Competitive Access Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation et al

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
COMPETITIVE ACCESS SYSTEMS,
INC.,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
V.
ORACLE CORPORATION and
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

1:23-CV-286-DII

Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Oracle Corporation and Oracle America, Inc.’s (collectively,
“Oracle”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (Dkt. 19), and all
responsive briefing (Dkts. 28, 30, 37). Having considered the briefing, record, and applicable law, the
Court will deny Oracle’s motion to dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Competitive Access Systems, Inc. (“CAS”) sues Oracle for patent infringement.
(Compl., Dkt. 1). CAS owns U.S. Patent No. 8,228,801, entitled “Broadband Communications
Device” (“the ’801 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,350,649, entitled “Multipath Communication Devices
and Methods” (“the ’649 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,868,908, entitled “Devices and Methods
for Multipath Communications” (“the ’908 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents”). (Id. at 1). CAS
alleges that Oracle infringes the Patents through the sale and servicing of Oracle MPTCP Products
and Oracle SD-WAN Products (collectively, the “Accused Products”). (Id.). The case was
transferred to this court from the Marshall Division of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas on March 16, 2023. (Dkt. 50).

Oracles moves to dismiss two aspects of CAS’s complaint. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 19). First,
Oracle argues that Claims 1 and 7 of the ’649 Patent fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101. (Id. at 1). Second, Oracle argues that CAS fails to plausibly allege infringement of
the ’908 Patent. (Id. at 14).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, a “court accepts
‘all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” In re Katrina
Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area
Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 2004)). “To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
complaint ‘does not need detailed factual allegations,’ but must provide the plaintiff’s grounds for
entitlement to relief—including factual allegations that when assumed to be true ‘raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.’” Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). That is, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
A claim has facial plausibility “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The
tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to
legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. A court ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion may rely on the
complaint, its proper attachments, “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and
matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338
(5th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A court may also consider
2

documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss “if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s
complaint and are central to her claim.” Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th
Cir. 2004). But because the court reviews only the well-pleaded facts in the complaint, it may not
consider new factual allegations made outside the complaint. Dorsey, 540 F.3d at 338. “[A] motion to
dismiss under 12(b)(6) ‘is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.’” Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d
770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir.
2009)). In patent cases, “[i]t is enough that a complaint place the alleged infringer ‘on notice of what
activity . . . is being accused of infringement.’” Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
III. DISCUSSION
Oracle moves to dismiss certain claims in CAS’s complaint. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 19). The
Court will begin with Oracle’s patent-eligibility arguments for the ’649 Patent and will then turn to
Oracle’s pleading-deficiency arguments for the ’908 Patent.
A. Oracle does not meet its burden to establish that Claims 1 and 7 of the ’649 Patent
are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
First, Oracle argues that Claims 1 and 7 of the ’649 Patent (“Asserted Claims”) fail to recite
patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Section 101”). (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 19, at 1).
Oracle contends that the Asserted Claims are directed to the abstract idea of “sending data to
devices over a network using information or parameters.” (Id.). CAS responds that the Asserted
Claims are eligible under Section 101 because they are directed to a specific technological solution to
a technological problem, not to an abstract idea. (Resp., Dkt. 28, at 5).
The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter as “any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35
U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that Section 101 “contains an important implicit
exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty.
3

v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576, 582 (2013)). In Alice, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework for
analyzing whether claims are patent-eligible under Section 101. Id. at 217. First, courts must ask if
the claims at issue are “directed to” a judicial exception to Section 101, such as an abstract idea. See
id. If the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, the inquiry ends. Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United
States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If the claims are directed to an exception, courts
continue to the second step of the inquiry, which considers whether the claims contain an “inventive
concept” sufficient to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice,
573 U.S. at 217, 221.
The first Asserted Claim, Claim 1 of the ’649 Patent, recites:
1. A method for establishing and sending data during a multipath connection
comprising:
a data-source device receiving multipath information about each of a plurality
of network-edge devices that is capable of joining a multipath connection
with a data requesting device, each of the network-edge devices being
connected to one or more networks, and each of the network-edge devices
being connected to the data requesting device over a different connection;
and
the data-source device performing at least one of (i) sending different groups
of data packets to different network edge devices that are participating in the
multipath connection, (ii) sending different streams of data to one or more of
the network-edge devices that are participating in the multipath connection,
and (iii) sending combinations of different streams and different groups of
data packets to one or more of the network-edge devices that are
participating in the multipath connection.
(Compl., Exhibit B, Dkt. 1-3, at 20). The second Asserted Claim, Claim 7 of the ’649 Patent, recites:
7. A method for establishing and sending data during a multipath connection,
comprising:
the data-source device receiving multipath connection requests from a
plurality of data-requesting devices, each of the multipath connection
requests involving a particular multipath connection to a data-requesting
device;
4

the data-source device associating a connection ID to each multipath
connection request;
the data-source device using multipath information about each of a plurality
of network-edge devices that is capable of joining in a particular multipath
connection to a particular data-requesting device, the particular multipath
connection having a particular connection ID;
the data-source device notifying each of the network-edge devices that is
participating in the particular multipath connection associated with the
particular connection ID; and
the data-source device sending data associated with the particular
connection ID to the network-edge devices participating in the particular
multipath connection associated with the particular connection ID.
(Id. at 21).
In determining whether the Asserted Claims recite patent-eligible subject matter, the Court
begins and ends with Alice step one—determining whether the Asserted Claims are “directed to” an
abstract idea. Oracle asserts that Claim 1 describes two steps, “receiving information” and “sending”
groups of data packets. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 19, at 6). Oracle describes Claim 7 as “similar to Claim
1, but [it] also recites receiving connection requests and association information (such as a
connection ID) with those requests.” (Id. at 5). Oracle argues that the Asserted Claims are directed
to the abstract idea of “sending data to devices over a network using information or parameters.”
(Id. at 6). Oracle compares the Asserted Claims to claims held ineligible under Section 101 in TwoWay Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. See 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
CAS responds that the Asserted Claims provide a technological solution to the problem of
“limited bandwidth and availability of a single network connection.” (Resp., Dkt. 28, at 9–10). CAS
contends that the Asserted Claims provide a “specific improvement to network functionality” by
transferring data over multiple connections (i.e., a “multipath connection”) instead of a single
network connection, thus providing higher network speeds, increased availability, and greater
efficiency. (Id. at 10). CAS compares the Asserted Claims to claims held eligible in TecSec, Inc. v.
5

Adobe Inc. and Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB. See 978 F.3d 1278, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2020); No.
2:19-CV-00396-JRG, 2021 WL 467591, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021).
The Court agrees with CAS that Oracle fails to meet its burden to establish that the Asserted
Claims are ineligible under Section 101. Oracle’s characterization of the Asserted Claims as
“focus[ing] on the concept of sending data to devices over a network using information or
parameters” overgeneralizes the Asserted Claims. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 19, at 12); see Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“describing the claims at such a high level of
abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to
[Section] 101 swallow the rule”). As CAS points out, the claim language recites sending and receiving
information over an improved means of network functionality that includes a data-source device and
a multipath connection. (Compl., Exhibit B, Dkt. 1-3, at 20–21). The Court agrees with CAS that the
Asserted Claims recite a specific solution to a technological problem, not an abstract idea. See TecSec,
Inc., 978 F.3d at 1293. Because the Asserted Claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the Court
need not proceed to Alice step two. See Thales, 850 F.3d at 1346. The Court will deny Oracle’s
motion to dismiss with respect to the eligibility of the Asserted Claims in the ’649 Patent.
B. CAS plausibly alleges that Oracle infringes the ’908 Patent.
Second, Oracle argues that CAS fails to plausibly allege infringement of the ’908 Patent
because the complaint and accompanying claim charts do not allege that Oracle’s Accused Products
satisfy all limitations of Claims 1 and 13. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 19, at 14–15). Oracle contends that
CAS fails to plausibly allege that the Accused Products contain the “multilink session identification,”
“destination URL,” “first message,” and “second message” limitations detailed in Claims 1 and 13 of
the ’908 Patent. (Reply, Dkt. 30, at 5). CAS responds that it need not list each element and subelement of the claims and map them on the Accused Products. (Resp., Dkt. 28, at 14–15). The
Court agrees. At this stage of the litigation, CAS need only “place the alleged infringer ‘on notice of
6

what activity . . . is being accused of infringement.’” Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1352 (quoting Lifetime, 869
F.3d at 1379). Having drawn all inferences in CAS’s favor, the Court concludes that CAS’s
complaint and accompanying claim charts do just that.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Oracle’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), (Dkt. 19), is DENIED.
SIGNED on June 7, 2023.

ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7