Wildseed Mobile LLC v. Google LLC et al

Filing 110

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 92 MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO CLAIMS II, III, AND IV by Judge William H. Orrick. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILDSEED MOBILE LLC,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 22-cv-04928-WHO
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS AS TO CLAIMS
II, III, AND IV
Re: Dkt. No. 92

12
INTRODUCTION

13
14

Defendants Google LLC and YouTube LLC move to dismiss three of five patent

15

infringement claims brought by plaintiff Wildseed Mobile LLC (“Wildseed”), arguing that they

16

are directed to abstract ideas and fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

17

I agree that the ’960,’021, and ’040 patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, do not

18

improve device functionality, and do not contain any inventive concepts. These patents are invalid

19

under § 101. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is

20

GRANTED, and Claims II, III, and IV of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) are dismissed

21

with prejudice.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

22

Wildseed filed this action against defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Western

23
24

District of Texas and filed the operative first amended complaint on May 9, 2022. See First

25

Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 46] (“FAC”). In that complaint, Wildseed accused defendants of

26

infringing five of its patents. The parties stipulated to transfer the case to this District in August

27

2022.

28

Defendants bring a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil

1

Procedure 12(c), contending that three of the five asserted patents are invalid because they are

2

directed at unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dkt. No. 92 (“Mot.”). The patents

3

at issue in this motion are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,141,960 (the “’960 patent”), 10,251,021 (the “’021

4

patent”), and 10,959,040 (the “’040 patent”).
Although claim construction is sometimes necessary to resolve whether a patent claim is

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5
6

directed to unpatentable subject matter, the Federal Circuit has clarified that “claim construction is

7

not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v.

8

Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273–74 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where the court has

9

a “full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter,” the question of patent

10

eligibility may properly be resolved on the pleadings. Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1349. The

11

parties agree that no claim construction is required to resolve this motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12

The Wildseed patents claim priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/945,677, filed

13
14

on June 22, 2007 (See Ex. A, the ’677 Application), with the earliest non-provisional filing date of

15

June 23, 2008. An analysis of the validity of these patents focuses on the state of the art at that

16

time. “The Court need not individually analyze every claim under the Alice rubric if certain

17

claims are “representative.”” Esignature Software, LLC v. Adobe Inc., No. 22-CV-05962-JSC,

18

2023 WL 2808381, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023) (citing Twilio, 249 F. Supp. 3d at 1141).

19

While each patent contains multiple independent claims, at this procedural posture, I will treat

20

Claim 1 of the ’960 patent as representative because the claims are substantially similar and are all

21

linked to the same abstract idea.1 Each patent at issue is directed at using information about the

22

media contained on a user’s mobile device and the user’s location to recommend nearby venues or

23

events that would appeal to the user.

24

1. Claim

25

Claim 1 of the ’960 patent claims portable media players that utilize (1) what a person likes

26
27
28

Wildseed asserts 24 claims in the ’960 patent, 17 claims in the ’040 patent, and 12 claims in the
’021 patent, but treats Claim 1 of the ’960 patent as representative. Opposition (“Opp.”) [Dkt. No.
103] 5:15.
2
1

1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

(preferences) and (2) where a person is (location) to (3) recommend a venue/event:
It recites a method comprising:

3

[a] retrieving, by a server, a plurality of media stored on or accessed using a portable

4

media player device, or information about said plurality of media;

5

[b] inferring, by the server, based at least in part on the retrieved plurality of media

6

or the retrieved information about said plurality of media, one or more entertainment

7

preferences of a user of the portable media player device;

8

[c] accessing, by the server, one or more sources of information about venues or

9

events proximal to a current location of the user;

10

[d] identifying, by the server, at least one of said venues or events as being of interest

11

to the user based at least in part on the one or more entertainment preferences

12

inferred by the server and the current location of the user;

13

[e] generating, by the server, a recommendation indicating the identified venue or

14

event as a venue or event of interest to the user; and

15

[f] communicating, by the server, the recommendation to the user.

16
17
18

U.S. Patent No. 9,141,960 [Dkt. No. 46-2] Ex. B at 8:5-25.
2. Specification
The specification of the ’960 patent describes how a user’s location could be inferred:

19

The server may estimate the current location of the portable media
player device based on a location of a wireless access point through
which the portable media player device establishes a network
connection to the server. Or, the server may estimate the current
location of the portable media player device based upon the results of
triangulating signals from various signal towers or based upon the
server's communication with other portable media player devices
having known current locations. The server might also receive the
current location of the portable media player device from a global
positioning system (GPS) module located within the portable media
player device.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Id. at 4:39-51.
The specification also elaborates on how the user’s entertainment interests are inferred:
In various embodiments, the server can analyze the media and the
information about the media stored on or accessed using the portable
media player device to identify user preferences for particular genres
3

of media. Thus, in various embodiments, the server may analyze e.g.
the meta data associated with a wide variety of media stored on or
accessed using the portable media player device such as music,
podcasts, books or audiobooks, video, photos or other images for
various trends that can be translated into user preferences for a
particular genre of music, film, video or art. The meta data may
include data about the media title, media type, artist, subject matter,
and so forth. For example, the server may determine that the user has
a preference for a jazz music genre if the portable media player device
stores or has been used to access a substantial amount of music by
famous jazz artists such as Ella Fitzgerald or Louis Armstrong. What
constitutes a substantial amount may be evolved dynamically
overtime based on feedback on the relevance, success or usefulness
of the recommendation and/or information provided to the user or a
group of users. The server may also determine that the user has a
preference for film genres related to science fiction if a significant
number of science fiction movies such as Close Encounters of the
Third Kind or Star Wars are stored as video media in or accessed
using the portable media player device.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Id. at 5:22-46.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD
12
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), judgment on the pleadings is proper when,
13

accepting all material allegations in the nonmoving party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is

14
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.
15

2012). Defendant argues that the ’960,’021, and ’040 patents are ineligible for patent protection

16
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law. See In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1335
17
18

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Section 101 patent eligibility is a question of law”).
35 U.S.C. § 101 “defines the subject matter that may be patented under the Patent Act.”

19
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010). Under § 101,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

patentable subject matter includes “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. “These
categories are broad, but they are not limitless.” Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp., 249 F. Supp. 3d
1123, 1136 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d
296 (2014) (internal citation omitted). This is so because “they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work,” which are “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Mayo

27
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321
28
4

1

(2012) (quotation marks omitted). Allowing patent claims for such purported inventions “would

2

tend to impede innovation more than it would promote it.” Id. But Courts must “tread carefully in

3

construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at

4

217, 134 S.Ct. 2347. “At some level, all inventions embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws

5

of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Id. Accordingly, “applications of such concepts

6

to a new and useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.” Id.
The two-step “Alice” framework distinguishes “patents that claim laws of nature, natural

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

phenomena and abstract ideas from those that claim patent eligible applications of those

9

concepts.” Id. First, the Court must “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a

10

patent-ineligible concept.” Id. If so, the Court then assesses “whether the elements of the claim,

11

both individually and as an ordered combination . . . transform the nature of the claim into a patent

12

eligible application.” Id.

13

The Federal Circuit has held that the inventive concept in step two of this analysis must be

14

contained in the claim itself, “as opposed to something purportedly described in the specification.”

15

Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

16

However, the Federal Circuit clarified that it is appropriate to use the specifications to “inform [the

17

court’s] understanding of the claimed invention and the technological solution,” and “how the

18

elements in the claim functioned together.” Mentone Sols. LLC v. Digi Int’l Inc., No. 2021-1202,

19

2021 WL 5291802, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021). Accordingly, the specification cannot save

20

claims directed at an abstract idea but can inform my understanding of whether the claimed

21

invention provides a technological solution or inventive concept that transforms the claim into a

22

patent-eligible application.
DISCUSSION

23
24

I.

Alice Step One: Whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea

25

At Alice step one, a court decides whether the patents’ claims are directed to an “abstract

26

idea.” This inquiry has two parts. First, I must identify precisely what the claims are directed to

27

accomplish. Second, I must determine whether that “focus” is an abstract idea. Esignature

28

Software, LLC v. Adobe Inc., No. 22-CV-05962-JSC, 2023 WL 2808381, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21,
5

1
2
3

A. Identification of the focus
The identification step must be done with “enough specificity to ensure the step one

4

inquiry is meaningful.” Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.

5

2017). “Describing the claim at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language

6

of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule.” Enfish, LLC v.

7

Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

8
9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2023).

Wildseed characterizes its patents as being “directed to patent-eligible improvements to
portable media players’ functionality that build on the inherent technical capabilities of portable

10

media players to improve the overall user experience.” Opp. 11:6-8. It elaborates that the

11

“specification and claims are aligned to describe functional improvements (i.e., venue/event

12

recommendations based on a user’s inferred location and preferences) in a non-generic

13

environment (i.e., portable media players).” Defendants characterize the patents as being directed

14

to “customizing information (recommendations) based on information known about the user

15

(media stored on their devices) and specific data (location).” Mot. at 11:22-25. Wildseed’s

16

characterization makes a conclusory assertion that the claims describe a functional improvement to

17

portable media players. While I must accept the nonmovants material allegations as true, I need

18

not credit conclusory allegations. See Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.

19

2012) (describing the analysis under Rule 12(c) is “substantially identical” to analysis under Rule

20

12(b)(6)).

21

While defendants’ characterization seems to be high level, it appears to accurately describe

22

the claims. More precisely, the claimed inventions are directed toward providing tailored event

23

and venue recommendations to users. They do so through a specific method that evaluates

24

information accessible within mobile devices, including their location and the genres of media

25

stored on them, thus improving the usefulness of its recommendations to the user. The specific

26

method for accomplishing the goal, however, is a question for step two of the Alice analysis. And

27

novelty is irrelevant to step one of the Alice analysis. “We may assume that the techniques

28

claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility.”
6

1

SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and

2

citation omitted).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

B. Whether the focus is abstract

4

Having determined that the focus of the claimed invention is providing tailored event and

5

venue recommendations to users, I must determine whether that focus is indeed an abstract idea.

6

“Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Federal Circuit has set forth a bright line test separating

7

abstract ideas from concepts that are sufficiently concrete so as to require no further inquiry under

8

the first step of the Alice framework.” Twilio, 249 F. Supp. 3d at 1138 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at

9

221, 134 S.Ct. 2347). Rather, courts “compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be

10

directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,

11

1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

12

The parties cite a number of conflicting cases to support their arguments on whether the

13

focus of the patents is abstract. Most persuasive to me is the Federal Circuit’s discussion of

14

advertising in Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA) 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).

15

There, one patent at issue related to tailoring information displayed on a webpage based on the

16

viewer’s location information, and another related to tailoring that content based on navigation

17

information such as the time of day. The court called this “minimal tailoring” an abstract idea. Id.

18

at 1369. It analogized to the long-standing practice of tailoring advertisements based on a

19

newspaper reader’s location by providing different inserts based on distribution location. And it

20

described tailoring TV commercials based on the time of day that a viewer is watching as being an

21

abstract idea. Id. Wildseed’s patent seems to claim a combination of these two concepts, similar

22

to running a television commercial in a particular geographic area while also accounting for the

23

genre of the television show itself. This, too, is an abstract idea.

24

Wildseed relied on two cases: Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-

25

04738-WHO, 2021 WL 4148651 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys.,

26

Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Neither helps it.

27
28

In Contour, a case I decided, the patents were directed to solving a concrete functional
problem associated with point-of-view video cameras: that users could not readily see and control
7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

the video while using the cameras for their intended purpose (i.e., attached to the body during

2

movement). Id., *8. The patent accomplished this by streaming a low-quality video to a

3

smartphone so that the user could watch what was being recorded. It stored a high-quality video

4

that would ultimately be used, and received specified control signals from the smartphone so that

5

users could control the image from the smartphone. On that basis, I held that “[i]f an abstract idea

6

is applied in a non-generic environment and embodied a functional improvement, it succeeds at

7

step one.” Id. I distinguished this holding from FullView, where the district court had made an

8

explicit and uncontested finding that putting together multiple images to form a panoramic one is

9

something that the visual cortex did since the “dawn of humanity.” Id. (citing FullView, Inc. v.

10

Polycom, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1156, 1163 (N.D. Cal. 2020). In Contour, the moving party did

11

not provide any basis to draw a similar conclusion.

12

By contrast, Google has persuasively argued that making event and venue

13

recommendations based on information about a user’s media preferences and location has long

14

been done by humans without the aid of technology. That a handheld portable device constitutes a

15

non-generic environment is unpersuasive. A handheld device is not functionally distinguishable

16

from any other portable device in this context: it simply acts as a computer that performed a

17

function that has previously been performed without one.

18

Finjan is similarly inapplicable. There, the Federal Circuit noted that performing a virus

19

scan on an intermediary computer, as opposed to the user’s computer, is abstract. Finjan at 1304.

20

But the patented method at issue in Finjan “does a good deal more.” Id. Conventional virus scans

21

used “code-matching” to recognize the presence of viruses by cross-referencing to a database of

22

known virus code. Id. Finjan’s patent was directed at a specific functional improvement to virus

23

scans by employing a downloadable file that enabled a “behavior based” virus scan. Id. This

24

behavior-based scan identified suspicious code based on its behavior, such as “potentially

25

dangerous or unwanted operations—such as renaming or deleting files.” Id. It constituted an

26

improvement to computer functionality. Wildseed does not claim an improvement to computer

27

functionality. Instead, it claims an abstract idea “for which computers are invoked merely as a

28

tool.” Id. (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

II.

Alice Step Two: The presence of an inventive concept or improvement to computer

2

functionality

3

At step two of Alice, I must “consider the elements of each claim both individually and as

4

an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the

5

claim into a patent-eligible application.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334

6

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In doing so, I must “search for

7

an inventive concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that

8

the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]

9

itself.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). But this

10

allegedly inventive concept “cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract

11

idea on a computer” and “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself.” BASCOM

12

Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

13

Generally, this innovation “must involve more than performance of well-understood,

14

routine, [or] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Content Extraction &

15

Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “[T]he

16

mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a

17

patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 1348. However, “an inventive concept can be found in the non-

18

conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d

19

at 1350.

20

Wildseed contends that the requisite “inventive step” lies in “the combination of portable

21

media players and the added functionality of providing venue/event recommendations based on

22

the inferred location and preferences of the user.” Opp. at 5:25-27. It characterizes this as an

23

improvement to the mobile device’s functionality, building on its inherent functionality of storing

24

media and being connected to the internet. But this is still an abstract concept, and Wildseed’s

25

claims cover every technical implementation of the concept. That the specification provides some

26

examples of how this might be accomplished does not change that the patents would apply to any

27

means of tailoring recommendations based on a combination of the user’s location and

28

“entertainment preferences,” as inferred based on the “plurality of media” stored on the user’s
9

1

device. As those technical means continue to develop, Wildseed’s patents would continue to

2

apply.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Evaluating the claim as an ordered combination yields the same result. The order of the

4

steps is not inventive: collect information, analyze it, and communicate the result of that

5

analysis—in the conventional order. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,

6

874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “[t]he claim uses a conventional ordering of

7

steps—first processing the data, then routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception—with

8

conventional technology to achieve its desired result.”).

9

Wildseed cites Weisner v. Google LLC for the proposition that search queries targeting a

10

geographic area can contain an inventive concept. Weisner v. Google LLC, 51 F.4th 1073, 1086

11

(Fed. Cir. 2022). There, the Federal Circuit explained that the process at issue was “more than just

12

the concept of improving a web search using location history—[but] a specific implementation of

13

that concept.” In one patent, this was achieved by using a reference individual who had visited

14

similar locations to the target user in order to refine recommendations to the target user. Id. In

15

another patent, it was by searching the location history of the target user in order to improve

16

computerized search results. Id. It was these specific solutions, not the wider concept as

17

articulated by Wildseed, that the Federal Circuit found to be plausibly protectable on a 12(b)(6)

18

motion.

19

Wildseed also argues that the patents are narrowly drawn because they are limited to

20

mobile devices, not including laptops and tablets. It points to examples of portable media players

21

available at the time that are referenced in the patent itself: “the ipod available from Apple

22

Computer,” “the Zune available from Microsoft Corporation” and “the ibiza™ Rhapsody® from

23

Varia Mobil.” ’960 at 1:37-41.

24

To be sure, mobile devices were less sophisticated and less prevalent in 2008 than they are

25

today. But whether it is a mobile device or a laptop implementing the claim, it is still ultimately a

26

computer implementation of something a human could do, and would previously have done. This

27

is illustrated by the language used in the claim itself: retrieving, inferring, accessing, identifying,

28

generating, and communicating. Aside from some “generic computer-implemented steps, as in
10

1

Intel. Ventures I, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being

2

performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intel.Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,

3

838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This lack of specific implementation (aside from reciting

4

capabilities of the mobile devices themselves) belies a finding that the patents improve the

5

functionality of the mobile devices.
CONCLUSION

6
7
8

§ 101. They are directed to an abstract idea and do not contain sufficient inventiveness to

9

transform the concept into patentable subject matter. Accordingly, defendants’ motion for

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the ’960,’021, and ’040 patents are invalid under

12

judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, and counts II, III, and IV of the FAC are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2023

13
14
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11