Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
Filing
230
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING FACEBOOKS 205 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.This order also grants docket no. 197 ; denies docket no. 198 ; and grants docket no. 212 .(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2020)
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 20
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
FACEBOOK, INC.,
ORDER GRANTING FACEBOOK’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 197, 198, 205, 212
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 12-cv-03970-HSG
Pending before the Court is Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook”) motion for judgment
12
13
on the pleadings. Dkt. No. 205 (“Mot.”), 215 (“Opp.”), and 222 (“Reply”). For the reasons
14
explained below, the Court GRANTS the motion.1
15
I.
BACKGROUND
16
A.
17
All three asserted patents, U.S. Patents Nos. 5,544,352 (“’352 Patent”), 5,832,484 (“’494
The Patents
18
Patent”), and 6,233,571 (“’571 Patent”), share the same title—“Method and Apparatus for
19
Indexing, Searching and Displaying Data”—and generally relate to a research tool for indexing,
20
searching and displaying data that focuses on the relationship between items. See Dkt. No. 198-2
21
(’352 Patent), 198-4 (’494 Patent), 198-6 (’571 Patent). The ’352 Patent is a parent patent of the
22
continuation-in-part ’494 and ’571 Patents. All three share substantially the same written
23
description, with the ’494 and ’571 Patents adding network- or web-related disclosure to the ’352
24
patent. All three specifications identify problems in the then-existing text-based computer search
25
26
27
28
Because the Court’s reasoning applies to both the asserted claims and the contingent claims
identified in Software Rights Archive, LLC’s (“SRA”) motion for leave to amend claim election
and infringement contentions, the Court also DENIES that motion. Dkt. No. 198. The Court
addresses the parties’ related motions to seal portions of their brief and accompanying exhibits at
the end of this Order.
1
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 20
1
technology (Boolean search), which would fail to return a desired result because the request was
2
not precisely phrased, or would produce too many results without any indication as to which result
3
was significant or important. See e.g., ’571 Patent, at col. 1, ll. 54 – col. 2, ll. 13. The patents
4
instead use “non-semantic link analysis (i.e., the analysis of citation and hyperlink relationships
5
between records) to enhance computerized searching of electronic databases such as those related
6
to the World Wide Web.” Dkt. No. 181 (First Amended Complaint or “FAC”) at ¶ 14. These
7
“indirect citation relationships, including hyperlink pointers to the World Wide Web, contain
8
useful information concerning an object’s ‘importance’ or ‘relatedness’ that could be used to
9
identify the most relevant or related objects among a pool of objects,” resulting in more useful
search results. Opp. at 3 (citing ’571 Patent, at col. 14, ll. 21 – col. 15, ll. 67, col. 48 ll. 19–62, col.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
50, ll. 4–27; FAC ¶¶ 23–34).
12
B.
13
SRA filed an infringement action against Facebook on July 27, 2012. Dkt. No. 1. In its
Procedural Background
14
initial complaint, SRA alleged that Facebook uses, offers for sale, and sells services that are
15
covered by the claims in the patents-in-suit. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 12–20.
16
SRA notified the Court of disclosure of its initial asserted claims and infringement
17
contentions on December 24, 2012. Dkt. No. 34 at 2. SRA’s initial infringement contentions
18
asserted 74 claims from the three patents-in-suit, and Facebook (along with Twitter, Inc. and
19
LinkedIn Corp., defendants in related actions) sought in February 2013 to reduce the number of
20
asserted claims to 30. Dkt. No. 41 at 2. Under In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent
21
Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Court granted Defendants’ motion and
22
ordered SRA to limit its initially asserted claims to 30. Id. The Court further noted that SRA
23
would have “the opportunity to amend its infringement contentions on August 16, 2013, upon a
24
showing of good cause,” and the chance to add claims after technical discovery if those claims
25
presented “unique questions of validity.” Id. at 2. The Court ordered SRA to select the 30 claims
26
to assert on or before March 8, 2013, and SRA did so. On September 5, 2013, the parties
27
stipulated to extend SRA’s deadline to amend its claim election and infringement contentions to
28
November 15, 2013, noting that SRA “will need sixty days to complete the review of source code
2
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 3 of 20
1
discovery necessary to prepare its amended infringement contentions.” Dkt. No. 73.
The cases were stayed on September 17, 2013, pending completion of proceedings before
2
3
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) or further order of the Court. Dkt. No.
4
82. The Court lifted the stay at the end of April 2019, as the PTO proceedings were completed in
5
2018. Dkt. Nos. 157, 158. At the end of the proceedings, only claims 26, 28, and 31 of the ’571
6
Patent remained; all other elected claims were found unpatentable. See Dkt. No. 157
7
(summarizing PTAB and Federal Circuit findings). SRA subsequently sought leave to file a first
8
amended complaint to add factual allegations concerning the patent eligibility of SRA’s asserted
9
claims, in light of the heightened pleading requirements resulting from the abrogation of Form 18
and the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Court granted SRA’s motion, and SRA filed its FAC on July 30, 2019. Dkt. Nos. 178, 181.
12
On September 6, 2019, SRA filed a motion for leave to amend claim election and
13
infringement contentions to add nine additional asserted claims to the three asserted claims. See
14
Dkt. No. 198. SRA seeks to add ’352 Patent claim 35, ’494 Patent claims 2, 13, 34, 37, 43, 46,
15
and 47, and ’571 Patent claim 32. Id. On September 20, 2019, Facebook filed the present motion
16
for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dkt. No. 205. The Court held a hearing on
17
both motions on December 12, 2019. See Dkt. No. 226.
18
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
19
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(c) a party may move for judgment on
20
the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” “Judgment
21
on the pleadings is proper when, taking all allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is
22
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Stanley v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129,
23
1133 (9th Cir. 2006). “Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6) and . . . the same
24
standard of review applies to motions brought under either rule.” Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen.
25
Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). The Court
26
will “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light
27
most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d
28
1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
3
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 4 of 20
Section 101 of the Patent Act describes the scope of patentable subject matter as
2
encompassing “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
3
any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is well settled that laws of nature,
4
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are excluded from the universe of patentable subject matter.
5
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. These categories are not patent-eligible because “they are the basic
6
tools of scientific and technological work,” which are “free to all men and reserved exclusively to
7
none.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) (citations
8
omitted). Allowing patent claims for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas would
9
“tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it,” thereby thwarting the primary
10
object of the patent laws. Id. at 1293. However, the Supreme Court has also recognized the need
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
to “tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”
12
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
13
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have articulated a two-part test for determining
14
whether a claim’s subject matter is patent-eligible. First, a court “determine[s] whether a claim is
15
‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
16
Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative
17
Servs., 132 S.Ct. at 1296–97). If so, the Court then “consider[s] the elements of the claim—both
18
individually and as an ordered combination—to assess whether the additional elements transform
19
the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.” Id. at 1347. “This is
20
the search for an ‘inventive concept’—something sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
21
‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea itself.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs., 132
22
S.Ct. at 1294).
23
Two decisions of the Federal Circuit shed particular light on the Alice inquiry as applied to
24
computer-related technology. In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the Federal Circuit found it
25
“relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality
26
versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice analysis.” 822 F.3d
27
1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]he ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,
28
considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to
4
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 5 of 20
1
excluded subject matter.’” Id. (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
2
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). As set forth in Enfish, the key question is “whether the focus of the
3
claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a
4
process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id.
5
at 1335–36.
6
In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig. (“TLI”) emphasized that claims are drawn to an
7
abstract idea if they are directed to “the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but
8
well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to
9
any problem presented by combining the two.” 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, claims
that describe “a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” are not
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
abstract, but claims that describe a system and methods in “purely functional terms” without “any
12
technical details for the tangible components” are abstract. Id.
13
Following Enfish and TLI, the Federal Circuit further refined the Alice inquiry as it applies
14
to computer-related claims. For instance, in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., the
15
Federal Circuit defined the key inquiry as “whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific
16
means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect
17
that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” 837 F.3d
18
1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In performing this analysis, the Court “must focus on the language
19
of the asserted claims themselves,” and “complex details from the specification cannot save a
20
claim directed to an abstract idea that recites generic computer parts.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
21
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To determine whether the “claim’s
22
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter” the Court evaluates the claimed
23
“advance” over the prior art. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325
24
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). The Court is to “examine earlier cases in which a similar or
25
parallel descriptive nature can be seen—what prior cases were about, and which way they were
26
decided.” Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
27
Finally, in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., the Federal Circuit emphasized
28
that the question of eligibility may be determined at the pleadings stage “only when there are no
5
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 6 of 20
1
factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.”
2
882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
3
III.
ANALYSIS
Facebook moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), arguing that all
4
5
asserted and contingent2 claims are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing relationships between
6
items and fail to assert any inventive concept to transform the nature of the claims into a patent-
7
eligible application of the abstract idea. See generally Mot. The Court proceeds under the two-
8
part test outlined in Alice.
9
A.
Step One
According to Facebook, “[t]he asserted and contingent claims all recite methods that are
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
directed to the unremarkable concept of analyzing information about relationships between items.”
12
Mot. at 4. As noted above, the patents’ specifications provide that “[t]he invention simplifies the
13
research task by improving upon methods of searching data including textual objects and by
14
implementing a user interface that significantly enhances the presentation of the data.” ’571
15
Patent at col. 3, ll. 24–30. While the Patent specification is helpful to provide background
16
regarding the technology, the Court “must focus on the language of the asserted claims
17
themselves.” Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1149. Accordingly, the Court details the specific recitations
18
of the asserted claims.
Asserted claims 26, 28, and 31 of the ’571 patent recite steps for analyzing information
19
20
including hyperjump data and URLs and displaying the results. Dependent Claim 26 recites:
21
23. A method for displaying information about a network that has
hyperjump data, comprising:
choosing a node;
accessing the hyperjump data;
identifying hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data
that has a direct reference to the chosen node;
determining hyperjump data from within the accessed hyperjump data
that has an indirect reference to the chosen node using the identified
hyperjump data, wherein the step of determining comprises proximity
analyzing the identified hyperjump data; and
displaying one or more determined hyperjump data,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Contingent claims” means the eight claims that SRA seeks to add via its motion for leave to
amend claim election and infringement contentions. See Dkt. No. 198.
6
2
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 7 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
wherein the chosen node is an object stored in a database that has
direct relationships with other objects in said database and said direct
relationships relate to hyperlink relationships on the world wide web;
and wherein the step of proximity analyzing comprises:
analyzing indirect relationships by scoring one or more paths of direct
links between two indirectly related nodes by analyzing weights
associated with direct links that make up the path between the nodes.
26. The method of claim 23, wherein the step of displaying is
influenced by a number of times a web object is visited.
Dkt. No. 198-7 (“’571 Patent Reexam.”) at col. 3, ll. 12–34, 48–49. Independent Claim 28 recites:
7
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
28. A method for visually displaying data related to a web having
identifiable web pages and Universal Resource Locators with
pointers, comprising:
choosing an identifiable web page;
identifying Universal Resource Locators for the web pages, wherein
the identified Universal Resource Locators either point to or point
away from the chosen web page;
analyzing Universal Resource Locators, including the identified
Universal Resource Locators, wherein Universal Resource Locators
which have an indirect relationship to the chosen web page are
located, wherein the step of analyzing further comprises cluster
analyzing the Universal Resource Locators for indirect relationships;
and displaying identities of web pages, wherein the located Universal
Resource Locators are used to identify web pages, wherein the step
of displaying is influenced by a number of times a web object is
visited and wherein the cluster analysis uses a damping factor.
Id. at col. 4, ll. 11–34. Finally, dependent Claim 31 recites:
16. A method for navigating documents on the world wide web,
comprising:
choosing a document;
identifying documents that have a direct relationship to the chosen
document;
locating documents that have an indirect relationship to the chosen
document identifying Universal Resource Locators for the
documents, wherein the identified Universal Resource Locators either
point to or point away from the chosen document;
analyzing Universal Resource Locators, including the identified
Universal Resource Locators, wherein Universal Resource Locators
which have an indirect relationship to the chosen document are
located, wherein the step of analyzing further comprises analyzing the
Universal Resource Locators for indirect relationships using cluster
links; and
displaying a located document.
31. The method of claim 16, wherein the step of displaying is
influenced by a number of times a web object is visited
Id. at col. 2, ll. 19–37, col. 5, ll. 1–2.
Focusing on the language of the asserted claims, as it must, the Court agrees that the
7
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 8 of 20
1
claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely the collection, analysis, and display of certain
2
information.
3
The Federal Circuit treats the “collecti[on of] information, including when limited to
4
particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of
5
abstract ideas.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It
6
further “recognize[s] that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
7
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is
8
abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id. at 1354. The claims asserted here
9
are directed to precisely what the Federal Circuit has held to be an abstract idea. They rely on
existing types of information—such as Universal Record Locators, hyperlinks, and web objects—
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
and outline a method to analyze relationships between items based on such information, then
12
display the results. Although the alleged invention may obtain better search results than text-
13
based Boolean searching, this does not represent any direct improvement to computer technology.
14
The patents do not detail any efficiency benefits to the computer itself—such as improved memory
15
availability or operating speed—but only point to improving the search results displayed
16
generically to the user. The claims fail to detail how to achieve these results from a technological
17
perspective, or to establish that any specific technology is required. They instead provide general
18
detail about collecting and analyzing the information on conventional computers. The claims thus
19
fit squarely within the “line of precedent that . . . classifies data collection, organization, and
20
analysis as abstract—even where that produces new data—in the absence of a claimed
21
technological improvement.” Brightedge Techs., Inc. v. Searchmetrics, GmbH, 304 F. Supp. 3d
22
859, 867 (N.D. Cal. 2018); see also Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1326–27 (finding method
23
claims reciting an index-searchable database abstract); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v.
24
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding “that filtering content [on the
25
Internet] is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human
26
behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract.”); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v.
27
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that method regarding
28
generation of a device profile claimed an abstract idea because it “describe[d] a process of
8
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 9 of 20
1
organizing information through mathematical correlations and [was] not tied to a specific structure
2
or machine”).
3
The Court further finds that the contingent claims are directed to the same abstract idea.
4
SRA seeks leave to assert Claim 32, which was not challenged in any IPR petition and recites a
5
method that is substantially similar to the one detailed in the asserted ’571 claims, but which relies
6
on “hyperjump data.” See ’571 Patent Reexam. at col. 5, ll. 3–14, col. 6, ll. 1–12. Contingent
7
Claim 35 of the ’352 Patent depends from claims 26 and 34, which the PTAB and Federal Circuit
8
held invalid. It similarly recites a method for analyzing information that includes creating, storing,
9
and analyzing “numerical representations” based upon relationships. Dependent Claim 35 recites:
10
26. A non-semantical method for numerically representing objects in
a computer database and for computerized searching of the
numerically represented objects in the database, wherein direct and
indirect relationships exist between objects in the database,
comprising:
marking objects in the database so that each marked object may be
individually identified by a computerized search;
creating a first numerical representation for each identified object in
the database based upon the object’s direct relationship with other
objects in the database;
storing the first numerical representations for use in computerized
searching;
analyzing the first numerical representations for indirect relationships
existing between or among objects in the database;
generating a second numerical representation of each object based on
the analysis of the first numerical representation;
storing the second numerical representation for use in computerized
searching; and
searching the objects in the database using a computer and the stored
second numerical representations, wherein the search identifies one
or more of the objects in the database.
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
34. The non-semantical method of claim 26, wherein objects in the
database may be divided into subsets and wherein the marking step
includes the step of marking subsets of objects in the database and
wherein relationships exist between or among subsets of objects in
the database.
35. The non-semantical method of claim 34 wherein the objects are
textual objects with paragraphs and the subsets are the paragraphs of
the textual objects, the method further comprising the steps of:
creating a subset numerical representation for each subset based upon
the relationships between or among subsets;
analyzing the subset numerical representations;
clustering the subsets into sections based upon the subset analysis;
and
generating a section numerical representation for each section,
9
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 10 of 20
wherein the section numerical representations are available for
searching.
1
2
’352 Patent at col. 35, ll. 28–54, col. 36, ll. 65 – col. 37, ll. 17. Importantly, the claim does not
3
indicate that the numerical representations of textual objects change the character of the
4
information. Instead it indicates that the “numerical information” is used to “analyz[e] . . . for
5
indirect relationships existing between or among objects in the database.” Id. Again, then, the
6
claim states a method by which to collect and analyze relationships between items.
Most of the contingent claims of the ’494 patent depend from claims the Federal Circuit
7
8
held invalid. Contingent claims 2, 34, and 37 depend from invalid claim 1, and were not
9
challenged in IPR. They recite:
10
1. A method of analyzing a database with indirect relationships, using
links and nodes, comprising the steps of:
selecting a node for analysis;
generating candidate cluster links for the selected node, wherein the
step of generating comprises an analysis of one or more indirect
relationships in the database;
deriving actual cluster links from the candidate cluster links;
identifying one or more nodes for display; and
displaying the identity of one or more nodes using the actual cluster
links.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
2. The method of claim 1 wherein each link is given a length, the step
of generating the candidate cluster links comprises the steps of:
choosing a number as the maximum number of link lengths that will
be examined; and
examining only those links which are less than the maximum number
of link lengths.
16
17
18
19
34. The method of claim 1, wherein said use of cluster links in
displaying the identity of identified nodes comprises using one or
more cluster links to determine a rank which is used as a factor in
display, and wherein said generation of candidate cluster links
recursively analyzes a set of direct links in a path.
20
21
22
23
37. The method of claim 34, wherein an independent application
determines a cost associated with accessing the identified nodes.
’494 Patent at col. 51, ll. 49–56; Dkt. No. 198-5 (’494 Patent Reexam.”) at col. 1, ll. 27–32, 43–
24
45. Claim 13 depends from claim 12, and similarly recites a process for analyzing relationships
25
26
between objects, but does so by analyzing the “proximity” of one object to another. ’494 Patent at
col. 52, ll. 34–50.3 And contingent claim 43, also not challenged in IPR, depends from claim 14.
27
28
3
Neither claim 12 nor claim 13 was challenged in IPR.
10
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 11 of 20
1
Claims 15 and 16 also depend from claim 14 and were invalidated by the Federal Circuit. Claim
2
43 recites:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
14. A method for representing the relationship between nodes using
stored direct links, paths, and candidate cluster links, comprising the
steps of:
a) initializing a set of candidate cluster links;
b) selecting the destination node of a path as the selected node to
analyze;
c) retrieving the set of direct links from the selected node to any other
node in the database;
d) determining the weight of the path using the retrieved direct links;
repeating steps b through d for each path; and
e) storing the determined weights as candidate cluster links.
40. The method of claim 14, wherein said direct links are hyperlink
relationships on the world wide web and said paths are chains of
hyperlinks that make up indirect relationships, and wherein the
determination of the path weight uses a damping factor.
42. The method of claim 40, wherein the selected node is an object on
the worldwide web, further comprising: selecting actual cluster links
from the stored candidate cluster links based upon an analysis of a
proximity of the selected node to another node, using actual cluster
links to calculate a value for an object prior to a search query, wherein
said value is used to determine the object’s importance, and storing
said value in an index prior to searching.
43. The method of claim 42, wherein the determination of importance
considers a number of times the web object is visited.
17
Id. at col. 52, ll. 51–64; ’494 Patent Reexam. at col. 1, ll. 58–62, col. 2, ll. 1–12. Finally, claims
18
46 and 47, also not challenged in IPR, depend from invalid claim 18. These claims describe
19
substantially the same numerical representation analysis described in dependent claim 35 of the
20
’352 Patent, but include an analytical step that requires ranking numerical representations by “at
21
least a number of times a web object is visited.” ’494 Patent Reexam. at col. 2, ll. 24–34.
22
None of these contingent claims compel any different outcome than discussed above. Each
23
contingent claim is similarly directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and displaying
24
information. The only real differences between the contingent claims and the asserted claims are
25
the limitations to certain types of relationships, different types of analyzed information (numerical
26
representations), and other analytical methods (recursive analysis). None of these differences
27
change the conclusion that the patents are directed to abstract ideas. See SAP Am., Inc. v.
28
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have already noted that limitation of
11
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 12 of 20
1
the claims to a particular field of information . . . does not move the claims out of the realm of
2
abstract ideas.”).
SRA makes three arguments for why the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and
3
4
instead recite a patent eligible invention. Opp. at 8–16. First, SRA argues that the claims recite
5
specific technological improvements to search and display methods. Second, SRA argues that the
6
claims are directed to improved data structures reflecting indirect relationships of hyperlinks to
7
achieve search improvements. Finally, SRA argues that the claims are directed to an improved
8
display using the analysis of indirect relationships and visits to web objects. The Court does not
9
find any of these arguments persuasive.
SRA first argues that the claims recite specific technological improvements to search
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
methods via identification and use of “indirect relationships in a network (a new source of
12
information) to locate web pages and objections for display.” Opp. at 9. As an initial matter, even
13
if the Court accepts that indirect relationships are a new source of information, novelty is
14
considered in the second step of the Alice analysis. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
15
839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Next, limiting the invention to a specific type of
16
information (indirect relationships) does not make “an abstract concept any less abstract under
17
step one.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
18
2017) (“Intellectual Ventures II”). The invention’s use of indirect relationships simply changes
19
the information relied upon by a generic computer to organize, analyze, and display items. Unlike
20
cases in which the claims recite a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, here
21
“the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain
22
independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354.
23
Additionally, despite SRA’s insistence to the contrary, the claims do not specify how a computer
24
achieves the desired result. The claims instead recite broad functions—“identifying” and
25
“accessing” hyperjump data, “identifying” and “analyzing” URLs, “displaying” a document, and
26
“generating” cluster links, among others—which “provide[] only a results-oriented solution” Id.4
27
28
SRA’s perfunctory argument that claim construction is necessary does not change the outcome.
SRA suggests construing indirect relationships as “relationships where at least one intermediate
12
4
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 13 of 20
1
SRA next argues that the claims are directed to improved data structures (cluster links),
and thus are not abstract. Opp. at 14–16. As the Federal Circuit recently noted, “[n]ot
3
infrequently, patentees, like [Software Rights], latch on to . . . language from Alice and claim that
4
their claims do ‘improve the functioning of the computer itself.’” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish
5
Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020). But the claims here do not do so. The
6
invention’s “cluster links” are, at their core, values obtained through statistical analysis of various
7
related data points, which are then used to further analyze and display information. See FAC at
8
¶¶44–45. “Although these data structures add a degree of particularity to the claims, the
9
underlying concept embodied by the limitations merely encompasses the abstract idea itself”—
10
namely, collecting, analyzing, and displaying information. Intellectual Ventures II, 850 F.3d at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
2
1341. There is nothing to indicate that these supposed structures somehow improve the
12
computer’s functioning. Thus, SRA’s reliance on Enfish, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879
13
F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d
14
1143, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2019), is unfounded. “[T]he self-referential database found patent eligible
15
in Enfish did more than allow computers to perform familiar tasks with greater speed and
16
efficiency; it actually permitted users to launch and construct databases in a new way.” Finjan,
17
879 F.3d at 1305. In Finjan, the claim “employ[ed] a new kind of file that enable[d] a computer
18
security system to do things it could not do before,” which “allow[ed] the system to accumulate
19
and utilize newly available, behavior-based information about potential threats.” Id. And in
20
Gemalto, “the appealed claims recite[d] a sufficiently specific implementation (i.e., modifying the
21
permutation applied to the original data ‘in time’) of an existing tool (i.e., check data generating
22
device) that improves the functioning of the overall technological process of detecting systematic
23
24
25
26
27
28
object exists between two objects and where the intermediate objects connect the two obtains
through a chain of citations.” Opp. at 5. SRA does not indicate whether this construction is
disputed or explain why acceptance of its construction even matters. Regardless, even accepting
this construction, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea since SRA’s construction of
“indirect relationships” just describes existing information regarding the data. See Aatrix, 882
F.3d at 1125 (“If there are claim construction disputes at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, . . . the court
must proceed by adopting the non-moving party's constructions or the court must resolve the
disputes to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis, which may well be less than a
full, formal claim construction.”) (internal citations omitted).
13
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 14 of 20
1
errors in data transmissions.” 942 F.3d at 1151. The new structure, new file, or specific
2
implementation of a change to an error-checking tool in these cases improved the computer’s basic
3
functioning, rather than simply reflecting the result of a statistical analysis that could be
4
accomplished using any computer.
5
Finally, while the claims mention the display of information, they do so generically and do
not specify any particular improvements to the display. SRA argues that the specifications and
7
FAC detail an improved display including a list of selected links “that allows the user to
8
efficiently navigate a large network such as the World Wide Web to locate related content of
9
interest.” Opp. at 17 (citing FAC at ¶¶ 71–83). It is the claim language, however, that must detail
10
any display improvements. See ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769 (Fed.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
Cir. 2019) (“Ultimately, ‘[t]he § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims
12
themselves,’ and the specification cannot be used to import details from the specification if those
13
details are not claimed.”) (quoting Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1149). Here, the only claim language
14
directed to an improvement in display appears in claim 23 (upon which claim 26 depends) and
15
claim 28 of the ’571 Patent, which recite in relevant part:
16
displaying one or more determined hyperjump data
17
displaying identities of web pages, wherein the located Universal
Resource Locators are used to identify web pages, wherein the step
of displaying is influenced by a number of times a web object is
visited and wherein the cluster analysis uses a damping factor.
18
19
’571 Patent Reexam. at col. 3, ll. 12–34, col. 4, ll. 11–34. This limited display-related language
20
does not point to an improvement in the display, but instead simply relies on an existing display
21
structure to present a user with more relevant web page links than previously presented.
22
Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Facebook, Inc. is thus distinguishable from the present case. No.
23
17-cv-05383-HSG, 2018 WL 3932434 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018). In Hypermedia, the “invention
24
improve[d] a specific online search mechanism by creating web programs that are geared towards
25
26
27
entertaining and presenting the user with desirable information in a new way: through ‘linearly
linked websites.’” Id. at *4. The Hypermedia claims detailed an “improved user interface”
including a “map area having a plurality of icons.” Id. at *3. Neither the asserted nor contingent
28
14
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 15 of 20
1
claims include any such detail regarding any new means of displaying data.
2
The Court agrees with Facebook that SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161
3
(Fed. Cir. 2018), addressed an analogous situation. There, the invention sought to improve upon
4
conventional financial analyses which “understate[d] the true risk and overstate[d] [the] potential
5
rewards for an investment or trading strategy.” 898 F.3d at 1164. The SAP claims related to
6
techniques that utilize resampled statistical methods for the analysis of financial data, which the
7
Federal Circuit ultimately held to be directed to the abstract idea of “collecting information,
8
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Id. at 1167 (quoting
9
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353). Similar to those in SAP, the asserted and contingent claims
concern (1) selecting certain information (indirect relationships in a network); (2) analyzing these
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
relationships through statistical analysis (using cluster links); then (3) displaying the results of the
12
analysis (which purportedly contain more relevant web page links than before). The claims do not
13
focus on improving the computer, database, or display; they focus instead on a specific analysis
14
and a conventional display of the results of the analysis.
15
Accordingly, the Court finds that the asserted and contingent claims are directed to the
16
abstract idea of collecting and analyzing relationships between items and displaying the results,
17
and thus fail Alice step one.
18
B.
19
The Court next considers “whether the claimed elements—‘individually or as an ordered
Step Two
20
combination’—recite an inventive concept.” Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306,
21
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 217). To constitute an inventive concept, the
22
claim limitations must “involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, [and]
23
conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128 (quoting
24
Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48). “Whether a combination of claim limitations supplies
25
an inventive concept that renders a claim ‘significantly more’ than an abstract idea to which it is
26
directed is a question of law.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
27
2018). However, “whether a claim limitation or combination of limitations is well-understood,
28
routine, and conventional is a factual question,” and the Court must take as true SRA’s factual
15
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 16 of 20
1
allegations at this stage. Id. Still, SRA must include “plausible and specific factual allegations
2
that aspects of the claims are inventive.” Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1317. “Any allegation about
3
inventiveness, wholly divorced from the claims or the specification,” will not defeat a motion to
4
dismiss. Id.
SRA argues that the elements of the claims specify inventive concepts sufficient to survive
5
Alice step two. Generally, the problem identified by the patents-in-suit was the failure of text-
7
based search technology to return desired results. See e.g., ’571 Patent, at col. 1, ll. 54–col. 2, ll.
8
13. SRA contends that the invention produced better search results through three unconventional
9
improvements: (1) “the use of indirect relationships as expressed as hyperlinks alone and in
10
combination with the factor ‘visits to a website’ for search; (2) “cluster links” and other data
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
6
structures that represented indirect relationships of hyperlinks; and (3) display arrangement of
12
hyperjump data determined through the analysis of indirect relationships. Opp. at 19. SRA relies
13
on allegations in its FAC to support its averments of unconventionality. See e.g., FAC at ¶ 35.5
SRA’s alleged “inventive concept” is essentially collecting and using specific
14
15
“unconventional” pieces of information or data (indirect relationships and cluster links) to analyze
16
the relationship between the item being searched and potential results. “It has been clear since
17
Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply
18
the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”
19
BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290. It was precisely this concept that the Court found was directed to the
20
abstract idea of collecting and analyzing the relationship between items at Alice step one. Thus, it
21
cannot now serve as the inventive concept. See ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 774 (finding that
22
network control, the alleged “inventive concept,” is the abstract idea itself); see also Chamberlain
23
Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Yet wireless
24
transmission is the only aspect of the claims that CGI points to as allegedly inventive over the
25
26
27
28
SRA fails to rebut Facebook’s showing that the invention uses generic computer components.
See generally Opp. and Reply at 11. The specifications note that the system requires “a Computer
Processor, a database for storing data, input means, display, and RAM,” see, e.g., ’235 Patent at
col. 9, ll. 35–37, and explain that each of these components “can be any device” that typically
fulfills these functions. Id. at col. 9, ll. 39 – col. 10, ll. 18.
16
5
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 17 of 20
1
prior art . . . Wireless communication cannot be an inventive concept here, because it is the
2
abstract idea that the claims are directed to.”).
3
SRA insists that “[t]he inventive concepts of creating data structures representing and
4
analyzing indirect hyperlink relationships on the Web for purposes of improved search was [sic]
5
unconventional, non-routine and not well understood,” so as to satisfy step two of the Alice test.
6
FAC at ¶ 33. However, “[a]t Alice step two, it is irrelevant whether” the use of indirect
7
relationships or cluster links to analyze items “may have been non-routine or unconventional as a
8
factual matter.” BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1291. “As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an
9
abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.” Id.; see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding no inventive concept where “the limitations [detailed in
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
the claims] amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data
12
with conventional computer components.”). Here, the claims specify and are limited to certain
13
types of information (hyperlinks, URLs, or cluster links) or types of analyses (recursive).
14
However, they are nonetheless directed to collecting and analyzing the relationships between
15
items. Thus, even though some of the information collected and analyzed may have been different
16
from that used in text-based searching, such narrowing cannot amount to “significantly more” than
17
the overall ineligible concept of information collection and analysis to which the claims are
18
directed.
19
In addition, although SRA includes detailed allegations in the operative complaint
20
regarding visual display improvements identified in the patents in suit (including a “map of a
21
particular object in the database and its relationship to other database objects”), the allegations rely
22
almost entirely on the patent specifications. See FAC at ¶¶ 71–83. SRA purports to rely on
23
asserted claim 26 of the ’571 Patent to demonstrate the inclusion of the details from the
24
specification in the asserted claims. However, claim 26 of the ’571 Patent only recites that “the
25
step of displaying is influenced by a number of times a web object is visited.” ’571 Patent
26
Reexam. at col. 3, ll. 47–48. Instead, it is claim 1 of the ’352 Patent (not an asserted or contingent
27
claim) that recites visual display elements, although even these are recited in a generic way. Id. at
28
¶ 80 (quoting ’352 Patent at col. 31, ll. 4–28). Claim 1 recites “a graphical user interface means
17
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 18 of 20
1
for converting the pool of textual objects into a graphical view comprising: a means for forming a
2
box to graphically represent one or more of the textual objects in the pool.” ’352 Patent at col. 31,
3
ll. 22–25. Without any claims (as opposed to the specifications) reciting the elements of the
4
display technology, the Court cannot find the improved visual display an innovative concept
5
sufficient to survive Alice step two. See CellSpin, 927 F.3d at 1317 (counseling that plausible and
6
specific factual allegations are only sufficient “[a]s long as what makes the claims inventive is
7
recited by the claims”); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
8
1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The main problem that Two-Way Media cannot overcome is that the
9
claim—as opposed to something purportedly described in the specification—is missing an
inventive concept.”); Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1328–29
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(Fed. Cir. 2020) (rejecting plaintiff’s contention that the “layered architecture” of the invention
12
provided an inventive concept where the claims did not specify this (or any) architecture).
Without something “significantly more” to transform the claims into a patent-eligible
13
14
application of an abstract idea, the patents fail to recite an “inventive concept” under Alice step
15
two.
16
IV.
17
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
18
documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana
19
v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the
20
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
21
and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of
22
access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this
23
strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion
24
must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
25
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
26
understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations
27
omitted).
28
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
18
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 19 of 20
1
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only
2
tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This
3
requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information
4
is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th
5
Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
6
examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966
7
F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
8
Because the parties move to file documents related to nondispositive motions (the motions
9
are attached to SRA’s motion for leave to amend claim election and infringement contentions), the
Court will apply the lower good cause standard. The Court finds that the parties have provided
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed below because they contain
12
confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of Defendant
13
Facebook. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623
14
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F.
15
Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 13-cv-
16
0159-CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014). Specifically, the parties have identified
17
portions of the unredacted version of Facebook’s opposition to SRA’s motion to leave to file
18
amended claim election and infringement contentions and exhibits as containing confidential and
19
proprietary business information, mostly in the form of Facebook’s proprietary source code. The
20
parties also narrowly tailor their requests to only cover the portions of the brief and exhibits that
21
include portions of source code directly or detail regarding Facebook’s source code structure.
22
Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to grant the motions to seal. Dkt. Nos. 197, 212.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
19
Case 4:12-cv-03970-HSG Document 230 Filed 09/09/20 Page 20 of 20
1
V.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Facebook’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. No. 205.
2
The Court concludes that the asserted and contingent claims of the patents-in-suit fail at Alice
3
steps one and two, and are thus invalid. The Court further DENIES AS FUTILE SRA’s motion
4
to amend infringement contentions, because the contingent claims meet the same fate as the
5
asserted claims under section 101. Dkt. No. 198. Finally, the Court GRANTS the parties’
6
motions to file under seal finding that the parties provide good cause to do so. Dkt. Nos. 197, 212.
7
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order in Defendant’s favor and
8
close the case.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Dated: 9/9/2020
12
13
14
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
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?