Hypermedia Navigation LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING DEFENDANT'S 20 MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HYPERMEDIA NAVIGATION LLC,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 20

10

FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-05383-HSG

12
13

Hypermedia Navigation LLC (“Hypermedia”) filed this action against Defendant

14

Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) asserting infringement of seven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,383,323

15

(the “’323 Patent”), 7,383,324 (the “’324 Patent”), 7,424,523 (the “’523 Patent”), 7,478,144 (the

16

“’144 Patent”), 7,769,830 (the “’830 Patent”), 8,250,173 (the “’173 Patent”), and 9,083,672 (the

17

“’672 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The Asserted Patents relate to methods and

18

systems for organizing and displaying online search results in a linear fashion designed for the

19

user’s entertainment. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 10.
On November 16, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of

20
21

Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

22

Dkt. No. 20 (“Mot.”). On December 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. Dkt. No.

23

29 (“Opp.”). Defendant replied on December 21, 2017. Dkt. No. 34 (“Reply”). After carefully

24

considering the parties’ arguments, the Court DENIES the motion.1

25
26
27
28

1

The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument. See Civil
L.R. 7-1. The factual background relevant to the Court’s disposition is set forth in Part II of this
order.

1

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

A.

3

Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

4

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” A defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for

5

failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). “Dismissal under

6

Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only where the complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient

7

facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d

8

1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must plead “enough

9

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

Motion to Dismiss

544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads “factual content that allows

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

12

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing the plausibility of a complaint, courts

13

“accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most

14

favorable to the nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025,

15

1031 (9th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, courts do not “accept as true allegations that are merely

16

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs.

17

Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

18

“[W]hether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law which may

19

contain underlying facts.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Akzo

20

Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Circ. 2016) (“Indefiniteness is

21

a question of law that we review de novo. . . subject to a determination of underlying facts.”).

22

Claim construction is not required prior to a ruling on Defendant’s motion. See Content

23

Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

24

(affirming grant of dispositive motion prior to claim construction); accord Ultramercial, Inc. v.

25

Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718–20 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

26
27
28
2

1

B.

Section 101 Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

2

Section 101 of the Patent Act describes the scope of patentable subject matter as

3

encompassing “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or

4

any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is well settled that laws of nature,

5

natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are excluded from the universe of patentable subject matter.

6

See Alice Corp. Pty., 134 S.Ct. at 2354. These categories are not patent-eligible because “they are

7

the basic tools of scientific and technological work,” which are “free to all men and reserved

8

exclusively to none.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293

9

(2012) (citations omitted). Allowing patent claims for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas would “tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it,” thereby

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

thwarting the primary object of the patent laws. Id. at 1293. However, the Supreme Court has

12

also recognized the need to “tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it

13

swallow all of patent law.” Alice Corp. Pty., 134 S.Ct. at 2354.

14

The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have articulated a two-part test for determining

15

whether a claim’s subject matter is patent-eligible. First, a court “determine[s] whether a claim is

16

‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d

17

at 1346–47 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs., 132 S.Ct. at 1296–97). If so, the Court then

18

“consider[s] the elements of the claim—both individually and as an ordered combination—to

19

assess whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible

20

application of the abstract idea.” Id. at 1347. “This is the search for an ‘inventive concept’—

21

something sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to ‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea

22

itself.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs., 132 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
3

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
28
4

II.

1

ANALYSIS
Defendant cites two claims as representative of the asserted claims: dependent claim 11 of

2

the ’323 Patent and independent claim 6 of the ’523 Patent. Mot. at 2.2 Defendant argues that

4

these representative claims (and thereby, the Asserted Patents) fail at both steps of the Alice

5

inquiry. At step one, Defendant contends that dependent claim 11 recites a variation of searching

6

and displaying content, an abstract and longstanding concept. Id. at 3–4, 9.3 According to

7

Defendant, claim 6 extends to a similarly abstract process: “displaying media, collected from

8

elsewhere, on a user’s device where the user can push ‘forward’ to see the next media.” Mot. at 5,

9

9.4 At step two, Defendant asserts that the present invention does not recite a saving inventive

10

concept; rather, its “primary purpose is to organize information on the web” using conventional

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

computer and internet components. Mot. at 6, 16.
Claim 10 of the ’323 Patent, on which claim 11 depends, sets forth:

12
13

A method for presenting video media elements to a subscriber
station, the method comprising:

14

receiving a request from the subscriber station to present at least one
video media element to the subscriber station;

15
16

selecting a plurality of video media elements for presentation to the
subscriber station, the plurality of video elements including a first
video media element and a plurality of second video media
elements;

17
18

creating a file for use by the subscriber station to create a user
interface that includes:

19
20

a viewing area in which the first video media element is presented;
and

21

a map area having a plurality of icons, each icon representative of a
corresponding one of the plurality of second video media elements,

22
23
2

24
25
26
27
28

Defendant may rely on certain claims as “representative” of the asserted claims. See Intellectual
Ventures I LLC, 850 F.3d at 1330–32 & n.7. Though Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s
characterization of these claims as representative, see Opp. at 19–20, the Asserted Patents survive
at this stage even if the Court considers these claims to be representative.
3
Defendant characterizes the following class of claims as “Search and Display claims”: claims 10
and 11 of the ’323 Patent, claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ’324 Patent, claims 40, 44, and 46 of the ’144
Patent, claims 1–4, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24, and 25 of the ’830 Patent, and claims 15, 16, 20, 24, and
25 of the ’173 Patent. See Mot. at 3 n.2.
4
Defendant refers to this set of claims as the “Navigation claims,” which comprise claims 6–11 of
the ’523 Patents, and claims 14–19 of the ’672 Patent. See Mot. at 5 n.3.
5

1
2

the plurality of icons available for selection to access corresponding
video media elements; and transmitting the file to the subscriber
station.
’323 Patent, 10:57–11:8. Claim 11 recites the “method of claim 10, wherein: receiving the request

3
from the subscriber station includes receiving a search criteria; and selecting the plurality of video
4
media elements includes selecting the plurality of video media elements based upon the search
5
6

criteria.” ’323 Patent, 11:9–14.
Claim 6 of the ’523 Patent describes:

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

A method for navigating a linear Web program comprising
information obtained on the World-Wide Web, the linear
Web program including a plurality of media elements from a
single Website stored on a remote information node, the plurality
of media elements associated by a series of forward
links, the method comprising:
sending data from the remote information node to display,
on a display device at a user location, a first media
element of the plurality of media elements from the
single Website, the first media element having a forward
link to a second media element of the linear Web program,
and to display a forward link indicator on the
display device;
receiving a first signal in response to an action of the user
indicating an activation of the forward link indicator,
and in response to the activation of the forward link
indicator, sending data from the remote information
node to display on the display device, the second media
element of the linear Web program, the second media
element having a forward link to a third media element
of the linear Web program; and
receiving a second signal in response to an action of the
user indicating an activation of the forward link indicator,
and in response to the activation of the forward link
indicator, sending data from the remote information
node to display on the display device, the third media
element of the linear Web program.
’523 Patent, 10:35–62.
The present invention survives at step one of the Alice inquiry. Recently, in Core Wireless

25

Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected the defendant’s Section 101

26

challenge to a patent disclosing improved display interfaces geared particularly for electronic

27

devices with small screens. See 880 F.3d 1356, 1359–62 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Specifically, the

28

defendant argued on appeal that the claims before the court were directed to the “abstract idea of
6

1

an index.” Id. at 1362. The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding instead that the claims were

2

similar to those found patent-eligible under Enfish because they were “directed to an improved

3

user interface for computing devises.” Id. at 1362 (citing 822 F.3d at 1336). In reaching that

4

holding, the Court observed that: “[a]lthough the generic idea of summarizing information

5

certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of

6

summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.” Id.
So too here. Though Defendant may be correct that the concepts of searching, displaying,

7

and organizing information are longstanding, Plaintiff adequately alleges that the present invention

9

improves a specific online search mechanism by creating web programs that are geared towards

10

entertaining and presenting the user with desirable information in a new way: through “linearly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

linked websites.” See Opp. at 13–15; ’323 Patent, 2:34–37. In addition, claim 6’s recitation of a

12

forward link indicator for navigation is designed to “improve the retrieval and presentation time”

13

of search results. ’323 Patent, 6:33–67. 5 As in both Enfish and Core Wireless, the functional

14

improvements found in the representative claims—which recite a novel linear navigation method

15

directed to the entertainment of the user—constitute a specific technological improvement that

16

was not present in the prior art. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., 880 F.3d at 1362 (citing

17

Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). Even if Defendant is correct that linear search and display systems

18

could be performed in the absence of a computer, it is Plaintiff’s novel and improved application

19

of that method to the search medium that renders the invention patent-eligible under Section 101.
This specific technological improvement also distinguishes the Asserted Patents from

20
21

those found invalid in BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., No. 17-1980 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018).

22

In that case, the Federal Circuit concluded that the asserted claims were directed to “the abstract

23

idea of considering historical usage information while inputting data.” See BSG Tech LLC, No.

24

17-1980 at *8. In contrast to the alleged interface invention in this case, the plaintiff in BSG Tech

25

did “not purport to have invented database structures that allow database users to input item data

26

as a series of parameters and values.” Id. Furthermore, the patent’s specification made “clear that

27
5

28

The Asserted Patents share the same specification. As in Plaintiff’s opposition, this order cites to
the specification of the ’323 Patent. See Opp. at 4 n.8.
7

1

such databases predate[d] the claimed invention.” Id. The court accordingly concluded that “the

2

recitation of a database structure slightly more detailed than a generic database d[id] not save the

3

asserted claims at step one.” Id. at 9. Here, however, the Asserted Patents are different in that

4

they explain both how: (1) the prior art, which is described in greater detail below, lacked an

5

efficient web search program geared towards the entertainment of the user, see ’323 Patent, 1:25–

6

51; and (2) the asserted claims recite a specific technological advance: the new web program that

7

includes an improved user interface, cf. BSG Tech LLC, No. 17-1980 at *12 (“The claims do not

8

recite any improvement to the way in which such databases store or organize information

9

analogous to the self-referential table in Enfish or the adaptable memory caches in Visual

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Memory.”).
But even if Defendant were correct at step one, the Court is persuaded at step two that the

12

claimed combination of elements renders the present invention patent-eligible by reciting a saving

13

inventive concept. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1347. Like the

14

claims held patent-eligible by the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer, the representative claims show

15

that the present invention “eliminates redundancies” and “improves system efficiency” that existed

16

in conventional online search programs. See 881 F.3d at 1369. Specifically, the representative

17

claims set forth a linear method of searching and displaying content in which “a series of exclusive

18

forward and backward links” direct the user to a desirable web result. See Opp. at 5–6; see also

19

’323 Patent, 3:13–18. This method provides users with sought after information more quickly,

20

and also entertains them in the process. See id.; ’323 Patent, 1:25–51. In that regard, the

21

specification details the present invention’s improvements to the state of the art at the time the

22

patent was filed. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369 (observing the same, and noting that “[t]he

23

specification describes an inventive feature that stores parsed data in a purportedly unconventional

24

manner”). According to the specification, traditional online search programs did not have a way

25

of filtering content so as to present hyperlinks in a streamlined “linear” fashion; rather, websites

26

offered only a cursory view of material that the user might find interesting. ’323 Patent, 1:25–51.

27

Thus, users were often overwhelmed by (and had difficulty parsing) the quantity of online

28

information presented. See id. Website quality and content was, moreover, poorly vetted for a
8

1

specific user’s needs. See id. Hence, the present invention “addresses the need for creating and

2

navigating entertaining Web programs that filter out unwanted information and present desired

3

information in a series of linearly linked web sites.” ’323 Patent, 2:34–37. This improvement is

4

captured in the representative claims, and is sufficient to show at this stage that the Asserted

5

Patents claim more than “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.” See Berkheimer,

6

881 F.3d at 1369–70; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1347.

7

Defendant argues that the asserted claims are not sufficiently specific to impart an

8

inventive concept, as these claims omit any elements specifying how media files are displayed or

9

organized. See Mot. at 16–17. But even Defendant’s characterization of dependent claim 11
shows that the claimed combination of ordered steps is adequately detailed to present an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

unconventional method. See id. at 3 (“[T]he steps of representative claim 11 of the ’323 boil down

12

to (1) receiving a search request from a user for a video; (2) selecting multiple video files based on that

13

search; (3) creating a file for showing the video that has; (4) a place to show the first video, and (5) a

14

place to display icons representative of the rest of the videos; and (6) sending that file to the user.”).

15

So too with claim 6 of the ’523 Patent, which Defendant admits creates an online “guided tour” that

16

allows the user to navigate forward and backward across web content. See Mot. at 15. Plaintiff has

17

satisfactorily alleged that this was not true of traditional search methods at the time the patent was

18

filed. Compl. ¶¶ 7–10 (providing images of search result interfaces in 1999). Though Defendant is

19

correct that the asserted functional improvements are computer-implemented, the claimed method adds

20

value to that medium so as to render an otherwise abstract concept patent-eligible. See Berkheimer,

21

776 F.3d at 1369; Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; cf. BSG Tech LLC, No. 17-1980 at *17 (“Here, the

22

only alleged unconventional feature of BSG Tech’s claims is the requirement that users are guided

23

by summary comparison usage information or relative historical usage information. But this

24

simply restates what we have already determined is an abstract idea.”). Finally, the Court does not

25

need to rely on either party’s depiction of potential “caching” claims, see Reply at 4, given that the

26

claimed search and display and navigation features are sufficiently specific to overcome

27

Defendant’s Section 101 challenge under Rule 12(b)(6).

28

//
9

1
2
3
4
5
6

III.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 8/16/2018
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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
10