Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`Exhibit 32
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 2 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`No. 2018-1404
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`HTC AMERICA, INC., HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
`District of Washington, Case No. 2:16-cv-01919-RAJ
`
`
`REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 7, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark A. Cantor
`Marc Lorelli
`John S. LeRoy
`John P. Rondini
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center
`Twenty-Second Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075-1238
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 3 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. REPLY INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
`
`II. REPLY ARGUMENT – ALICE STEP ONE ........................................................ 5
`
`A. Ancora’s Technological Invention Was Ignored .................................. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Specification Teachings Confirm the Technological
`Invention of the ‘941 Patent ....................................................... 9
`
`HTC’s Arguments Regarding Hardware Changes are a
`Red-Herring ............................................................................. 11
`
`Ancora’s Claim is not Directed to Restricting Access on a
`Computer .................................................................................. 14
`
`B.
`
`HTC’s Non-Published Opinion Is Inapplicable ..................................15
`
`III. REPLY ARGUMENT – ALICE STEP TWO ..................................................17
`
`A. Ancora’s Technological Invention Was Ignored ................................17
`
`1.
`
`The Intrinsic Record Confirms the Inventive Concept ............ 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`BIOS Modification ........................................................ 18
`
`BIOS / Program Interaction ........................................... 20
`
`2.
`
`BASCOM is Informative ......................................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`Judgment on the Pleading Is Inappropriate .........................................24
`
`IV. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT .......................................................26
`
`CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME, TYPEFACE
`AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 4 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank International,
`
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ......................................................................... 7, 18, 23
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 1, 2, 21
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`2012 US. Dist. LEXIS 183045 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012) ............ 3, 5, 18, 19
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................. 20, 21, 22, 23
`
`Berkmeimer v. HP, Inc.,
`
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .....................................................................25
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................... 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`
`696 F.App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................ 15, 16
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. US,
`
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................ 7, 9, 14, 15, 16
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................ 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 5 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`I. REPLY INTRODUCTION
`
`
`Like the district court, HTC unfairly casts the claimed invention as
`
`“controlling access to something.” (Red Br. at 21-22.) Redefining the claimed
`
`invention at such a high level enabled the district court and HTC to make broad, but
`
`incorrect, assertions that the claims are abstract, that they do not reflect an
`
`improvement in computer technology and that they lack an inventive concept. By
`
`HTC’s measure, all computer software is unpatentable unless the claims also recite
`
`a distinct patentable innovation in computer hardware. As this Court has repeatedly
`
`held, that is not the law.
`
`The district court and HTC largely ignore an entire limitation of claim 1 which
`
`expressly recites a change to a conventional computer in which a software agent sets
`
`up a new licensing “verification structure” in an “erasable” memory area of the
`
`BIOS, as opposed to the more conventional “ROM” or non-erasable BIOS. The file
`
`history confirms that this approach was innovative at the time of the invention. As
`
`this Court previously stated: “[t]he applicants explained that their invention differed
`
`from the prior art in that it both operated as an application running through an
`
`operating system and used the BIOS level for data storage and retrieval – a
`
`combination that was not previously taught and that an ordinary skilled application
`
`writer would not employ.” Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 744 F.3d 732,
`
`736 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Ancora I”).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 6 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`The innovative verification structure permits the flexible installment (and un-
`
`installment) of records for subsequent software license verification. This innovation
`
`is the antithesis of an “abstract” idea, and the Patent Office has twice deemed the
`
`claimed invention patentable over the closest prior art: “it is well known to those of
`
`ordinary skill of the art that a computer BIOS is not setup to manage a software
`
`license verification structure.” Appx283 (emphasis added); Appx288-289. As
`
`established in the file history, conventional computers and software at the time of
`
`the invention were not configured to write information to the BIOS.1
`
`The district court and HTC also overlook the specific interaction recited in
`
`claim 1 between the verification structure and the computer program subject to
`
`verification. The claim requires “a program residing in volatile memory” and
`
`“verifying the program [from the volatile memory] using at least the verification
`
`structure from the erasable non-volatile memory of the BIOS.” (Cite, emphasis
`
`added.)2 As explained above, utilizing erasable BIOS in the claimed manner is
`
`
`1 As explained in the prosecution history, “there is no OS support whatsoever to
`write data to system BIOS.” Ancora I, 744 F.3d at 735-36 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
`Appx261. BIOS was a hardware configuration utility and aside from changing
`various established parameters, a computer at the time of the ‘941 invention with an
`erasable BIOS portion could not write other information to the BIOS, let alone
`establish a licensing verification structure in the BIOS. Ancora I, 744 F.3d at 735–
`36 (emphasis added); Appx261-262
`
`2 The “verification structure” created in the BIOS also includes a “license record”
`from a licensed program residing in volatile memory. The Northern District of
`California construed “license record” as “A record from a licensed program with
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 7 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`unconventional, and neither the district court nor HTC attempted to establish (at the
`
`pleading stage) that the claimed interaction between the new verification structure
`
`in erasable BIOS and the program residing in volatile memory was not inventive, let
`
`alone conventional.
`
`The ‘941 Patent specification explains the known prior art hardware and
`
`software techniques for reducing software piracy. ‘941 Patent at 1:12-32. The
`
`specification explains that “a need in the art to provide for a system and method that
`
`substantially reduce or overcome the drawbacks of hitherto known solutions.” Id. at
`
`1:33-35. The specification explains that the specific solution claimed is an improved
`
`licensing method because BIOS is not easily or readily changed by a hacker, unlike
`
`other aspects of a computer. The ‘941 Patent explains:
`
`An important advantage in utilizing non-volatile memory such as that
`residing in the BIOS is that the required level of system programming
`expertise that is necessary to intercept or modify commands, interacting
`with the BIOS, is substantially higher than those needed for tampering
`with data residing in volatile memory such as hard disk. Furthermore,
`there is a much higher cost to the programmer, if his tampering is
`unsuccessful, i.e. if data residing in the BIOS (which is necessary for
`the computer’s operability) is inadvertently changed by the hacker.
`This is too high of a risk for the ordinary software hacker to pay. Note
`that various recognized means for hindering the professional-like
`hacker may also be utilized (e.g. anti-debuggers, etc.) in conjunction
`with the present invention.
`
`Id. at 3:4-17.
`
`
`information for verifying that licensed program.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2012 US. Dist. LEXIS 183045, *36 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 8 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 7 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent is expressly directed to an improvement in
`
`computer technology. The claim recites modifying a computer like never before to
`
`set up a verification structure in erasable BIOS memory (not conventional ROM or
`
`non-erasable BIOS), and conducting a verification with a cross-memory interaction
`
`(between the license record stored in the verification structure in the erasable BIOS
`
`and the computer program residing in volatile memory). In denying HTC’s request
`
`for CBM review, the PTAB determined “the claims of the ‘941 patent recite a
`
`technological improvement to problems arising in prior art software and hardware
`
`methods of restricting an unauthorized software program’s operation. Thus, we
`
`determine the disclosed method addresses a ‘technical problem.’” Appx319
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The ‘941 Patent claims3 recite a tangible technological solution, not an
`
`abstract idea in eligible for patent protection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 HTC’s motion to dismiss stated: “The ‘941 Patent contains two independent claims
`– 1 and 18. Claim 1 is representative and recites:” (Appx55.) HTC then explained
`the differences between claim 18 and claim 1. (Appx56.) In its motion, HTC never
`explained the differences between dependent claims and independent claim 1.
`Regardless, Ancora believes that the dependent claims are also patent eligible for at
`least the reason that claim 1 is eligible and stands on these grounds.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 9 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 8 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`II. REPLY ARGUMENT – ALICE STEP ONE
`
`
`A. Ancora’s Technological Invention Was Ignored
`
`The district court recognized: “[i]t is ‘relevant to ask whether the claims are
`
`directed to an improvement in computer functionality versus being directed to an
`
`abstract idea.’” Appx8 (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
`
`1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As explained above, claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent is directed
`
`to a new modification of a specific memory type (erasable) in an area of the BIOS4
`
`as well as a new interaction between this BIOS memory for licensing a program in
`
`volatile memory. The district court’s analysis largely ignored key elements of claim
`
`1 as does HTC’s presentation on pages 17-18 of the Red Brief. When read for what
`
`it expressly states, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea lacking any
`
`technological improvement.
`
`The district court’s analysis failed to substantively consider the bolded
`
`language below from claim 1 in its Alice step one analysis.
`
`1. A method of restricting software operation within a license for
`use with a computer including an erasable, non-volatile memory area
`of a BIOS of the computer, and a volatile memory area; the method
`comprising the steps of:
`selecting a program residing in the volatile memory,
`
`
`4 The Northern District of California construed “BIOS” as “An acronym for Basic
`Input/Output System. It is the set of essential startup operations that run when a
`computer is turned on, which tests hardware, starts the operating system, and
`supports the transfer of data among hardware devices.” Ancora Techs., 2012 US.
`Dist. LEXIS 183045, *22-23 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 10 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 9 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable,
`non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure
`accommodating data that includes at least one license record,
`verifying the program using at least the verification structure
`from the erasable nonvolatile memory of the BIOS, and
`acting on the program according to the verification.
`
`HTC attempts to justify the district court’s failure to address an entire claim
`
`step, arguing the “district court properly recognized that the ‘using an agent
`
`limitation’ was not at the heart of the invention.” (Red Br. at 19.) To the contrary,
`
`this limitation is an “important advantage” of the invention. ‘941 Patent at 3:4-5.
`
`This limitation creates a modification of BIOS that was never done before, and could
`
`not be performed by a generic computer at the time of the invention. Appx261;
`
`Appx283. While HTC argues that ignoring an “important advantage” of the
`
`invention is acceptable, HTC cites only to Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network,
`
`Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But, Internet Patents makes clear
`
`that “claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a
`
`whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Id. at 1346 (emphasis added). In this
`
`case, the district court failed to consider claim 1 in its entirety as part of the Alice
`
`step one analysis.
`
`HTC attempts to justify consideration of only a small portion of claim 1
`
`arguing that the “using an agent” limitation merely uses software. (Red Br. at 27.)
`
`But, such “software” did not exist on generic computers. Appx261; Appx283.
`
`HTC’s argument that an “agent” is disclosed as specific software in the specification
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 11 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 10 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`also does not justify ignoring this “important advantage” of the invention. ‘941
`
`Patent at 3:4-5. This Court has been very clear: “Much of the advancement made in
`
`computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature,
`
`may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures
`
`and processes. We do not see in Bilski or Alice, or our cases, an exclusion to
`
`patenting this large field of technological progress.” Enfish LLC v. Mircosoft Corp.,
`
`822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`As recited, claim 1 is directed to a specific and tangible improvement in
`
`computer functionality, not merely “controlling access to something” as HTC
`
`unfairly asserts. (Red Brf.at 21-22.) This Court consistently explains that: “We
`
`must ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough
`
`specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful.” Thales Visionix Inc. v. US,
`
`850 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd v. CLS Bank
`
`International, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)). Claim 1 is squarely directed to an
`
`improved technological method to license software – a method that relies on
`
`computer modifications and interactions that have never been used or considered for
`
`licensing.
`
`Enfish is instructive on the role of the claims as recited. In Enfish, the claims
`
`at issue involved a table that stored data. The district court invalidated the claims as
`
`directed to “the concept of organizing information using tabular forms.” That
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 12 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 11 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`analysis did not consider a claim limitation that rendered the tabular data “self-
`
`referential.” This Court explained that the district court’s “describing the claims at
`
`such a high level of abstraction and unthethered from the language of the claims all
`
`but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” 822 F.3d at 1337. In the
`
`same manner that Enfish claims have “self-referential” limitations which cannot be
`
`ignored, the ‘941 claims have “using an agent to set up a verification structure in the
`
`erasable non-volitile memory of the BIOS” which cannot be ignored.
`
`Finally, HTC acknowledges, as it must, that the PTAB determined that claim
`
`1 of the ‘941 Patent was directed to solving a technical problem. (Red Br. at 31.)
`
`This determination made at the request of HTC is at odds with the district court.
`
`The PTAB explained:
`
`The “problem” the ‘941 patent seeks to address is the technical
`problems resulting from the vulnerability of license authentication and
`software restriction using conventional data storage techniques—
`software based products that are vulnerable to hacking and hardware
`based products that are expensive, inconvenient, and not suitable for
`downloaded software. Ex. 1001, 1:19-32. In other words, the claims
`of the ‘941 patent recite a technological improvement to problems
`arising in prior art software and hardware methods of restricting an
`unauthorized software program’s operation. Thus, we determine the
`disclosed method addresses a “technical problem.”
`
`Appx319 (emphasis added). The ‘941 Patent claims make a concrete and tangible
`
`improvement to the licensing of software. The ‘941 Patent was an improvement
`
`over hardware methods and over software methods previously used for licensing as
`
`explained in the Specification. ‘941 Patent at 1:19-35. Contrary to HTC’s
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 13 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 12 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`assertions, a computer “does not operate exactly the same without or without the
`
`alleged invention.” (Red Br. at 18.) With a prior art hardware solution, a computer
`
`required a “dongle” in order to run licensed software. ‘941 Patent at 1:27-32. With
`
`a part art software solution, a computer hacker could easily circumvent the
`
`restrictions. Id. at 1:19-26. Claim 1 of the ‘941 Patent claims a licensing system
`
`with improved security and without the “drawbacks of hitherto known solutions.”
`
`Id. at 1:34-35. HTC is free to use the prior art solutions to software licensing or
`
`other methods. The ‘941 Patent claims only Ancora’s specific improvement to prior
`
`art methods for controlling software licensing.
`
`1.
`
`The Specification Teachings Confirm the
`Technological Invention of the ‘941 Patent
`
`HTC implies that the specification has a diminished role in the §101 analysis.
`
`(Red Br. at 20-21.) HTC cites Accenture, Content Extraction, and Bancorp Services;
`
`but those decisions do not support HTC.5 It is important to look to the specification
`
`when determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea or improvement in
`
`technology. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339; see also, Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348; Visual
`
`Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`5 The cases HTC cites did not evaluate whether the claims were an “improvement
`on existing technology,” where the specification is highly relevant. Enfish, 822 F.3d
`at 1337. In contrast, Content Extraction, Bancorp and Accenture involved
`automating financial institution procedures.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 14 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 13 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`In Enfish, this Court explained that the “self-referential” aspect of the claims
`
`was important because the specification explained this aspect as providing benefits
`
`over the prior art. Id. at 1339. Based on this review, this Court concluded that “the
`
`claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
`
`software arts,” and therefore, not directed to an abstract idea. Id. HTC attempts to
`
`distinguish Enfish by claiming that the Enfish claims “focused on the specific
`
`improvement and contained limitations on how the rows and columns of the self-
`
`referential table were created.” See id. at 1336. (Red Br. at 22.) The opinion makes
`
`no such statement. The Enfish claims recited data in tabular form as expected, with
`
`a plurality of rows and columns. Id. at 1336. This Court held that the Enfish “district
`
`court oversimplified the self-referential component of the claims and downplayed
`
`the invention’s benefits” contrary to the specification. Id. at 1338. The district court
`
`here did the same thing. Like Enfish, the claims here recite a specific process for
`
`software licensing which provide benefits explained in the specification. ‘941 Patent
`
`at 1:11-35; 2:62-3:17.
`
`The district court held, and HTC argues, that there is no improvement in
`
`computer function by the ‘941 Patent’s use of BIOS for licensing software residing
`
`in the volatile memory. But as shown above, and as the PTAB determined, use of
`
`the erasable, non-volatile section of the BIOS together with the function of the
`
`claimed agent is indisputably an improvement in software licensing. Appx319 (“the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 15 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 14 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`claims of the ‘941 patent recite a technological improvement to problems arising in
`
`prior art software and hardware methods of restricting an unauthorized software
`
`program’s operation.”).
`
`2.
`
`HTC’s Arguments Regarding Hardware Changes are a
`Red-Herring
`
`The claims of the ‘941 Patent include making a change to existing hardware.
`
`The claims recite: “using an agent to set up a verification structure in the erasable,
`
`non-volatile memory of the BIOS, the verification structure accommodating data
`
`that includes at least one license record.” The Patent Office explained: “it is well
`
`known to those of ordinary skill of the art that a computer BIOS is not setup to
`
`manage a software license verification structure.” Appx283. Ancora did not need
`
`to invent BIOS in order to modify and then use BIOS in a new, unique and non-
`
`obvious manner. Moreover, generic computers could not write to the BIOS as
`
`claimed, so the “present invention overcomes this difficulty by using an agent to set
`
`up a verification structure in the erasable, non-volatile memory of the BIOS.”
`
`Appx283; see also Appx261.
`
`HTC impermissibly broadens claim 1, and then argues that software
`
`inventions without new hardware are abstract. This is not the law. Enfish, 822 F.3d
`
`at 1336 (“Nor do we think that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware,
`
`are inherently abstract and therefore only properly analyzed at the second step of the
`
`Alice analysis.”). Changes to how a licensing system is implemented and operates
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 16 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 15 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`on a computer is patent eligible, even if it relies on software and memory
`
`modifications.
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is
`
`instructive. HTC makes the incorrect assertion that Visual Memory involved claims
`
`to “a new hardware system.” (Red Br. at 29.) Claim 1 in Visual Memory reads as
`
`follows:
`
`A computer memory system connectable to a processor and
`1.
`having one or more programmable operational characteristics, said
`characteristics being defined through configuration by said computer
`based on the type of said processor, wherein said system is connectable
`to said processor by a bus, said system comprising:
`
`a main memory connected to said bus;
`
`a cache connected to said bus;
`
`wherein a programmable operational characteristic of said
`system determines a type of data stored by said cache.
`
`All computers include a main memory and a cache connected to a bus –
`
`standard computer components. Claim 1 differed from the prior art by a
`
`“programmable operational characteristic of said system” that “determines a type of
`
`data stored by said cache.” Id. at 1259. Since the claims covered only conventional
`
`computer components and, according to the district court, only general software
`
`concepts to achieve a result, the district court held the patent claims invalid under
`
`§ 101. Id. at 1257.
`
`This Court disagreed and explained that the claims focus on this
`
`“programmable operational characteristic” – a change in software that the district
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 17 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 16 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`court disregarded. In support of this decision, this Court explained that the
`
`“specification discusses the advantages offered by the technological improvement.”
`
`Id. at 1259. This Court held that this – software based – claim was a “specific
`
`asserted improvement in computer capabilities.” Id. at 1259-1260. The Court
`
`explained:
`
`To be sure, the concept of categorical data storage underlies the
`‘740 patent’s claims in that claim 1 requires a programmable
`operational characteristic that “determines a type of data stored by said
`cache.” But this is not enough to doom a claim under § 101 because
`the claims are not so limited, and “all inventions at some level embody,
`use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`abstract ideas.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71, 132 S.Ct. 1289; see also Alice,
`134 S.Ct. at 2354 (“[A]n invention is not rendered ineligible for patent
`simply because it involves an abstract concept.” (emphasis added)).
`Nor is the ‘740 patent’s use of conventional components, by itself, fatal
`to patent eligibility where the claims “are directed to an improvement
`in the functioning of a computer.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338.
`
`Because we conclude that the claims of the ‘740 patent are not
`directed to an abstract idea, we need not proceed to step two of the Alice
`test.
`
`
`Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1262.
`
`In the same way that Visual Memory had an improved memory system with
`
`software, the claims in the ‘941 Patent present an improved licensing system with
`
`new and unique software, with data structures created in modified hardware that
`
`could not be done by a generic computer, and interactions never before considered
`
`in the relevant art. The fact that this is an improvement over the prior art is confirmed
`
`by the specification which ensures that the claims are directed to a specific
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 18 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 17 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`improvement of software licensing – not an abstract idea. ‘941 Patent at 1:11-35;
`
`2:62-3:17.
`
`3.
`
`Ancora’s Claim is not Directed to Restricting Access
`on a Computer
`
`HTC argues that “Ancora cannot reasonably dispute that Claim 1 invokes a
`
`conventional computer with conventional BIOS.”6 (Red Br. at 26.) But that ignores
`
`the invention, which is a modification of erasable (not unerasable ROM) BIOS, and
`
`use of that modification to improve control over software licensing limits. And
`
`contrary to HTC’s implication, not all inventions performed on a “conventional”
`
`computer are abstract. Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1262; Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338.
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. US, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is insightful
`
`because it used a conventional computer and known formulas. In Thales, the claims
`
`included two inertial sensors and software that determined an orientation of an object
`
`from those sensors. The claims recited one sensors on a tracked object and another
`
`a moving platform. By doing this, the specification claimed that “many
`
`‘complications’ inherent in previous solutions for determination position and
`
`
`6 HTC tries to assume that conventional BIOS includes a verification structure. It
`does not. HTC also tries to assume that conventional BIOS includes an “erasable,
`non-volatile memory,” it does not. Ancora does not dispute that “erasable, non-
`volatile memory” of the BIOS was known, but never has it been disclosed as
`“conventional.” On page 4 of the Red Brief, HTC cites to the term “conventional”
`in the specification when it refers to a “conventional computer having a conventional
`BIOS module.” That reference to conventional BIOS refers to ROM, “i.e., it cannot
`be removed or modified.” (1:46-51.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 19 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 18 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`orientation of an object on a moving platform” are eliminated. 850 F.3d at 1348.
`
`By the claimed placement of an inertial sensor, the claims were properly considered
`
`as directed to “systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional
`
`manner to reduce errors in measuring.” Id. at 1349.
`
`Just as claims directed to a new and useful technique for defining
`a database that runs on general-purpose computer equipment are patent
`eligible, Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337-38, so too are claims directed to a
`new and useful technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an
`object on a moving platform. That a mathematical equation is required
`to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims
`to abstraction.
`
`We hold that the ’159 patent claims at issue in this appeal are not
`direct to an abstract idea.
`
`Just as with self-referential table of Enfish, the programmable operation of
`
`Visual Memory, and the placement of sensors in Thales, the claims of the ‘941 Patent
`
`are also directed to a technological improvement: an improved software licensing
`
`mechanism.
`
`B. HTC’s Non-Published Opinion Is Inapplicable
`
`The present appeal is most like the three precedential opinions discussed in
`
`detail above: Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339; Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1262; Thales,
`
`850 F.3d at 1348. HTC, however, repeatedly cites the non-published opinion in
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 696 F.App’x 1014, 1017-18 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) which HTC then tries to broadly apply to make all software licensing claims
`
`invalid. That is not the law.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 52-2 Filed 04/27/20 Page 20 of 32
`Case: 18-1404 Document: 25 Page: 19 Filed: 05/07/2018
`
`Prism argued that the claims “cover a concrete, specific solution to a real-
`
`world problem,” but Prism did not offer a persuasive argument at Alice step one or
`
`step two. At step one, Prism just offered a conclusion. Id. at *1017. Here, Ancora
`
`offers specific claim language and specification detail that explains that the claims
`
`cover an “important advantage” over prior art solutions. ‘941 Patent at 3:4-17. Thus,
`
`Ancora is like Enfish, Visual Memory, and Thales, where the