34
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................ 40, 41
`40, 41
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) .................................................................................. 14, 26
`14, 26
`561 U.S. 593 (2010)
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 37, 39
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`37, 39
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`Nat’l Ass’n,
`Nat'l Ass'n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. passim
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`passim
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................... 25
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`25
`
`-iv-
`-iv-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 6 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 6 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`(Cont'd)
`
`Page No(s).
`Page No(s).
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 21, 22
`21, 22
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................. 26, 37
`450 U.S. 175 (1981)
`26, 37
`
`EasyWeb Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc.,
`Easy Web Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc.,
`689 F. App’x. 969 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 16
`689 F. App'x. 969 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`16
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................... 16, 19, 28, 32
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`16, 19, 28, 32
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. passim
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`passim
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.,
`Fair Warning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 16, 42
`16, 42
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
`818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 14, 37
`14, 37
`818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`Gottschalk v. Benson,
`409 U.S. 63 (1972) .......................................................................................... 15
`15
`409 U.S. 63 (1972)
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................9, 19, 28, 34
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`9, 19, 28, 34
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................... 42
`42
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 34
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`34
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................ 32, 37
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`32, 37
`
`-v-
`-v-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 7 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 7 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`(Cont'd)
`
`Page No(s).
`Page No(s).
`
`
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................. passim
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`passim
`
`Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,
`Livid Holdings Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,
`416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 14
`14
`416 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2005)
`
`Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .............................................................................. 15, 37, 41
`566 U.S. 66 (2012)
`15, 37, 41
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 23
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`23
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 42
`42
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 39, 41
`39, 41
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) ............................................................................ 15, 37, 41
`15, 37, 41
`437 U.S. 584 (1978)
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`696 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................... 18, 29, 30
`696 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`18, 29, 30
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 14
`14
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`Return Mail Inc. v. U. S. Postal Serv.,
`Return Mail Inc. v. U. S. Postal Serv.,
`868 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 42
`42
`868 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`In re Salwan,
`In re Salwan,
`681 F. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 16
`16
`681 F. App'x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`-vi-
`-vi-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 8 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 8 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont’d)
`(Cont'd)
`
`Page No(s).
`Page No(s).
`
`SmartFlash, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`SmartFlash, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`680 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 16
`16
`680 F. App'x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 15
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`15
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.,
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.,
`675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 23
`675 F. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`23
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 36
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`36
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ passim
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`passim
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................... 29
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`29
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................ passim
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ............................................................................................. 7, 14
`7, 14
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`-vii-
`-vii-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 9 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 9 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5, Appellees HTC America, Inc. and
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5, Appellees HTC America, Inc. and
`
`HTC Corporation (collectively, “HTC”) represent that there have been no other
`HTC Corporation (collectively, "HTC") represent that there have been no other
`
`appeals from the same proceeding in this or any other appellate court. Counsel
`appeals from the same proceeding in this or any other appellate court. Counsel
`
`is not aware of any currently pending case that will directly affect or be directly
`is not aware of any currently pending case that will directly affect or be directly
`
`affected by this Court’s decision in the pending appeal.
`affected by this Court's decision in the pending appeal.
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. has previously appealed to this Court a
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. has previously appealed to this Court a
`
`judgment that Apple, Inc. did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 (“the ’941
`judgment that Apple, Inc. did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 ("the '941
`
`Patent”). Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Patent"). Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`That litigation has since terminated.
`That litigation has since terminated.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`-1-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 10 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 10 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`Whether the district court correctly held that the claims of the ’941 Patent
`Whether the district court correctly held that the claims of the '941 Patent
`
`are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they recite an abstract idea
`are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they recite an abstract idea
`
`implemented using the sort of generic computer components that the Supreme
`implemented using the sort of generic computer components that the Supreme
`
`Court and this Court have consistently held to be insufficient to transform
`Court and this Court have consistently held to be insufficient to transform
`
`abstract ideas into patent-eligible inventions.
`abstract ideas into patent-eligible inventions.
`
`-2-
`-2-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 11 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 11 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`
`I.
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The patent in suit claims software directed to the abstract idea of
`The patent in suit claims software directed to the abstract idea of
`
`controlling access to a program. The recited steps include selecting a program,
`controlling access to a program. The recited steps include selecting a program,
`
`verifying whether the program is licensed, and acting on the program according
`verifying whether the program is licensed, and acting on the program according
`
`to the verification. Appx9. The claims recite well-known steps for restricting
`to the verification. Appx9. The claims recite well-known steps for restricting
`
`access to software using generic computer hardware and nothing else. The
`access to software using generic computer hardware and nothing else. The
`
`claims therefore fail to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
`claims therefore fail to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
`
`matter.
`matter.
`
`Software verification methods were not new when the ’941 Patent was
`Software verification methods were not new when the '941 Patent was
`
`filed in 1998. The patent admits that “[n]umerous methods have been devised
`filed in 1998. The patent admits that "[n]umerous methods have been devised
`
`for the identifying and restricting of an unauthorized software program’s
`for the identifying and restricting of an unauthorized software program's
`
`operation.” Appx23 at 1:11–13. One of the prior art methods discussed in the
`operation." Appx23 at 1:11-13. One of the prior art methods discussed in the
`
`patent allowed access to a program by checking a license signature stored on the
`patent allowed access to a program by checking a license signature stored on the
`
`computer’s hard disk. Id. at 1:19–21. This “license signature” is the key to
`computer's hard disk. Id. at 1:19-21. This "license signature" is the key to
`
`unlock the locked software.
`unlock the locked software.
`
`Rather than storing that license signature on a hard drive, the claimed
`Rather than storing that license signature on a hard drive, the claimed
`
`invention stores the license signature in a conventional computer’s BIOS (an
`invention stores the license signature in a conventional computer's BIOS (an
`
`acronym for “Basic Input/Output System”). BIOS is memory that stores the
`acronym for "Basic Input/Output System"). BIOS is memory that stores the
`
`necessary set of operations for a computer to run when first powered on.
`necessary set of operations for a computer to run when first powered on.
`
`-3-
`-3-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 12 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 12 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`Specifically, the claimed invention stores the license signature in the erasable,
`Specifically, the claimed invention stores the license signature in the erasable,
`
`non-volatile memory of the BIOS. The specification explains that the claimed
`non-volatile memory of the BIOS. The specification explains that the claimed
`
`invention is performed on “a conventional computer having a conventional
`invention is performed on "a conventional computer having a conventional
`
`BIOS module.” Id. at 1:46–48 (emphasis added).
`BIOS module." Id. at 1:46-48 (emphasis added).
`
`The specification does not disclose any new BIOS memory, or provide
`The specification does not disclose any new BIOS memory, or provide
`
`any new or innovative algorithm to interact with the BIOS memory. In fact, the
`any new or innovative algorithm to interact with the BIOS memory. In fact, the
`
`specification merely discloses that “using E²PROM manipulation commands”
`specification merely discloses that "using E2PROM manipulation commands"
`
`allows erasing or modifying the BIOS memory. Appx23 at 2:1–5. Therefore,
`allows erasing or modifying the BIOS memory. Appx23 at 2:1-5. Therefore,
`
`the patent claims steps which use conventional software on conventional
`the patent claims steps which use conventional software on conventional
`
`computer hardware.
`computer hardware.
`
`The specification explains one advantage of using the BIOS memory is
`The specification explains one advantage of using the BIOS memory is
`
`“that the required level of system programming expertise that is necessary to
`"that the required level of system programming expertise that is necessary to
`
`intercept or modify commands, interacting with the BIOS, is substantially higher
`intercept or modify commands, interacting with the BIOS, is substantially higher
`
`than those needed for tampering with data residing in volatile memory such as
`than those needed for tampering with data residing in volatile memory such as
`
`[a] hard disk.” Appx24 at 3:4–9. But that alleged advantage is a property of the
`[a] hard disk." Appx24 at 3:4-9. But that alleged advantage is a property of the
`
`BIOS memory, not based on any software or hardware disclosed in the patent.
`BIOS memory, not based on any software or hardware disclosed in the patent.
`
`The invention is performed on “a conventional computer having a conventional
`The invention is performed on "a conventional computer having a conventional
`
`BIOS module.” Id. at 1:46-48. The patent does not disclose any new or
`BIOS module." Id. at 1:46-48. The patent does not disclose any new or
`
`specialized BIOS memory that provides this advantage.
`specialized BIOS memory that provides this advantage.
`
`-4-
`-4-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 13 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 13 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`
`The district court correctly concluded that the claims recite using existing
`The district court correctly concluded that the claims recite using existing
`
`memory for its inherent function of storing data. It also correctly held that the
`memory for its inherent function of storing data. It also correctly held that the
`
`patent discloses using known computer functions. Thus, it concluded that the
`patent discloses using known computer functions. Thus, it concluded that the
`
`patent claims are not directed to any improvement in the technology used to
`patent claims are not directed to any improvement in the technology used to
`
`implement the abstract idea of restricting access to a program. As a result, it
`implement the abstract idea of restricting access to a program. As a result, it
`
`correctly held the patent invalid under Alice.
`correctly held the patent invalid under Alice.
`
`II. COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE
`II. COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A. The ’941 Patent
`A.
`The '941 Patent
`Claim 1 of the ’941 Patent is reproduced below:
`Claim 1 of the '941 Patent is reproduced below:
`
`A method of restricting software operation within a license for use
`A method of restricting software operation within a license for use
`with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of
`with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area of
`a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method
`a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method
`comprising the steps of:
`comprising the steps of:
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification
`erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification
`structure accommodating data that includes at least one
`structure accommodating data that includes at least one
`license record,
`license record,
`verifying the program using at least the verification structure
`verifying the program using at least the verification structure
`from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and
`from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS, and
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`
`-5-
`-5-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 14 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 14 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`Appx25–26 (emphasis added). The district court correctly observed that
`Appx25-26 (emphasis added). The district court correctly observed that
`
`Claim 1 is the sole representative claim. Appx3.
`Claim 1 is the sole representative claim. Appx3.
`
`Figure 2 shows that the method involves four general steps of selecting,
`Figure 2 shows that the method involves four general steps of selecting,
`
`setting up, verifying, and acting.
`setting up, verifying, and acting.
`
`SELECTING
`
`SETTING UP
`
`VERIFYING
`
`ACTING
`
`1 7
`
`18
`
`19
`---/
`
`20
`
`
`
`Appx22.
`Appx22.
`
`Those steps are implemented using conventional computer steps with
`Those steps are implemented using conventional computer steps with
`
`conventional computer hardware components for their intended purposes. For
`conventional computer hardware components for their intended purposes. For
`
`example, the selecting step identifies the program that the user wants to use on
`example, the selecting step identifies the program that the user wants to use on
`
`the computer. The setting-up step places a license in the BIOS. The verifying
`the computer. The setting-up step places a license in the BIOS. The verifying
`
`step compares license data in the BIOS to data from the program to determine
`step compares license data in the BIOS to data from the program to determine
`
`whether they match. Appx25 at 6:29–45. And the acting step restricts use of
`whether they match. Appx25 at 6:29-45. And the acting step restricts use of
`
`-6-
`-6-
`
`IPR2021-01406
`ANCORA EX2005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 15 Filed: 04/23/2018
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 22 Page: 15 Filed: 04/23/2018
`
`
`the program if there is no match or allows the use if there is a match. Id. at
`the program if there is no match or allows the use if there is a match. Id. at
`
`6:40–52.
`6:40-52.
`
`For the setting-up step, the claims recite “using an agent” to store licen