Open Text S.A. v. Alfresco Software LTD et al
Filing
204
Order granting 35 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First and Second Causes of Action for Failure to State a Claim filed by Alfresco Software, Inc., Carahsoft Technology Corporation, and Alfresco Software Ltd. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/19/2014. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
OPEN TEXT S.A.,
Case No. 13-cv-04843-JD
Plaintiff,
v.
ALFRESCO SOFTWARE LTD, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 35
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
INTRODUCTION
13
14
This patent infringement action began in the Eastern District of Virginia when plaintiff
15
Open Text, S.A., sued defendants Alfresco Software Ltd., Alfresco Software, Inc., and Carahsoft
16
Technology Corp. (collectively with Alfresco, the “defendants”). The defendants moved to
17
dismiss two of Open Text’s nine patent infringement claims for invalidity under Section 101 of the
18
Patent Act. After substantial briefing, including supplemental briefing on the Supreme Court’s
19
recent decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), and oral
20
argument, the Court finds that the challenged claims are directed to a very simple abstract
21
marketing idea that uses generic computer and Internet technology, and contain no additional
22
inventive concept. Consequently, the claims are not patent eligible, and the motion to dismiss is
23
granted with prejudice.
24
25
BACKGROUND
Open Text alleges that it provides Enterprise Content Management (“ECM”) products for
26
managing business information, including software tools and services for collaboration, records
27
and email management, and archiving. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Open Text has revenue streams from
28
licensing, customer support, cloud services, and professional services. Id. Alfresco also offers
1
ECM software in the form of online file-sharing and content-management services. Id. at 6. Open
2
Text alleges that Alfresco’s content-sharing services infringe nine of its patents. Id.
On August 1, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss Open Text’s claims of patent
3
4
infringement with respect to two of the patents-in-suit on the ground of invalidity -- U.S. Patent
5
No. 7,647,372 (the “’372 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,975,007 (the “’007 patent”). See Dkt.
6
No. 35. That same day, the defendants moved to transfer the case to this District. Dkt. No. 37.
7
On October 11, 2013, the motion to transfer was granted. Dkt. No. 64. During the June 19, 2014
8
case management conference, the Court ordered Open Text to renotice the motion to dismiss and
9
to reduce its asserted claims to no more than 25. See Dkt. No. 125. The parties also submitted
statements regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), and other recent decisions. See Dkt. Nos. 128, 129, 134, 138, 186, 192,
12
193.
13
The ’372 patent, entitled “Method and System for Facilitating Marketing Dialogues,”
14
claims priority to an application filed on July 24, 2000. Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A. The ’372 patent
15
provides systems and methods for carrying on marketing dialogues. The ’007 patent, also entitled
16
“Method and System for Facilitating Marketing Dialogues,” is a continuation of the ’372 patent.
17
Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B. The patents appear to be largely duplicative in claims and content, and Open
18
Text made no argument in briefs or during the hearing that the ’372 patent and the’007 patent are
19
meaningfully distinguishable for purposes of this motion.
20
The patents purport to describe an invention that allows a marketer to “communicate with
21
potentially large numbers of customers (or potential customers, or other participants receiving a
22
communication), where communications may involve waiting for, or receiving responses to,
23
communications, and sending subsequent communications (or taking other actions) that depend,
24
for example, on the responses, information known (or surmised) about an individual participant or
25
any number of other factors.” Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A 1:63-2:3, Ex. B 1:67-2:7. Translated into plainer
26
English, the patents simply describe a form of the concept of interacting with customers for
27
marketing purposes. To that end, the patents describe a method to gain marketing feedback: a
28
group of people is initially communicated with, a subset of that group is selected, and then an
2
1
action is performed with the subset. For example, a sample of customers is asked “How was your
2
order?” A communication is then sent to those customers who respond “Bad” and a “Thank You”
3
message is sent to those customers who respond “Great.” Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A, Figs. 2, 5; id., Ex. B,
4
Figs. 2, 5.
5
Open Text has narrowed its claims so that only claim 38 of the ’372 patent and claim 22 of
6
the’007 patent remain at issue. See Dkt. No. 129 at 2. Both are dependent claims. Claims 37 and
7
38 of the ’372 patent recite:
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
37. A computer readable storage medium for facilitating a network
based dialogue, comprising instructions translatable for:
assembling a set of first corresponding participants, wherein
assembling the first set of corresponding participants comprises
executing a first instruction of a first program in conjunction with
each of the first corresponding participants, wherein the first
instruction is operable to determine the occurrence of a first
specified event in conjunction with each of the first corresponding
participants;
assembling a set of second corresponding participants, wherein each
of the set of second corresponding participants is in the set of first
corresponding participants; and
executing a second instruction in conjunction with each of the
second set of corresponding participants, wherein the second
instruction is associated with a first action to be performed in
conjunction with each of the set of second corresponding
participants.
38. The computer readable storage medium of claim 37, wherein the
first specified event is an interaction with a web site.
Claims 21 and 22 of the ’007 patent recite:
21. An electronic dialog system comprising:
a data storage location;
a dialog computer interfaced with the data storage location and a
communications channel, the dialog computer comprising a
processor and a tangible computer readable medium storing
instructions executable to:
obtain a set of first corresponding participants;
execute a first instruction of a program, wherein the program is
associated with each of the first corresponding participants, wherein
the first instruction causes the dialog computer to communicate with
the communications channel to prompt the communications channel
to send a first communication to the set of first corresponding
participants;
determine that a specified event has occurred for a set of second
corresponding participants, wherein the set of second corresponding
participants is in the set of first corresponding participants;
3
execute a second instruction of the program to cause the dialog
computer to take a first action in conjunction with each of the
corresponding participants; and
store a set of data at the data storage location that tracks the state of
a dialog.
1
2
3
22. The electronic dialog system of claim 21, further comprising an
email server coupled to the dialog computer, and wherein the dialog
computer communicating with the first communications channel
further comprises communicating with the email server to cause the
email server to send a first email to the set of first corresponding
participants.
4
5
6
7
8
Translating again into plainer terms, the challenged claims simply describe the use of generic
9
computer and Internet technology to facilitate the customer communications. No special
10
technology or programming is mentioned or envisioned in the claims.
The motion to dismiss asks the Court to find the asserted claims of both the ’372 and ’007
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. According to the defendants, the asserted claims of the
13
’372 and ’007 patents merely “computerize” a very basic marketing concept, and so the claims are
14
directed to an abstract idea that is not patentable. Id. at 1-2. Open Text opposes the motion, but
15
with scant ammunition in its arsenal. The asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea, and
16
Open Text has failed to articulate any colorable argument to the contrary. In addition, Open Text
17
has failed to identify any “plus factor” -- the inventive concept required under Alice Corp. -- that
18
takes these generic computerized marketing claims into the zone of patent-eligible inventions.
DISCUSSION
19
20
I.
Legal Standard
21
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a complaint
22
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
23
dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
24
face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This “facial plausibility”
25
standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to “more than a sheer possibility that a
26
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although courts do
27
not require “heightened fact pleading of specifics,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, a plaintiff must
28
provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
4
1
action will not do,” id. at 555. The plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to “raise a right to relief
2
above the speculative level.” Id.
3
The issue of invalidity under Section 101, which is the basis of this motion, presents a
4
question of law. Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
5
1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2013). And although every issued patent is presumed to have been issued
6
validly absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, a number of courts in this District
7
have found patents invalid at the pleading stage and prior to formal claim construction. See
8
Gametek LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 13-cv-2546 RS, 2014 WL 1665090, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25,
9
2014); Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc., No. 12-cv-04182 WHA, 2013 WL 245026, at *3
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013); OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 12-cv-1233-EMC, 2012 WL
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
3985118, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012); Internet Patents Corp. v. Gen. Auto. Ins. Serv., Inc.,
12
No. 12-cv-05036-JSW, 2013 WL 7936688, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013). Additionally, the
13
Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s finding of invalidity under Section 101 at the
14
pleading stage. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google Inc., No 2013-1575, 2014 WL 4337771 (Fed. Cir.
15
Sept. 3, 2014).
16
It is not necessary in every case to construe the patent claims prior to determining subject
17
matter eligibility. See Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687
18
F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Court “perceive[s] no flaw in the notion
19
that claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101”
20
although “it will ordinarily be desirable -- and often necessary”). In this case, the parties have not
21
sought construction of any terms in the ’372 or ’007 patents, and this lack of dispute over the
22
proper construction of the asserted claims confirms that it is unnecessary to engage in claim
23
construction before addressing validity under Section 101. See Dkt. No. 176 (Joint Claim
24
Construction Statement); cf. Loyalty Conversion Sys. v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-655,
25
2014 WL 4364848, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2014) (Bryson, J., sitting by designation) (proceeding
26
with Section 101 determination at pleading stage after circumstances in that case showed that
27
“there [were] no disputed issues of claim construction that would affect the proper analysis of the
28
5
1
patentability of the asserted claims, and no other issues of fact that [were] material to the section
2
101 question”).
3
II.
Patent Eligibility
Under Section 101, the scope of patentable subject matter includes “any new and useful
4
5
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
6
thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Despite Section 101’s vast scope, there are three judicially-created
7
exceptions to patentability: laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas. See Bilski v.
8
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010); Mayo Collaborative Services v.
9
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012); Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at ___,
134 S. Ct. at 2354. These principles are not patent-eligible because “they are the basic tools of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
scientific and technological work,” which are “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.”
12
Mayo, 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1293 (citations omitted).
13
In determining whether a claim is patent eligible, a Court first “determine[s] whether the
14
claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at
15
___, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If it is, then the Court searches the claim for an “inventive concept
16
sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
17
natural law itself.” Id. at 2357 (internal quotations omitted); Mayo, 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. at
18
1294 (citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct at 3230, for the proposition that “the prohibition against patenting
19
abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
20
technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity’”).
21
III.
22
23
The Claims at Issue
A.
Abstract Idea
The Court must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-
24
ineligible concept. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The Supreme Court
25
recently reiterated the longstanding rule -- and the basis for the abstract idea exception to patent
26
eligibility -- that “an idea of itself is not patentable.” Id. The Supreme Court has invalidated a
27
number of patent claims on this basis. See e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. 593, 130 S. Ct. at 3231 (2010)
28
(holding that risk hedging was an abstract idea because “[h]edging is a fundamental economic
6
1
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class”);
2
Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (finding patent claims “drawn to the concept of
3
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk” were an abstract
4
idea beyond the scope of Section 101 because “[t]he use of a third-party intermediary (or ‘clearing
5
house’) is also a building block of the modern economy”).
6
The claims challenged here fall well within the conceptual zone of Bilski and Alice, and
amount to abstract ideas. They recite a very simple computer-driven method to engage in the
8
commonplace and time-honored practice of interacting with customers to promote marketing and
9
sales. Claim 38 of the ’372 patent claims a storage medium containing software that identifies
10
whether each participant in a set of participants has interacted with a website, assembles a set of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
second participants that are a subset of the first group, and performs an second action with that
12
subset. This describes the most basic and widely-understood principle of marketing: identify
13
potential or current customers and engage with them to improve their customer experience. On its
14
face, asking a customer about his or her experience and replying “Thank You” to those who
15
respond positively and, “I’m sorry, what can we do better?” to those who respond negatively is an
16
unpatentable abstract idea. Claim 22 of the ’007 patent is directed at the same abstract idea, and
17
fails for the same reason.
18
19
B.
Inventive Concept
The quality of being directed to an abstract idea is not in itself fatal to patentability.
20
Once the Court determines that a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it must “consider
21
the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether
22
the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice
23
Corp., 573 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotations omitted). The Court in Alice Corp.
24
and Mayo described this second step of the analysis as “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ -- i.e.,
25
an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
26
amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (citing Mayo,
27
566 U.S. at ___, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The additional steps must be more than “well-understood,
28
routine, conventional activity” or just computerizing the abstract idea. Mayo, 566 U.S. at ___, 132
7
1
S. Ct. at 1298; see also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (“Mayo made clear that
2
transformation into a patent-eligible application requires more than simply stating the abstract idea
3
while adding the words ‘apply it.’”) (internal quotations omitted).
4
In Alice Corp., the Court held that a claim directed to an abstract idea does not become
5
patent eligible under Section 101 by “merely requir[ing] generic computer implementation.” Alice
6
Corp., 573 U.S. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. The Supreme Court explained that the method claims
7
in Alice Corp. lacked an inventive concept because they “d[id] not, for example, purport to
8
improve the functioning of the computer itself” or “effect an improvement in any other technology
9
or technical field.” Id. at 2359. Instead, the claims only applied the abstract idea “using some
unspecified, generic computer.” Id. at 2360 (“Under our precedents, that is not “enough” to
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The system claims failed for the
12
same reason. They invoked “purely functional and generic” components for “performing the basic
13
calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.” Id.
14
The asserted claims in the ’372 and ’007 patents similarly fail to transform the abstract
15
idea into a patent-eligible invention. The asserted claims in both patents implement the basic
16
marketing scheme on a generic computer system without any meaningful limitations. Open Text’s
17
counsel conceded at the hearing that the patents could be implemented on a generic computer.
18
Open Text argues that the asserted claims “contain limitations tying them to specific ways of using
19
computers.” Dkt. 43 at 6-7. But as the Court in Alice Corp. and the Federal Circuit have
20
concluded, “[a]t best, that narrowing is an attempt to limit the use of the abstract … idea to a
21
particular technological environment, which has long been held insufficient to save a claim in this
22
context.” buySAFE, 2014 WL 4337771, at *5 (citing Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358) (internal
23
quotations omitted). For example, although claim 37 of the ’372 patent -- from which claim 38
24
depends -- recites a “computer readable storage medium,” this adds nothing of substance to the
25
basic, patent-ineligible marketing scheme. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (holding that a
26
claim reciting a “computer-readable medium” was invalid under Section 101); CyberSource Corp.
27
v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“the ‘computer readable medium’
28
limitation of claim 2 does not make the otherwise unpatentable method patent-eligible under §
8
1
101”). Nor does claim 38’s requirement that participants be identified based on their interaction
2
with a website compel a different result: simply identifying a criterion for selecting participants is
3
a prime example of attempting to save a claim by limiting it to a particular technological
4
environment. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1370 (use of the Internet to perform fraud detection
5
did not render the abstract idea of verifying credit card transactions patentable).
6
Similarly, although claim 22 of the ’007 patent recites an “email server coupled to the
dialog computer,” this limitation is insufficient to render the subject matter of the claim patentable.
8
Rather, that limitation merely builds on the same basic concept as claim 38 of the ’372 patent by
9
using email -- a decades-old technology that is certainly not inventive -- to accomplish the abstract
10
and basic marketing scheme. In no way does that sufficiently limit the nature of the abstract idea.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
CONCLUSION
12
13
14
15
16
17
Because the asserted claims of the ’372 and ’007 patents are patent ineligible under Section
101, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2014
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?