Broadcom Corporation et al v. Netflix, Inc.

Filing 259

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge James Donato on 8/8/2022. (jdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
NETFLIX INC,
Defendant.

12
13

In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs Broadcom Corp. and Avago Technologies

14

(Broadcom) sued defendant Netflix, Inc. (Netflix) for infringement of twelve patents related to

15

video streaming, including infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,183 (the ’183 patent). Dkt. No.

16

208 (third amended complaint (TAC)); Dkt. No. 208-12 (’183 patent). The Court granted

17

Netflix’s Rule 12(c) motion, and dismissed Broadcom’s twelfth claim in the second amended

18

complaint, Dkt. No. 172, on the grounds that the ’183 patent was directed to patent-ineligible

19

subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Dkt. No. 205. Broadcom was given leave to file the

20

TAC, and Netflix asks again to dismiss the twelfth claim again for patent-ineligible subject matter.

21

Dkt. No. 215. The parties’ familiarity with the record, and the Court’s prior order in particular, is

22

assumed. Dismissal is granted.

23
24

DISCUSSION
The Court’s prior order stated the governing law for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and patent

25

eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the facts of this dispute. Dkt. No. 205. It is incorporated

26

here. In summary, the Federal Circuit has determined that “it is possible and proper to determine

27

patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial

28

L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court set out a two-part test for

1

Section 101 in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). First, the

2

Court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” such as

3

an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. Id. at 218. If a patent is directed to a

4

patent-ineligible concept, the second step in Alice is to look for an “‘inventive concept’ -- i.e., an

5

element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts

6

to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. at 217-18.
The parties agree that Claim 1 is representative. Dkt. No. 215 at 5. The Court will

7
8

consequently treat Claim 1 as representative.

9

I.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

THE ’183 PATENT IS DIRECTED TO AN ABSTRACT IDEA
The Court determined that Claim 1 was directed to “the abstract idea of allocating tasks

11

across a system of servers.” Dkt. No. 205 at 6. Nothing has changed in the TAC on that score.

12

The TAC says that the ’183 patent teaches using rule statements and user-defined parameters to

13

identify the best computer devices in a system to perform the job and to make decisions about how

14

to distribute resources for different jobs. Dkt. No. 208 ¶¶ 363-64. Claim 1 recites this method of

15

allocating resources and tasks across a system, and is a quintessential abstract idea. See

16

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting

17

Alice, 573 U.S. at 219).

18

Broadcom’s main point against dismissal is that Claim 1 in the ’183 patent is directed to

19

an improvement to computer functionality, akin to the claims sustained in Data Engine

20

Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Dkt. No. 224 at 4. In Data

21

Engine, the claims were directed to improvements in computer spreadsheets, which were

22

complicated and required users to use complex and arbitrary operations to execute simple tasks.

23

Data Engine, 906, F.3d at 1008. The patent at issue provided an improved, user-friendly and

24

highly intuitive interface that allowed users to navigate spreadsheets with relative ease. Id. The

25

Federal Circuit found that these claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they recited

26

“a specific structure within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a specific function.” Id.

27

at 1010-11 (cleaned up).

28
2

The same cannot be said of the ’183 patent. Although the specification teaches that the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1
2

system can improve operational efficiency, Dkt. No. 208-12 at 1:20-23, the patent is still directed

3

to the abstract idea of allocating tasks across the system. Broadcom did not identify any specific

4

structures of the claimed system that perform and improve the operational efficiency of the system

5

itself. Instead, Broadcom merely makes highly general references to the process of using criteria

6

to determine what devices are suitable for a new job and then allocating the work to the devices

7

based on availability. Dkt. No. 224 at 5. While the Court has concluded in other circumstances

8

that “efficient computer processing” can be “indicative of patent-eligible subject matter,” Hybrid

9

Audio, LLC v. Asus Comput. Int’l, No. 17-cv-5947-JD, 2019 WL 3037540, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jul.

10

11, 2019), the ’183 patent is not directed to a specific improvement to computer processing.

11

Rather, the efficiency that is gained from using the method of the ’183 patent comes from the fact

12

that task management and allocation make tasks more efficient. The ’183 patent does not teach an

13

improvement to computer processing but a general task management and allocation system that is

14

implemented on computer systems. Consequently, Claim 1 of the ’183 patent is directed to an

15

abstract idea.

16

II.

17

THE ’183 PATENT LACKS AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT
The Court’s previous order determined that Claim 1 lacked an inventive concept because

18

“Claim 1 simply recites ordinary steps, performed in a conventional order, on conventional

19

computer technology.” Dkt. No. 205 at 8. That remains true.

20

Broadcom points only to its allegations that the ’183 patent teaches a “funnel approach”

21

which solves the problems of “poor system performance and system failures in a distributed

22

computing system” as the inventive concept of the ’183 patent. Dkt. No. 224 at 8-9. The “funnel

23

approach” is the sequential process of determining which computer devices in a distributed

24

network system are available, suitable, and underutilized for a particular job. Dkt. No. 208 ¶ 369-

25

70. Broadcom’s allegations state that the “funnel approach” was “an unconventional and novel

26

method for provisioning job[s] in a large network of computer devices.” Id. ¶ 371. But these

27

allegations are entirely conclusory and do not explain what is unconventional about the funnel

28

approach. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Linquet
3

1

Techs., Inc. v. Tile, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Broadcom does not point

2

to any other non-conclusory allegations in the TAC or to portions of the ’183 patent that establish

3

an inventive concept in Claim 1.
CONCLUSION

4
5

The twelfth claim of the TAC is dismissed. Because Broadcom has now had more than

6

one opportunity to amend, and the guidance provided by the Court’s prior order, the dismissal is

7

with prejudice.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2022

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4