Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 237
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`T-REX PROPERTY AB,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:16-cv-1029
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS,
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC.’S
`RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 238
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`I. 
`
`II.  BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 2 
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Case Background ..................................................................................................2 
`
`The Patents-in-Suit disclose nothing more than using generic
`computer components to perform a task that was previously done
`manually. ................................................................................................................2 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The ‘470 Patent. ...........................................................................................3 
`
`The ‘334 Patent has only minor differences with the ‘470
`Patent. .........................................................................................................7 
`
`3. 
`
`The ‘603 Patent is directed to advertisements on a billboard. .............8 
`
`III.  LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 11 
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`This case should be disposed of at the pleading stage through Rule
`12(b)(6). .................................................................................................................11 
`
`Claim construction is not necessary to conclude that a patent does
`not recite eligible subject matter. ......................................................................12 
`
`The law of 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..................................................................................12 
`
`IV.  ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 14 
`
`
`A. 
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ..................................14 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`The asserted claims in the Patents-In-Suit are directed to an
`abstract idea. ............................................................................................14 
`
`The asserted claims contain no inventive concept to transform
`the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. .........................19 
`
`B. 
`
`The Complaint should be dismissed because T-Rex failed to identify
`any accused product or system. ........................................................................22 
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 239
`Case 6:l6—cv—O1029—RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 3 of 29 Page|D #: 239
`
`V.  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 23
`V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ .. 23
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 240
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...........................................................................................................11, 23
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................12, 18, 21
`
`Bender v. LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. C 09-02114 JF (PVT), 2010 WL 889541 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2010) ............................23
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...........................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................................18
`
`Cuvillier v. Sullivan,
`503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................11, 12
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................13, 22
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,
`671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................................14
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-07-00331-PMP-PAL, 2007 WL 2156332 (D. Nev. July 26,
`2007) ........................................................................................................................................23
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................18
`
`-iii-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 241
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................21
`
`Landmark Tech., LLC v. Assurant, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-CV-76-RWS-JDL, 2015 WL 4388311 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) ...................16, 17
`
`Lovelace v. Software Spectrum,
`78 F.3d 1015 (5th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................11
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .......................................................................................................13, 14
`
`Morales v. Square, Inc.,
`75 F.Supp.3d 716, 724 (W.D. Tex. 2014) .............................................................................15
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................17
`
`Parker v. Flook,
`437 U.S. 584 (1978) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Potter Voice Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. C 13-1710 CW, 2015 WL 5672598 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2015) ....................................18
`
`Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 13-1771-RGA, 2014 WL 4382446 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014) .....................................21
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
`LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring) ...........................12, 16, 17, 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................................................................................2, 12, 14, 22
`
`Other Authorities
`
`FED. R.CIV. P. 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................................1, 11, 14
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 242
`
`Defendant AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (“AMC”) moves to dismiss this
`
`case because the Complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`The asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`displaying information in public places based on instructions given by a third party. The
`
`patentees acknowledged that they did not invent the concept of scheduling the display
`
`of information in public spaces. They simply wanted to allow third parties to be able to
`
`choose in real-time what information is to be displayed and when. But the asserted claims
`
`merely cobble together generic computer components (i.e., computers, a database, a
`
`modem, a projector, television sets, and cameras), and then claim the end result of
`
`dynamic updates and third-party control that is not limited to a specific mechanism for
`
`achieving that result. Therefore, the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to claim patent-
`
`eligible subject matter.
`
`But, even if the claims were eligible (which they are not), T-Rex fails to identify
`
`any alleged infringing product or system. These bare-bone allegations do not put AMC
`
`on notice of what claim for infringement it needs to defend against.
`
`Resolving these issues does not require discovery or formal claim construction.
`
`Therefore, to avoid waste of judicial and party resources unnecessarily litigating invalid
`
`patents, AMC requests that the Court dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`Whether the Court should dismiss T-Rex’s Complaint for failure to state a claim
`
`upon which relief can be granted because:
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 243
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`II.
`
`The asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101;
`and
`
`T-Rex has failed to allege facts of what AMC does that amounts to a
`plausible claim for infringement.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Case Background
`
`On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff T-Rex filed this lawsuit accusing AMC of infringing
`
`claims 25 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. RE39,470 (the “’470 Patent”), claims 22 and 32 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,382,334 (the “’334 Patent”), and claims 42 and 43 of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,603
`
`(the “’603 Patent”). T-Rex does not identify any specific device or process that
`
`purportedly infringes. It simply states that “the infringing devices and systems include
`
`Defendant’s scheduling, management, digital playback and display of feature films in
`
`auditoriums at its theatres.” See, e.g., Dkt, No. 1, ¶¶ 30, 52, 72.
`
`T-Rex has filed 59 lawsuits since June 2012 in this and other districts involving one
`
`or more of the Patents-in-Suit and the alleged infringement by digital display boards and
`
`billboards.
`
`B.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit disclose nothing more than using generic
`computer components to perform a task that was previously done
`manually.
`
`The ’470 and ’334 Patents are both entitled “Digital Information System.” The ‘603
`
`Patent is entitled, “System for Direct Placement of Commercial Advertising, Public
`
`Service Announcements and Other Content on Electronic Billboard Displays.”
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 244
`
`1.
`
`The ‘470 Patent.
`
`The ‘470 Patent is directed to using computers to more efficiently manage the
`
`display of information in public places based on instructions given by a third party. The
`
`‘470 Patent describes the alleged invention in the context of subway railway stations. See
`
`‘470 Patent, 1:37-47. The patentees acknowledged that managing the display of
`
`information in this context was not new, but was previously done manually (id., 1:33-36)
`
`and not in “real time” (id., 1:53-54). See also id., 2:10-14; 5:23-27.
`
`The alleged solution to the pre-existing “static” system of “scheduling the display
`
`of information” was merely adding generic computer components (e.g., “digital
`
`technology,” “digital information system”) to schedule the display of information more
`
`efficiently and in “real time.” In particular, the patentees wanted to provide a “flexible
`
`system” so that external mediators could “dynamically control in real time” the
`
`transmission of instructions for a display in different places. See, e.g., id., 2:39-44; 2:45-49.
`
`The only figure in the patent illustrates the general-purpose computing
`
`components used in alleged invention:
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 245
`
`
`
`Referring to the drawing, “information mediators” (24) can send instructions and
`
`information to computers in a control center (10). Information mediators can be a
`
`company or person who wants to display information. See ‘470 patent, 5:18-23. The
`
`central computer in the control center (10) receives those instructions and creates an
`
`“exposure list,” consisting of what, where, when and for how long to display the
`
`information. Id., 3:11-16; cl. 1. The computer then sends the information through a radio
`
`link to a projector at the subway station (16)1 for display. Thus, the solution described by
`
`the ‘470 Patent is the simple addition of non-specialized computer components to a pre-
`
`existing process that had previously been done manually for years.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Station 2 (18) and Station 3 (20) are other subway stations.
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 246
`
`(a)
`
`Asserted claims 25 and 26 of the ‘470 Patent
`
`T-Rex has specifically asserted claims 25 and 26 of the ‘470 patent. Both are shown
`
`side by side in the chart below:
`
`Claim 26
`26. A system for selectively displaying
`digital information at one or more of a
`plurality of locations, said system
`comprising:
`
`a computerized control center
`having a plurality of communication
`interfaces for receiving control
`instructions from at least one
`external information mediator,
`
`said computerized control center
`including means for generating and
`dynamically updating an exposure
`list from said control instructions,
`said exposure list specifying three or
`more of the following items:
`
`
`i) what information content is to
`be displayed;
`
`ii) at which of said plurality of
`locations said information
`content is to be displayed;
`
`iii) when said information
`content is to be displayed for
`each location at which content is
`to be displayed; and
`
`iv) how long said information
`content is to be displayed for
`each location at which content is
`to be displayed;
`
`a computerized device situated at
`each one of said plurality of
`locations, each computerized device
`being electronically coupled to said
`computerized control center; and a
`means for displaying images in
`accordance with said exposure list
`
`Claim 25
`25. A method of selectively displaying
`digital information at one or more of a
`plurality of locations, said method
`comprising:
`
`
`receiving control instructions from
`at least one external information
`mediator;
`
`using said control instructions to
`generate an exposure list, said
`exposure list specifying three or
`more of the following items:
`
`
`
`
`i.) what information content is to
`be displayed;
`
`ii.) at which of said plurality of
`locations said information
`content is to be displayed;
`
`iii) when said information
`content is to be displayed for
`each location at which content is
`to be displayed; and
`
`iv) how long said information
`content is to be displayed for
`each location at which content is
`to be displayed;
`
`displaying images at one or more of
`said locations in accordance with
`said exposure list;
`
`-5-
`
`Element
`
`
`
`
`Element 1
`
`
`
`Element 2
`
`
`
`Element 3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 247
`
`
`Element 4
`
`
`
`and permitting said exposure list to
`be dynamically updated.
`
`
`associated with each one of said
`computerized devices.
`
`
`As is shown in the chart above, system claim 26 is no different from method
`
`claim 25 in substance. The method claim recites the abstract idea implemented on a
`
`generic computer; the system claim recites a handful of generic computer components
`
`(“computerized device,” “computerized control center”) configured to implement the
`
`same idea. The claims are directed to nothing more than (1) receiving instructions for
`
`displaying information (Element 1); (2) the instructions including what information to
`
`display, where to display it, when to display it, and for how long to display it (Element 2);
`
`(3) displaying the information according to the instructions (Element 3); and (4) allowing
`
`the instructions to be updated “dynamically” (Element 4).
`
`Claims 25 and 26 track the only figure in the patent. Element numbers have been
`
`added to the claims in the chart above for ease of identifying the claim elements.
`
`Element 1 describes that instructions are received from a “mediator.” A mediator can be
`
`a company, a person, or a computer controlled by a company or a person. See ‘470 patent,
`
`5:18-23; 4:49-51. Element 2 provides that instructions are used to generate an exposure
`
`list, which contains what, where, when, and how long to display information. Id., 7:10-
`
`17. Element 3 describes displaying the information. The final element, Element 4, states
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 248
`
`that the exposure list can be updated dynamically or in real time. Id., 1:54-59. The other
`
`independent claims (claims 1, 13) are directed to the same abstract idea.2
`
`2.
`
`The ‘334 Patent has only minor differences with the ‘470
`Patent.
`
`The ‘334 Patent, entitled “Digital Information System,” is a continuation-in-part of
`
`the ‘470 Patent. The only difference between the ‘334 Patent and the ‘470 Patent is that the
`
`information to be displayed is sent to cinemas and TVs (’334 Patent) instead of subway
`
`stations (’470 Patent). That difference is apparent in the patents’ figures. In the ‘334 Patent,
`
`the subway station and projector (16 and 22) in the ‘470 Patent have been replaced by
`
`cinema, camera, and TV-set (16, 22 and 40). See e.g., ‘334 Patent, 5:59-63. The systems in
`
`the two patents are otherwise the same.
`
`T-Rex asserts independent claims 22 and 32 of the ‘334 Patent. Like the ’470 Patent,
`
`the asserted claims of the ’334 Patent are directed to the same idea, with one claim a
`
`method claim and the other a system claim:
`
`Claim 22
`22. A method of coordinating and controlling
`electronic displays in a digital information
`system for exposing information on at least one
`display device through the medium of at least
`one electronic display, characterized in that it
`comprises the following steps:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 32
`32. An arrangement for coordinating and
`controlling electronic displays in a digital
`information system for displaying information on
`at least one display device through the medium of
`at least one electronic display, said information
`being supplied by mediators of information, for
`exposure or display, characterized in that it
`comprises:
`computerized control center means, wherein
`the control center has communication interfaces
`against;
`computerized means for coordinating and
`controlling electronic displays;
`
`
`
`2 Claims 1 and 25 are method claims and claims 13 and 26 are system claims.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 249
`
`generating an exposure list comprising
`control instructions for coordinating and
`controlling electronic displays with regard to
`what shall be exposed, when it shall be
`exposed, where it shall be exposed and for
`how long it shall be exposed;
`using a control center for coordinating and
`controlling electronic displays, wherein the
`control center is able to create and update
`said exposure list in real time with control
`instruction fields via dynamic booking of
`information in time for exposure from
`mediators; and
`wherein the exposure list enables each
`electronic display to be controlled,
`independently of other electronic displays,
`to receive the same or different information
`in accordance with the exposure list for
`exposure of respective electronic display.
`
`
`
`exposure handler means whereby the control
`center functions, in real time and through the
`medium of said exposure handler, to create and
`update an exposure list having control
`instruction fields, via dynamic booking of
`display information from mediators; and
`wherein said exposure list, containing control
`instructions, coordinates and controls the
`electronic displays in question with respect to
`what shall be exposed, where it shall be
`exposed, when it shall be exposed, and for how
`long it shall be exposed,
`
`and enables each electronic display
`independently of other electronic displays, to
`receive the same or different information
`according to the exposure list for exposure or
`display by respective electronic display.
`
`As is shown in the chart above, system claim 32 is no different from method claim
`
`22 in substance and includes the same elements. The method claim recites the abstract
`
`idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claim recites a handful of generic
`
`computer components (“computerized control center means,” “exposure handler
`
`means”) configured to implement the same idea.
`
`3.
`
`The ‘603 Patent is directed to advertisements on a billboard.
`
`The ‘603 Patent, entitled “System for Direct Placement of Commercial Advertising,
`
`Public Service Announcements and Other Content on Electronic Billboard Displays,”
`
`names a different inventor, but like the ‘470 and ‘334 Patents, is directed to the same
`
`abstract idea of displaying information in public places based on instructions given by a
`
`third party. The ‘603 Patent, which is specifically directed to advertisements on a
`
`billboard, permits commercial advertisers to electronically select locations and times to
`
`display their advertisements. See, e.g., ‘603 Patent, Abstract.
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 250
`
`According to the ‘603 Patent’s specification, scheduling the display of third-party
`
`information on a billboard was far from a novel idea and has “remained essentially
`
`unchanged throughout the twentieth century.” Id., 1:32-33. The patentee also
`
`acknowledged that he did not invent the use of electronic billboards. Id. 1:54-55. Because
`
`of “[t]he high cost of printing, transporting and mounting a message on a conventional
`
`billboard[, however,] . . . a conventional billboard cannot be readily changed to reflect
`
`current events within the geographic area of the billboard.” Id., 1:34-39. Like the ‘470 and
`
`‘334 Patents, therefore, the ‘603 Patent simply purports to streamline a pre-existing
`
`system by adding generic computer components like a “central information processing
`
`center” and “electronic display.” See, e.g., id., 2:4-15.
`
`Figure 1, depicted below, includes a “network,” comprising a “plurality of
`
`electronic displays 30.” Id., 2:50-65. A customer may access the “central information
`
`processing station” via the Internet through a “Customer Interface Web Server 40” to
`
`obtain and enter security code and billing code information. Id., 2:66-3:6. After selecting
`
`a time and location for the advertising, the customer “transmits the advertising content
`
`on-line through the Internet, a direct phone line or a high speed connection (for example,
`
`ISDN or DSL)” for content review by a “system security employee” before the content is
`
`“read to the server 100 associated with each display 30.” Id., 3:22-30. No special
`
`components are required. Instead, the ‘603 Patent indicates that “a suitable server is the
`
`IBM RISC 6000 server.” Id., 3:29-30. The system verifies that advertisements are run as
`
`scheduled and produces billing and reporting information. Id., 3:62-4:4:49.
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 251
`
`T-Rex has asserted claims 42 and 43 of the ’603 Patent, both of which depend from
`
`
`
`independent system claim 13:
`
`Claim 13
`13. A system for presenting video or still-image content at
`selected times and locations on a networked connection of
`multiple electronic displays, said system comprising:
`a network interconnecting a plurality of electronic displays
`provided at various geographic locations;
`means for scheduling the presentation of video or still-image
`content at selected time slots on selected electronic displays
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 252
`
`of said network and receiving said video or still-image
`content from a content provider;
`transmission means in communication with said receiving
`means for communicating scheduled content to respective
`server devices associated with corresponding selected
`electronic displays of said network,
`each said associated device initiating display of said video or
`still-image content at selected times on a corresponding
`selected electronic display of said network.
`
`
`
`Dependent claim 42 is directed to displaying images on a split screen. Id., cl. 42.
`
`Dependent claim 43 indicates that the split screen of claim 42 is capable of displaying a
`
`still image in one display area and a real time video, near real time video, or still frame
`
`in a second display area. Id., cl. 43.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`This case should be disposed of at the pleading stage through Rule
`12(b)(6).
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a
`
`complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion, a complaint “must provide the plaintiff’s grounds for entitlement to
`
`relief—including factual allegations that when assumed to be true raise a right to relief
`
`above the speculative level.” Cuvillier v. Sullivan, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal
`
`citations and quotations omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts consider
`
`documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint as well as facts alleged in the
`
`complaint. Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, 78 F.3d 1015, 1017 (5th Cir. 1996). Although
`
`factual allegations are taken as true, legal conclusions are given no deference—those
`
`matters are left for the court to decide. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (tenet
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 17 of 29 PageID #: 253
`
`that allegations are taken as true on a motion to dismiss “is inapplicable to legal
`
`conclusions”). “[W]hen the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
`
`claim of entitlement to relief [as a matter of law], this basic deficiency should . . . be
`
`exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the
`
`court.” Cuvillier, 503 F.3d at 401 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
`
`Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal issue. Bilski v. Kappos, 561
`
`U.S. 593, 602 (2010). Accordingly, the § 101 inquiry is properly raised at the pleadings
`
`stage if it is apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed
`
`to eligible subject matter. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718-19 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (Mayer, J., concurring).
`
`B.
`
`Claim construction is not necessary to conclude that a patent does
`not recite eligible subject matter.
`
`Claim construction is not required to conduct a § 101 analysis. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C.
`
`v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[W]e perceive
`
`no flaw in the notion that claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
`
`determination under § 101.”).
`
`C.
`
`The law of 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act sets forth four categories of patentable subject matter:
`
`“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101. Also, the law recognizes three exceptions to patent eligibility: “laws of nature,
`
`physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980)
`
`(emphasis added). Abstract ideas are ineligible for patent protection because a monopoly
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 18 of 29 PageID #: 254
`
`over these ideas would preempt their use in all fields. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611-12. In
`
`other words, “abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools
`
`of scientific and technological work.” Id. at 653 (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,
`
`67 (1972)).
`
`Determining whether a patent claim is impermissibly directed to an abstract idea
`
`involves two steps. First, the court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed
`
`to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Second, if the claim contains an
`
`abstract idea, the court evaluates whether there is “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.” Id.
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Transformation into a patent-eligible application requires “more than simply
`
`stating the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). Indeed, if a claim
`
`could be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper, it is not
`
`patent-eligible. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011). Also, a claim is not meaningfully limited if it includes only token or insignificant
`
`pre- or post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience, category of use,
`
`field of use, or technological environment. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297-98, 1300-01; Bilski, 561
`
`U.S. at 610; Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 & n.14 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
`
`584, 595 n.18 (1978). Finally, “simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high
`
`level of generality, to laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas cannot make
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 19 of 29 PageID #: 255
`
`those laws, phenomena, and ideas patentable.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300; see also Fort Props.,
`
`Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Such a broad and
`
`general limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope.”).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`T-Rex’s Complaint should be dismissed for two independent reasons. First, the
`
`asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they fail
`
`both prongs of the Alice test. Each of the asserted claims is directed to the abstract idea of
`
`displaying information in public places based on instructions given by a third party.
`
`Abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting. None of the asserted claims contains an
`
`“inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Second, T-Rex has failed to identify
`
`any accused infringing device or system such that AMC has fair notice of what it must
`
`defend. Because T-Rex has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, AMC
`
`respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion and dismiss this case with prejudice.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`
`A.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`1.
`
`The asserted claims in the Patents-In-Suit are directed to an
`abstract idea.
`
`In determining patent eligibility under § 101, the court must first determine
`
`whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The asserted
`
`claims in the Patents-in-Suit are directed to the abstract concept of displaying information
`
`in public places based on instructions given by a third party. The only difference between
`
`the ‘470 Patent and the ‘334 Patent is that the information is displayed on cinemas and
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Case 6:16-cv-01029-RWS Document 9 Filed 08/26/16 Page 20 of 29 PageID #: 256
`
`TVs (‘334 Patent) instead of subway stations (‘470 Patent). The method and system claims
`
`in both patents are otherwise identical. Similarly, the asserted claims in the ‘603 Patent
`
`concern billboards but, like the asserted claims of the ‘470 Patent and the ‘334 Patent, they
`
`are directed to the same abstract idea of displaying information in public places based on
`
`instructions given by a third party.
`
`Claim 25 of the ‘470 Patent is representative of the asserted claims. In assessing
`
`whether this claim is directed to an abstract idea, th