Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Big Fish Games, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER granting Defendant's 22 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC
LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

CASE NO. C17-1183 RAJ
ORDER

v.
BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,

15
Defendant.

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18
19

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Big Fish Games, Inc.’s (“Big

20 Fish”) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 22. Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc
21 Luxembourg, S.A. (“Uniloc”), oppose the Motion. Dkt. # 52. Having considered the
22

submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the

23
24

Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

25 GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 22.
26
27

ORDER- 1

1
2

II.

BACKGROUND

Uniloc alleges that Defendant has infringed and is continuing to infringe one or

3 more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,110,228 (“the ‘228 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
4
6,564,229 (“the ‘229 Patent”), by making, using, importing, offering for sale and/or
5
selling the Big Fish Games portal, which allows remote users to install upgrades to Big
6
7 Fish Games, and by instructing its customers to infringe on the patents through training
8 videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and/or user guides. Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 16, 18, 34,
9
36.
10
Uniloc asserts two patents in this lawsuit: the ‘228 Patent which is entitled,
11
12 “Method and Apparatus for Software Maintenance at Remote Nodes,” and the ‘229
13 Patent, which is entitled “System and Method for Pausing and Resuming Move/Copy
14

Operations.” Dkt. # 1 Exs. A, B. Both patents involve processes within data processing

15
16

systems. Id. The ‘228 Patent purports to improve on prior art by providing a common

17 method of applying software fixes to remote locations across operating systems and
18 program products in distributed data processing systems. Dkt. # 1 Ex. A. Pursuant to
19

this method, a central software maintenance facility operates with a computer interface

20
21

through which a customer at a remote location can request service and receive updated

22 executable code back from the facility. Id. The customer interface provides a “front
23 end” that covers different software platforms and allows a customer to specify a range of
24

operations, including service research, requesting service, applying service, providing

25
26

program fixes, and installing product or fixes at the remote location. The application of

27 the service is done at the central facility. Id.

ORDER- 2

1

The ‘229 Patent purports to improve on prior art by providing a method and

2 system for pausing move or copy operations in order to provide computing resources to
3 other system operations within a data processing system. Id. By allowing a user to pause
4
the move or copy operation, the information is retained so that the operation can be
5
resumed at a later time. Id. This releases computing and network resources utilized by
6
7 the operation while preserving the progress of the operation. Id.
8
9

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. FRCP 12(b)(6)

10
11

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a

12 claim. The rule requires the court to assume the truth of the complaint’s factual
13 allegations and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those allegations. Sanders v.
14

Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true conclusory

15
16

allegations that are contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v.

17 St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must
18 point to factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
19

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint

20
21

avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the

22 complaint” that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
23 662, 679 (2009).
24

A court typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of the

25
26

complaint, although it may rely on a document to which the complaint refers if the

27 document is central to the party’s claims and its authenticity is not in question. Marder v.

ORDER- 3

1

Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006). A court may also consider evidence subject to

2 judicial notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
3

IV.

4

DISCUSSION

Big Fish argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)

5
6

because the patents Uniloc asserts claim patent-ineligible concepts under 35 U.S.C. §

7 101.
8

A. Patent-Ineligibility

9

Courts may consider patent eligibility issues on the pleadings and prior to

10
11

discovery or claim construction. While it is often necessary to resolve claim construction

12 disputes prior to a § 101 analysis in order to gain a full understanding of the claimed
13 subject matter, “claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
14

determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada

15
16

(U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The “words of a claim are generally given

17 their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13
18 (Fed.Cir. 2005). Where, as here, the basic character of the claims can be understood on
19

their face for the purposes of the § 101 analysis, patentability can be examined at the

20
21

pleading stage. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1274; Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.

22 Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Intellectual
23 Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., No. 2017-1147, 2017 WL 5041460 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3,
24

2017).

25
26

Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers a new

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

ORDER- 4

1

useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and

2 requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, “[l]aws of nature, natural
3 phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
4
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013).
5
The Supreme Court has established a “two-step analytical framework to identify
6
7 patents that, in essence, claim nothing more than abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
8 Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The first step is to determine whether the claim is
9
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. Id. To distinguish claims
10
that are directed to abstract ideas from those that merely involve abstract ideas, courts
11
12 look to “the ‘focus’ of the claims” and “their ‘character as a whole.’” Elec. Power Grp.,
13 LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claim is directed to a
14

patent-ineligible concept, the court examines the claim limitations to determine whether

15
16

they furnish an “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible

17 application of that idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The second step of this framework is a
18 “search for . . . an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the
19

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

20
21
22

itself.” Id.
B. Failure to State a Claim

23

a. The ‘229 Patent

24

1. Patent-Ineligible Concept

25
26

Where, as here, the claims at issue are directed toward computer-related

27 technology, the first step in the Alice inquiry “asks whether the focus of the claims is on

ORDER- 5

1

the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that

2 qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish,
3 LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the patents
4
were specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database rather than
5
simply focusing on the individual functions performed by that self-referential table, i.e.
6
7 storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a logical table. The Federal Circuit Court
8 found that the claims at issue were directed to a “specific improvement to the way
9
computers operate” and not “simply adding conventional computer components to well10
known business practices.” Id. at 1338.
11
12

The ‘229 Patent claims a “method and system of moving or copying data within a

13 data processing system.” Dkt. # 1 Ex. B. When the operation is suspended, “information
14

regarding the copy operation is retained so that the operation can be resumed at a later

15
16
17
18

time.” Independent Claim 1 of the ‘229 patent claims:
A method for copying data from a source file to a target file on a computer
system, said method comprising:

19

reading a first data portion from the source file;

20

writing the first data portion to the target file;

21

pausing the copying in response to a user requesting a pause
operation from a user interface, wherein the computer system is
available for other processing operations following the pausing;

22
23

reading a second data portion from the source file in response to the
user requesting a resume operation; and

24
25

writing the second data portion to the target file.

26
27

ORDER- 6

1

Big Fish represents that Independent Claim 1 is representative of Independent Claim 10

2 and Independent Claim 16. Dkt. # 22 at 15. Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 16-19
3 impose further limitations on how the data is stored or organized, how the operation is
4
paused, how the data is transmitted, and the type of computer system and computer
5
program product that can execute the method steps. Dkt. # 1 Ex. B.
6
7

Uniloc argues that the asserted claims of the ‘229 Patent are not drawn to an

8 abstract idea because they improve the functioning of a computer, citing to Alice to
9
support its argument. However, the holding in Alice does not create a blanket rule that all
10
claims that improve the functioning of the computer itself are patent eligible, instead, the
11
12 Supreme Court suggested that such claims “might not succumb to the abstract idea
13 exception.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. At the first step in the Alice inquiry, the Court
14

must consider whether the “plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer

15
16

functionality itself.” Id. at 1336. Uniloc argues that the asserted claims of the ‘229

17 Patent improve the functioning of the computer by allowing computer and network
18 resources to be freed when the move/copy operation is paused and by preventing
19

duplicative action by retaining the data that has already been copied or moved. While the

20
21

method asserted could arguably improve the functioning of a computer, the asserted

22 improvement is not the focus of these claims. Unlike the claims in Enfish, which were
23 directed to a means for configuring computer memory, the claims in the ‘229 Patent are
24

directed to a method of copying and moving data; the improvement in computer function

25
26

is a bi-product of the method, not its goal.

27

ORDER- 7

1

Uniloc also cites to the holding in Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., 226

2 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2016), to support its argument that the claims in the
3 ‘229 Patent are not directed toward an abstract idea. In Synchronoss, the claims at issue
4
were directed on their face to a specific improvement to computer functionality, a more
5
efficient mechanism for synchronizing data between systems connected to a network.
6
7 While an aspect of that mechanism involved an update that circumvented the need to
8 recopy all data, similar to the claims at issue here, this similarity does not make the
9
claims analogous. Here, the claims are directed at the abstract concept of pausing in the
10
middle of copying information without deleting the progress already made and simply
11
12 continuing to copy the information after the pause ends. This would be more accurately
13 described as “simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business
14

practices.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338.

15
16

Independent Claim 1 is directed toward to the concept of copying information

17 from one location to another, pausing the copying of information so that other tasks may
18 be performed, and resuming the copying of that information. Nothing in the Dependent
19

Claims alter the nature of the concepts claimed. Limiting how the data is stored or

20
21

organized, how the operation is paused, how the data is transmitted, or the type of

22 computer system and computer program product that can execute the method steps
23 merely changes the implementation of the abstract idea claimed.
24

2. Inventive Concept

25
26

As the claims in the ‘229 patent are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the

27 Court must now examine the claim limitations to determine whether they furnish an

ORDER- 8

1

“inventive concept”. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. “Claims that ‘amount to nothing

2 significantly more than an instruction to apply [an] abstract idea ... using some
3 unspecified, generic computer’ and in which ‘each step does no more than require a
4
generic computer to perform generic computer functions’ do not make an abstract idea
5
patent-eligible.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 838 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Alice, 134 S.Ct.
6
7 at 2359–60). Further, claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying
8 the abstract idea on a computer does not provide a sufficient inventive concept.”
9
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
10
2015). “An inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible
11
12 invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an
13 instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” Bascom Glob.
14

Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

15
16

Uniloc argues that, like the claims in Bascom, the claims of the ‘229 Patent recite

17 an inventive concept because they recite a “particular and innovative arrangement of
18 elements as a technical improvement over previous methods or processes.” Dkt. # 52 at
19

13. Specifically, Uniloc points to the manner in which the claim dictates how the

20
21

“pause” in the move/copy operation should occur. Independent Claim 1 recites reading a

22 portion of data from a source file, reading that portion to the target file, and then pausing
23 the copying in response to a user request. After the operation is resumed, the second
24

portion of the data is read and written. Dkt. # 1 Ex. B. Uniloc fails to show how the

25
26

specific arrangement of steps leading to the pause in the move/copy operation are

27 inventive or different from prior art approaches to pausing move/copy operations. As

ORDER- 9

1

noted by Big Fish, in every copying operation, information must first be read before it

2 written or copied. A “first portion” of information is read and written before a “second
3 portion” of information can be read and written. Specifying that the data to be copied or
4
moved be “portioned” is not sufficiently transformative as to change the claim into more
5
than requiring a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Therefore, as
6
7 the ‘229 Patent claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, Defendant’s
8 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the ‘229 Patent.
9
b. The ‘228 Patent
10
1. Patent-Ineligible Concept
11
12

The ‘228 Patent claims a “method of applying service to a computer program that

13 is to be executed at a remote location connected to a central computer site of a computer
14

network.” Dkt. # 1 Ex. A. This method centralizes service of repairs and upgrades for

15
16
17
18

customers at remote locations. Id. Independent Claim 1 of the ‘228 patent claims:
A method of applying service to a computer program that is to be executed
at a remote location connected to a central computer site of a computer
network, the method comprising the steps of:

19

interactively receiving a request for a computer program service
from a customer at a remote location interface with optional service
incorporation instructions of the remote location customer;

20
21

providing the received request for service over the computer network
to a service facility at the central computer site;

22
23

determining the components of the requested service at the central
computer site; and

24
25

providing the results of the requested service over the computer
network back to the customer at the remote location interface.

26
27

ORDER- 10

1

Big Fish represents that Independent Claim 1 of the ‘228 Patent is subject to the same

2 arguments and it representative of the other independent claims. Independent Claims 18
3 and 47 recite the same limitations as Independent Claim 1 in a “computer network
4
system” and using a “program storage device readable by a machine at a central computer
5
site.” Dkt. # 1 Ex. A.
6
7

Big Fish argues that the ‘228 Patent claims the abstract idea of providing

8 customized service to customers at a central site, analogizing the method claimed to the
9
provision of repair services at a car service center. Dkt. # 22 at 10. Uniloc argues that
10
the Patent does not claim an abstract idea because it does not merely recite a method for
11
12 providing customers service at a central site, it recites a method for providing customers
13 individualized service remotely over a computer network. Therefore, the method
14

addresses a challenge specific to computer technology. However, Independent Claim 1

15
16

appears to simply recite steps for providing service to a customer: 1) receiving a request

17 for a service from a customer with optional additional customer-specific instructions; 2)
18 relaying the request to a service facility; 3) determining the components needed for the
19

requested service; and 4) providing the service to the customer. While an aspect of this

20
21

provision of service is the fact that it occurs remotely through use of a computer, and the

22 service is the furnishing of executable code, it is still at base a method of providing
23 customized service to customers from a central site. This is a regular business practice
24

that is simply implemented by a computer. The dependent claims of the ‘228 Patent are

25
26

equally directed to the same abstract idea, providing further limitations related to

27 providing service to the customers, i.e. presenting a customer with a report of a product’s

ORDER- 11

1

service history, providing service at an alternative site connected to the central site

2 (“slave site”), or providing a menu of service options to the customer.
3
4

Uniloc further argues that the ‘228 Patent is not directed to an abstract idea
because it discloses technical improvements specific to the way central computers

5
6

provide software updates to remote customer locations. Specifically, that it claims a

7 method of providing service that is more efficient than previous methods because service
8 research and application of service are performed at the central site. Dkt. # 1 Ex. A. The
9
specific update to the program (or the product), instead of a new version of the entire
10
program, is sent to the remote location from the central site. This prevents remote
11
12 locations from having to maintain source code copies of whole programs. Id. However,
13 merely improving the efficiency of the abstract idea of providing customized service
14

from a central site is the equivalent of “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks

15
16

more quickly or more accurately,” which the Federal Circuit has found is insufficient to

17 render a claim patent eligible. OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
18 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
19

792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Uniloc provides no convincing argument that the

20
21

claims are directed to an actual technological improvement and not merely an

22 improvement in efficiency or speed.
23
24

2. Inventive Concept
Similar to its argument with regards to the claims of the ‘229 Patent, Uniloc

25
26

argues that the claims of the ‘228 Patent recite an inventive concept because they recite a

27 “particular arrangement of elements as a technical improvement over previous methods

ORDER- 12

1

or processes.” Dkt. # 52 at 20. However, Uniloc provides almost no further explanation

2 or argument to explain that contention, merely stating that “the claims are significantly
3 more than the theoretical abstract idea and the ordered combination of the claim
4
limitations transform into a particular, practical application of that theoretical idea.” Id.
5
Uniloc further states that the elements recited in Independent Claim 1 include limitations
6
7 that are “beyond what is well understood and conventional in the software support in
8 distributed systems,” specifically, “software maintenance at remote nodes using facilities
9
of a central site.” Uniloc provides no further explanation as to how the elements of the
10
claims at issue do more than implement the abstract idea and transform it into
11
12 “significantly more,” or how the use of a central site for software maintenance is an
13 inventive concept. As the ‘228 Patent claims an abstract idea and lacks an “inventive
14

concept” sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible

15
16

application of that idea, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the ‘228

17 Patent.
18
19
20
21

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Dkt. # 22.
Dated this 19th day of June, 2018.

22
23

A

24
25

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

26
27

ORDER- 13