adp, llc, civil action no. 2:16-cv-00741-rws (lead) defendant. · 3 uniloc has also asserted...
TRANSCRIPT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
UNILOC USA, INC. AND UNILOC
LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ADP, LLC,
Defendant.
BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00741-RWS
(LEAD)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00858-RWS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant ADP, LLC (“ADP”) and Big Fish Games, Inc.’s (“Big
Fish”) (collectively, “ADP Defendants”) Motions to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a
Claim (Docket Nos. 17 and 80, respectively) against Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg,
S.A.’s (“Uniloc”).1 Uniloc’s case against Big Fish is consolidated with its case against ADP for
pretrial purposes, with the exception of venue. Docket No. 25.2 The motions were originally filed
while the cases were pending before Judge Gilstrap. On March 28, 2017, while ADP and Big
1 Defendant Zendesk, Inc. was dismissed on August 11, 2017, and its motion to dismiss (Docket No. 70)
was terminated on August 16, 2017. Defendants Blackboard, Inc. and Box, Inc. were dismissed on August
16, 2017, and their respective motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 58 and 89) were also terminated on August
16, 2017.
2 “Docket No.” refers to the docket in Lead Case No. 2:16-cv-741 unless otherwise indicated.
Page 2 of 25
Fish’s motions were still pending before Judge Gilstrap, this Court ruled on several motions to
dismiss in Lead Case No. 2:16-cv-393 (“AVG”). See Docket No. 129 in AVG (the “AVG Order”).
The AVG Order addressed claims 1, 2, 7, 15 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 (“the
’466 Patent”) and claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,728,766 (“the ’766 Patent”).
See Docket No. 129 in AVG at 2. Of those claims, the Court held that claims 1, 2 and 7 of the ’466
Patent and claims 1 and 3 of the ’766 Patent are drawn to ineligible subject matter. Id. at 20. The
remaining claims the Court considered are means-plus-function claims. The Court held that the
defendants had not sufficiently established that the means-plus-function claims are represented by
the allegedly representative non-means-plus-function claims and accordingly declined to decide
whether the means-plus-function claims are also directed to ineligible subject matter. Id. at 7.
After the ADP cases were reassigned to the undersigned (Docket No. 149), the Court
ordered the parties in this case to file supplemental briefing on the effects of the AVG Order on the
pending motions. Docket No. 160. Uniloc, ADP, and Big Fish each filed supplemental briefs
(respectively, Docket Nos. 190, 174, and 180).
The claims Uniloc asserts against the ADP Defendants are not limited to the ones that it
asserted against the defendants in AVG.3 Specifically, the claims asserted in this case but not
asserted in AVG include claims 5, 11 and 17 of the ’766 Patent and claims 3–5, 8, 9, 13, 16–20,
22–24, 28–33, 35–37, 41 and 42 of the ’466 Patent. See Compl. against ADP, Docket No. 1; Am.
Compl. against Big Fish, Docket No. 57; Uniloc Supp. Br., Docket No. 190 at 2. Uniloc also
asserts against the ADP Defendants two additional patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,578 (“the ’578
3 Uniloc has also asserted infringement of the Asserted Patents in Lead Case No. 2:16-cv-862 against
Defendants Netsuite, Inc. and Nutanix, Inc. Nutanix Inc. joins ADP’s motion to dismiss (2:16-cv-862,
Docket No. 39 at 2). Netsuite filed its own Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for Failure to State
a Claim (2:16-cv-862, Docket No. 25).
Page 3 of 25
Patent”) and 7,069,293 (“the ’293 Patent”), that it did not assert against the defendants in AVG.
Specifically, Uniloc asserts claims 1–8, 10–39, 41–46 of the ’578 Patent, and claims 1, 12 and 17
of the ’293 Patent. 4 Docket No. 190 at 2.
The ’578 and ’293 Patents are related to the ’466 and ’766 Patents, with the ’578 and ’766
Patents sharing a common specification and the ’466 and ’293 Patents also sharing a common
specification.5
ADP Defendants challenge all claims of the four asserted patents, alleging that they are
invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Docket No. 17 at 6.6 For the reasons that follow, ADP’s Motion
is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
I. BACKGROUND
The background of the ’466 and ’766 Patents is addressed in the AVG Order. See Docket
No. 129 in AVG, at 2–4. Like the ’466 and ’766 Patents, the ’578 and ’293 Patents address aspects
of application management in the client-server environment.
The ’578 Patent is directed to obtaining user and administrator sets of configuration
preferences for applications and then executing the applications using both sets of obtained
preferences. See ’578 Patent, col. 3:40–45. Claim 1 of the ’578 Patent provides:
4 In its supplemental briefing, Uniloc does not include claim 22 of the ʼ466 Patent and claim 12 of the ʼ578
Patent in its chart of asserted claims against ADP. As Uniloc has not indicated to the Court that it intended
to drop these two claims, the Court considers these two claims in this Order.
5 “[T]he Asserted Patents are all part of a family of patents drawn toward addressing the inefficiencies in
application management in client-server environment. Accordingly, they share similar specifications.”
Docket No. 64 at 5–6. “The ‘293 Patent is a divisional of the ‘466 Patent and shares its specification. The
‘578 Patent is a Parent to the ‘766 Patent and shares its specification. Further, each pair of Patents
incorporates by reference the other pair’s specification.” Docket No. 174 at 2 n.3.
6 ADP and Big Fish’s motions to dismiss for failure to state a valid claim are nearly identical with the
exception that Big Fish’s Motion does not address the ʼ766 Patent, as Uniloc has not asserted infringement
of this patent against Big Fish. See Am. Compl. against Big Fish, Docket No. 57. The Court primarily
discusses and cites to ADP’s motion (the “Motion,” Docket No. 17).
Page 4 of 25
1. A method for management of configurable application programs on a
network comprising the steps of:
installing an application program having a plurality of configurable preferences
and a plurality of authorized users on a server coupled to the network;
distributing an application launcher program associated with the application
program to a client coupled to the network;
obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences associated with
one of the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher
program;
obtaining an administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences from
an administrator; and
executing the application program using the obtained user set and the obtained
administrator set of the plurality of configurable preferences responsive to
a request from the one of the plurality of authorized users.
The ’293 Patent describes distributing applications to on-demand servers from a centralized
network management server. See ’293 Patent at col. 50–53. For example, Claim 1 of the ’293
Patent provides:
1. A method for distribution of application programs to a target on-demand
server on a network comprising the following executed on a centralized network
management server coupled to the network:
providing an application program to be distributed to the network management
server;
specifying a source directory and a target directory for distribution of the
application program;
preparing a file packet associated with the application program and including a
segment configured to initiate registration operations for the application
program at the target on-demand server; and
distributing the file packet to the target on-demand server to make the
application program available for use by a user at a client.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must dismiss a complaint that
does not state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To state a plausible claim,
Page 5 of 25
Plaintiffs must plead facts sufficient to allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that
Defendants are liable for the alleged patent infringement. See id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
556). At this stage, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and views those facts in the
light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir.
2010).
Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
In determining whether a claim is patent-ineligible, the Court must “first determine whether
the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, (2014). Claims directed to software inventions do not automatically satisfy
this first step of the inquiry. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Rather, “the first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is on [a] specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on . . . an ‘abstract idea’ for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–36.
If the Court determines that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, it then determines
whether the claims contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea
into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. An inventive concept is “some element
or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to ‘significantly
more’ than a patent on an ineligible concept.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court “consider[s] the elements of each claim both individually
and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature
of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal quotation
omitted). Even if each claim element, by itself, was known in the art, “an inventive concept can
Page 6 of 25
be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”
Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Asserted and Challenged Claims
ADP challenges all claims of the Asserted Patents, even though Uniloc has not alleged
infringement of every claim of the Asserted Patents. Uniloc argues that it would be legally
improper for the Court to invalidate unasserted claims. Docket No. 64 at 6 n.1 (citing 800 Adept,
Inc. v. Murex Sec., Ltd., 539 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). ADP argues that its challenge to
all claims in the four asserted patents is appropriate. Docket No. 88 at 9–10 (citing A Pty Ltd. v.
Ebay, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-155-RP, 2015 WL 10990118 at *4 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2015)). In the
interest of judicial economy, the Court declines to consider arguments regarding unasserted claims
at this time. Accordingly, to the extent ADP challenges any claim not asserted in this action, the
Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
B. Representative Claims
In the AVG case, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to claims 7, 9, 13,
and 15 of the ʼ766 Patent and claims 15 and 22 of the 466 Patent on the basis that defendants had
failed to carry their burden of showing that these means-plus-function claims are similar in scope
to or represented by the non-means-plus-function claims. Docket No. 129 in AVG, at 7.
Here, however, ADP asserts that claim 1 of each of the four asserted patents is
representative of the remaining respective independent claims, and that the attendant dependent
claims are representative of similar dependent claims. Docket No. 17 at 8–11. ADP argues that
each of the following independent claims are system claims which recite “the limitations of claim
1 in a means-plus-function language”: claims 17 and 31 of the ʼ578 Patent, claim 15 of the ʼ466
Page 7 of 25
Patent, claim 12 of the ʼ293 Patent, and claim 7 of the ʼ766 Patent. Id. ADP further argues that
each of the following independent claims recites “computer readable program means” for
performing the functions of claim 1 of each Patent: claims 32 and 46 of the ʼ578 Patent, claim 16
of the ʼ466 Patent, claim 17 of the ʼ293 Patent, and claim 13 of the ʼ766 Patent. Id. As to the
remaining independent claims 15 and 16 of the ʼ578 Patent, ADP asserts that claim 15 is a method
claim “which recites the features of claim 1 as executed at a client, not a server,” and that claim
16 is “a combined server-client system which combines the limitations of claims 17 and 31.” Id.
at 8.
Uniloc does not refute or even acknowledge ADP’s assertions of representativeness in its
Opposition and instead argues only about claim 1 of each patent and the respective dependent
claims. See Docket No. 64 at 13–14, 16–18, 20, 22–23. In fact, nowhere in its Opposition does
Uniloc address or cite to any of the other claims. See id. Uniloc’s Opposition treats the claims of
each patent collectively, never indicating that an inventive concept might be found in a means-
plus-function claim that is not also found in a non-means-plus-function claim. E.g., Docket No.
64 at 27 (“For example, claims of the ’466 Patent recite . . .”); 29 (“Further, the claims of the ’578
Patent recite . . .”).
Moreover, after the Court denied the motion to dismiss in AVG as to the means-plus-
functions claims, the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding the
effects of the AVG Order on the instant motions. Docket No. 160 at 2. In its supplemental briefing,
ADP reasserts that it has met its burden to show that the scope of the means-plus-function claims
are sufficiently similar to the scope of the non-means-plus-function claims. Docket No. 174 at 3–
4. ADP argues that it has demonstrated that the method claims are sufficiently representative of
the means-plus-function claims “because the system[s] claims were ‘mirror’ images reciting
Page 8 of 25
‘means for’ performing the exact method steps found in the representative claims.” Id. (citing
Motion, Docket No. 17 at 8–11). ADP also reasserts in its supplemental briefing that “where
method claims are invalid under Section 101, corresponding system claims that contain only
‘minor differences in terminology but require performance of the same basic process’ are equally
invalid.” Id. (citing to Motion, Docket No. 17 at 18 (quoting Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013))).
In its supplemental brief, Uniloc again does not refute ADP’s assertion of
representativeness. Instead, Uniloc states that because “some of these [means-plus-function]
claims are common to both sets of cases, Uniloc submits that it makes sense to deal with those
claims at one time after the renewed motions are filed in the AVG cases.” Id. at 2.
The Court is unpersuaded by Uniloc’s decision to punt the issue of arguing the scope of
means-plus-function claims until after the defendants in AVG have renewed their motions. Only
three of the independent means-plus-function claims asserted in the AVG case overlap with the
claims asserted against the ADP Defendants. Uniloc does not address the additional 11
independent claims that it asserts against the ADP Defendants but that it did not assert in AVG.
See Docket Nos. 64 and 190.
For the reasons above, and having considered the parties’ original and supplemental
briefings, the Court finds that ADP has adequately shown that claim 1 of the ʼ466 Patent, claim 1
of the ʼ766 Patent, claim 1 of the ʼ578 Patent, and claim 1 of the ʼ293 Patent, and their dependent
claims, are representative. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (where the Federal Circuit found that claim 1 of
the asserted patents were representative because all of the claims were substantially similar and
linked to the same abstract idea); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010).
Page 9 of 25
Having now found the previously invalidated claim 1 of the ʼ466 Patent and claim 1 of the
ʼ766 to be representative of the means-plus-function claims, the Court GRANTS ADP’s Motion
to Dismiss as to claims 15 and 22 of the ʼ466 Patent and claims 7, 9, 13, and 15 of the ʼ766 Patent
for the reasons set forth in the AVG Order. See Docket No. 129 in AVG.
C. Need for Claim Construction
The parties disagree on whether claim construction is necessary to inform the Court’s
analysis as to patentability. Uniloc identifies a number of terms for which it argues claim
construction is necessary including: “configurable preferences,” see Docket No. 64. at 15-16, “an
instance of the selected one of the plurality of the application programs,”7 see id. at 18, “file
packet” and “segment configured to initiate registration operations,” see id. at 21, and “license
management policy information,”8 see id. at 23. Defendants argue that claim construction is not
necessary and that, even under the definitions and constructions proposed by Uniloc, the
constructions “merely specify particular data to be manipulated by its methods, or particular
computer environments in which to apply those methods.” Docket No. 88 at 5.
The Court issued a Claim Construction Memorandum and Opinion in this case on August
16, 2017 (Docket No. 233). However, the Court did not construe the terms that Uniloc identified
above as needing construction. Even so, “claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a
7 The Court invalidated claim 1 of the ʼ466 Patent in the AVG Order and therefore need not consider the
patentability of this term again. See Docket No. 129 in AVG. The Court notes, however, that Uniloc does
not provide a proposed construction for “an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application
programs,” but instead only states that it “is important to clarify the general character of the patent . . . .”
See Docket No. 64 at 18.
8 The Court also invalidated claim 1 of the ʼ766 Patent in the AVG Order. See Docket No. 129 in AVG.
Even if the Court was to accept Uniloc’s proposed construction of “license management policy
information,” as setting “policies, such as the limit of the number of users, whether crossing the limit of
users is allowed or not and how users are counted,” Uniloc does not show how the construction would save
its claim from being patent-ineligible. See Docket No. 103 at 7.
Page 10 of 25
validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012). As the Court discusses below, the Court does not require
claim construction to determine the patent-eligibility of the Asserted Patents.
The Court next considers whether the remaining claims of each Asserted Patent are patent-
eligible.
D. Alice Step 1
ʼ578 Patent, Claim 1
ADP argues that the claims of the ’578 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of providing
two-tiered customization. Docket No. 17 at 14. ADP analogizes claim 1 of the ’578 Patent to
“conventional activity” among a supplier, a business and individual employees of the business. Id.
at 9–10. ADP also analogizes the claims to non-computerized methods used by travel agencies or
medical providers. Id. at 14–15. ADP argues that the claims merely couch conventional activity
in computer-related terms, which cannot rescue the claims from abstraction. Id. at 16 (citing
Device Enhancement LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 189 F.Supp.3d 392 (D. Del. 2016)). ADP provides
the example of “configurable preferences,” a claim term ADP describes as “so broad as to be no
different than the conventional preferences by which conventional suppliers customize their
services to increase consumer satisfaction.” Id. at 16–17. ADP next argues that computerized
preference management is an unpatentable abstract concept. Id. at 17 (citing Clear with Computers
v. Altec Indus., No. 6:14-cv-79, 2015 WL 993392, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2015)).
Uniloc argues that “the Asserted Patents solve particular problems in the computer field,
thus rendering them patent eligible.” Docket No. 64 at 5 (citing Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “The ’578 Patent,” Uniloc argues, “seeks to reduce costs
and increase uniformity in managing software in a network environment by delivering configured
Page 11 of 25
applications when demanded by a user and provides ‘an essentially hardware transparent ability
for an individual user to interface to an on-demand server supported client station while
maintaining the user’s personal preferences for each application program.’ ” Id. at 8–9 (citing ’578
Patent, col. 6:2–9). Uniloc states, “[t]he ’578 Patent is directed to resolving that problem by
claiming a method for management of configurable programs on a network.” Id. at 9 (citing ’578
Patent, col. 14:65–67). Specifically, “[a]n application launcher program associated with the
application program is distributed to a client coupled to the network;” “[a] user set of the plurality
of configurable preferences associated with one of the plurality of authorized users executing the
application launcher program is obtained;” “an administrator set of the plurality of configurable
preferences is obtained from an administrator;” and “[t]he application program is then executed
using the obtained user set and the obtained administrator set of the plurality of configurable
preferences responsive to a request from the one of the plurality of authorized users.” Id. at 9
(citing ’578 Patent, col. 15:1–13). The specification states that the claimed invention “provides
for the desired reduced costs and increased uniformity in managing software in a network
environment by delivering configured application when demanded by a user.” Id. (citing ’578
Patent, col. 6:2–5).
Uniloc also argues that ADP’s supplier analogy is erroneous because the claimed client-
server environment and other computer-related limitations render the claimed steps “clearly not
tasks that can be completed by a supplier providing supplies to two employees of a business.” Id.
at 14–15. Uniloc states that the fact that the asserted claims cannot be performed by the human
hand or in the human mind without specific hardware or circuitry “negates ADP’s argument that
the claims are simply an abstract idea.” Id. at 15 (citing Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks
Ltd., 211 F. Supp. 3d 858, 906 (E.D. Tex. 2016), vacated and remanded on other grounds). Uniloc
Page 12 of 25
also disputes ADP’s construction of “configurable preferences,” which Uniloc argues is
inconsistent with the disclosure of the ’578 specification. Id.
Turning first to “configurable preferences,” the Court notes that despite the term’s
appearance on a list of terms that Uniloc identified as necessary for construction prior to a Section
101 analysis, see id. at 15–16 (citing Docket No. 34-1), the term does not appear on the parties’
April 20, 2017 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement as a term requiring
construction.9 See Docket No. 148. Nor did the Court construe the term “configurable
preferences” in its Claim Construction Memorandum and Order. See Docket No. 233.
Accordingly, “configurable preferences” takes its plain and ordinary meaning—any preferences
pertaining to the claimed application program that may be configured.
The claims of the ’578 Patent involve computers but do nothing to improve their
functionality. The claims employ off-the-shelf computer components without modification. See
Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d, 1350 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Court has already
held that the kind of benefits they provide—“increased efficiency” or “reduced costs”—are not
technological benefits. Docket No. 129 in AVG, at 11–12. As with the ’466 Patent, the claims of
the ’578 are overly vague in that they recite “executing the application program using the obtained
user set and the obtained administrator set [of preferences],” e.g., ’578 Patent, col. 15:10–12,
without claiming any “particular way of programming or designing the software” to facilitate
execution of the program according to the claim. See id. at 11 (citing Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth,
Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
9 The Court encourages parties to resolve disputes throughout the litigation, and the construction of
“configurable preferences” may reflect one such successful resolution.
Page 13 of 25
ADP’s assertion that the ’578 Patent claims are directed to “two-tiered customization” is
well supported in the claims. The focus of claim 1 is obtaining user and administrator sets of
configuration preferences and then executing an application using those preferences. The
application launcher, which the specification teaches may be as simple as an icon that provides a
URL, see ’578 Patent, col. 8:6–20, is not the central focus of the claims; rather, it is a generic
means by which the claims execute applications in light of two sets of preferences. Accordingly,
the Court finds that the claims of the ’578 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of “providing
two-tiered customization” in a client-server environment.
ʼ293 Patent, Claim 1
ADP argues that the claims of the ’293 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of “providing
on-demand distribution of information.” Docket No. 17 at 21. ADP analogizes claim 1 of the
’293 Patent to a library implementing an inter-library loan system using a central repository. Id.
at 22–23. In ADP’s analogy, the claimed servers are like libraries, and the source and target
directories are like shelves. Id. (citing Clear with Computers, 2015 WL 993392, at *4). Moreover,
ADP argues, “specifying source and destination directories is a conventional and necessary step
for receiving or storing any file over a network, and therefore contributes no weight in the abstract
idea analysis.” Id. at 23 (citing NexusCard, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 173 F.Supp.3d 462, 467 (E.D. Tex.
2016)). As with the ’578 Patent, ADP alleges that the claims of the ’293 Patent merely “wrap []
conventional practices in generic computer terminology.” Id. at 23.
Uniloc argues that the “computer problem” solved by the ’293 Patent was “the limited
capabilities associated with centralized management of software.” Docket No. 64 at 9. Uniloc
states that the ’293 Patent addresses that problem by providing “a uniform framework for
deployment of new or updated application programs from different software designers.” Id.
Page 14 of 25
(quoting ’293 Patent, col. 3:32–34). Uniloc again disputes ADP’s analogy on the grounds that the
computer-related limitations of the claims render it not abstract. Id. at 20–21. Specifically, Uniloc
puts great weight on the claimed “segment configured to initiate registration operations,” which it
states should be construed to “include[ ] ‘an import data file and a call to an import program
executing on a target station.’ ” Id. at 21 (quoting ’293 Patent, col. 5:45–48).
The claims of the ’293 Patent also fail to improve the functioning of a computer. They
provide for off-the-shelf components, with claim 2 even specifying TivoliTM, a commercially-
available brand, as limiting the “network management server” in claim 1. ʼ293 Patent, col. 21:38–
39. The Court agrees with the ADP Defendants that the allegedly “uniform framework” provided
by the ’293 Patent includes only generic activities of servers. Docket No. 17 at 23. Even under
Uniloc’s proposed construction of “segment configured to initiate registration operations,” the
claim still does not amount to more than a routine activity of commercial network management
software as described by the specification itself, and is therefore directed to an abstract idea. See
’293 Patent, col. 17:20–54 (describing the TME 10TM network management software).
ADP’s assertion of the alleged abstract idea as “providing on-demand distribution of
information” is not a perfect fit for the claims, which use an on-demand server but do not distribute
the software “on-demand” in the sense of the distribution being responsive to a request from a
user. Rather, the claims are directed to the centralized distribution of software to a plurality of on-
demand servers from a central network management server. See Docket No. 64 at 9. Thus, the
Court finds that a better characterization of the abstract idea is “centralized distribution of
software.”10
10 An abstract idea can be described in different ways, and the Court describing the idea differently from
ADP is not fatal to its motion. See Docket No. 129 in AVG at 11 (citing Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1240).
Page 15 of 25
In sum, the claims of the Asserted Patents are directed to abstract ideas. Because step one
of the Alice inquiry is satisfied, the Court proceeds to step two.11
E. Alice Step Two
Having concluded that claim 1 of the ʼ578 Patent and ʼ293 Patent are drawn to abstract
ideas, the next step is to determine whether the claims contain meaningful limitations that create
an inventive concept. Alice, 124 S. Ct. at 2359. The Court also considers whether the remaining
claims of the ʼ466 and ʼ766 Patents create an inventive concept.
Defendants generally argue that none of the claims of the Asserted Patents provide an
inventive concept because they recite generic computer equipment like “networks,” “clients,”
“servers,” and “remote workstations” for exchanging generic information. Docket No. 17 at 27.
Likewise, Defendants contend that the claimed steps of “install[ing],” “distribut[ing],” and
“executing” programs over a network are “standard computer functionality undertaken in any
client-server system.” Id. Defendants characterize limitations like “obtaining preferences” and
“preparing a ‘file packet’ ” as basic computer tasks that correspond to conventional information
management steps, and which are not activities unique to computer hardware. Id. at 28.
Defendants assert that any ordered combinations of these claim elements also fail because even
the claims that recite specific methods for performing computer tasks implement the above-listed
abstract ideas in generic server-client environments. Id.
Defendants distinguish the Asserted Patents, which they claim do not provide a unique
solution to a technical problem unique in the computer field, from the patents in DDR Holdings
which were found to provide a unique solution “rooted in computer technology” to retain visitors
11 The Court does not revisit its finding that the claims of the ’466 and ’766 Patents are directed to
abstract concepts. See Docket No. 129 in AVG, at 12. The Court addresses the remaining claims of the
’466 and ’766 Patents at step two of the Alice inquiry.
Page 16 of 25
to a website, and from the patent in Enfish, which improved computer software functionality itself
through use of a “self-referential table.” Id. at 30–31 (citing DDR Holding, 773 F.3d 1245; Enfish,
822 F.3d 1327). Defendants state that the Asserted Patents, instead, “centralize operations in order
to offer two-tiered customization services and centrally-distributed products, to distribute
information on-demand, and to manage permissions,” each of which is an abstract concept,
reflective of conventional solutions known outside the computer arts, and which provide the same
benefits of “reduced costs” and “increased uniformity” provided by conventional centralization.
Id. at 31–32.
Uniloc responds that Defendants ignore that “[t]he ‘inventive concept’ may arise in one or
more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations” and “[t]he
inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was
known in the art.” Docket No. 64 at 27 (citing Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350).
Uniloc asserts that the Court should reject Defendants’ argument that the Asserted Patents
recite generic computer equipment because these terms have specific meanings within the context
of application management in a client-server environment. Id. at 32–34 (citing Genband US LLC,
211 F. Supp. 3d at 904–05 (finding that the claims were patent-eligible, despite the claim relying
on generic IP protocols and devices, because the recited components and operations were
meaningless outside the context of a computer network that uses those specific protocols and
devices)). Uniloc argues, for example, that the term “application program” is defined in the patent
as referring “to the code associated with the underlying program functions, for example Lotus
Notes or a terminal emulator program.” Id. Uniloc argues as another example that “application
program launcher distributed to populate the user desktop may only include a URL and an
Page 17 of 25
associated ICON and, possibly, code to allow obtaining a user identification and password
information.” Id.
Moreover, Uniloc contends that the Asserted Patents and claimed inventions amount to
inventive concepts because they “resolve longstanding problems in the industry of network
management.” Docket No. 64 at 30–31 (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258). Uniloc asserts
that the claimed inventions are “specifically tailored to solve discrete problems that existed at the
time.” Id. at 32 (citing Bascom, 827 F.3d 1341).
In their reply, Defendants argue that Genband does not apply in this case because there,
“the claimed operations were ‘meaningless outside the context of a computer network,’ while
Uniloc’s methods are just as advantageous when applied outside computer environments.” Docket
No. 88 at 14. Defendants further distinguish that in Bascom, “the ‘ordered combination’ of the
claimed generic components (a client computer, a remote server, computer networks, and filtering
software) held an inventive step because it provided more dynamic and efficient filtering than the
combinations of those elements known in the networking arts.” Docket No. 88 at 9. Defendants
argue that, here, “the order of Uniloc’s claim steps results in wholly predictable improvements,
because they reflect the conventional steps taken for centralized distribution of products and
information.” Id. Defendants also claim that Uniloc’s reliance on DDR Holdings is incorrect
because Uniloc’s patents apply well-known methods for distributing products and information not
specific to the internet or computers, whereas the technology in DDR Holdings “overrode the
‘routine and conventional sequence of events’ that would otherwise occur on the internet. Id.
(citing DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1258).
The Asserted Patents here do not provide for a unique solution rooted in computer
technology. See DDR Holdings, 773 F. 3d 1245. Nor do the claimed inventions improve computer
Page 18 of 25
software functionality itself, see Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339, or are specifically tailored to solve
discrete problems that existed at the time, see Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. Defendants have met
their burden of showing that the claims of the Asserted Patents recite routine computer functions
for exchanging information using generic off-the-shelf computer components, see Elec. Power.
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355, which are just as advantageous when applied outside of the computer
environment, see Genband, 211 F. Supp. 3d at 904–05. Though the Asserted Patents are all part
of the same family of patents and share similar specifications, see Docket No. 174 at 2 n.3, the
Court explains below why each of the remaining claims of the Asserted Patents specifically does
not create an inventive concept and is drawn to ineligible subject matter.
The ʼ466 Patent
Uniloc argues that the ʼ466 Patent “addresses the problem of seamless integration of
application access across heterogeneous networks, and, to that end, provides application programs
on-demand from a server to a user logging in to a client supported by the server.” Docket 64 at
31. According to Uniloc, the individual claim limitations of claim 1 of the ʼ466 Patent “allows for
an instance of an application program to be provided to the client in response to a selection of the
application program for which a user is authorized,” which “allows for instances of the programs
to be provided to the client as needed for execution.” Id. at 28. Uniloc states that “a customized
user interface desktop is provided at the client, which displays the applications the user is
authorized to access.” Id.
The Court has already explained why the individual limitations of claim 1 of the ʼ466
patent, separately or in ordered combination, fail to provide an inventive concept. Docket No. 129
in AVG, at 14. In AVG, the Court credited the specifications as listing purported advantages of the
claimed invention but found that Uniloc had not shown how these advantages constituted inventive
Page 19 of 25
concepts in themselves. Id. This Court also found that, unlike the claims in Bascom, the claims
of the ʼ466 Patent relied only upon generic computer components used in a routine arrangement.
Id. at 15. The Court further determined that the ʼ466 Patent claims shared more of the
characteristics with the invalid claims in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir.
2014) than with the valid claims in DDR Holdings because the “display regions” operated in a
conventional manner. Id. The human performance example of distributing software by hand also
showed that a preexisting analog exists to the claimed invention of distributing software in a client-
server network environment. Id.
Though Uniloc asserts in its complaints (Docket Nos. 1, 57) dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 8, 9
and 13 of the ʼ466 Patent against the ADP Defendants, Uniloc does not identify in its response,
and the Court cannot find, any limiting language that could result in any of the elements of these
claims, or any combination thereof, amounting to more than an inventive concept. To the contrary,
ADP Defendants have met their burden of showing that each of the dependent claims either recites
conventional computer activity (see claim 3, “distributing application launcher programs” and
“receiving the selection,” and claim 9, “determining” license availability), recites generic
instruction to maintain and use a certain kind of information (see claim 4, “maintaining
configurable user preference,” claim 5, specifying that the user preference information are
configured and updated by the user or administrator, and claim 8, including “the step of
configuring the user desktop interface not to include display regions… for which the user is not
authorized”), or constitutes electronic recordkeeping (see claim 13, “logging information”). See
Docket No. 17 at 20–21, 27–29.
Page 20 of 25
The Court therefore finds that the additionally asserted dependent claims of the ̓ 466 Patent,
taken individually or as an ordered combination, do not provide for an inventive concept and are
drawn to ineligible subject matter.
The ʼ766 Patent
Uniloc next argues that the ʼ766 Patent provides for an inventive concept because
“[d]etermining license availability for a selected application program for a user allows the user to
move between different client stations when accessing the application program.” Docket No. 64
at 28–29. Uniloc states that “[m]obility is one of the issues identified in the patent that the art at
the time struggled with.” Id.
The Court has already explained that independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7 of the
ʼ766 Patent do not provide an inventive concept because the claims recite generic electronic
recordkeeping functions of maintaining, querying and relaying information. See Docket 129 in
AVG, at 18–19.
Uniloc asserts the additional dependent claim 5 of the ʼ766 Patent against ADP,12 and
again, Uniloc does not identify, and the Court cannot find, any limiting language in claim 5 that
could transform the claims of the ʼ766 Patent into an inventive concept. ADP has met its burden
of showing that claim 5, which limits claim 1 “wherein [sic] at least one of a user identify based
policy, an administrator policy override definition or a user policy override definition defines a
policy for managing at least one of a response time or a usage rate,” merely adds that the license
policy can be associated with a group when performing the electronic recordkeeping function of
maintaining this information at a license management server. ʼ766 Patent, col. 15:37–22:40; see
12 It appears from Uniloc’s supplemental briefing that the only non-means-plus-function claim of the ʼ766
Patent it asserts against ADP that it did not assert against defendants in AVG, and that has not been
invalidated thus far, is claim 5. Docket No. 190 at 2.
Page 21 of 25
also Docket No. 17 at 25–26. Accordingly, claim 5 does not contain an inventive concept and is
drawn towards patent-ineligible subject matter.
The ʼ578 Patent
Uniloc argues that the individual limitations of claim 1 of the ʼ578 Patent, or the ordered
combination of these limitations, provide for discrete inventive concepts because the claims
“provide[ ] for management of configurable application programs in a network environment from
a central on-demand server location while allowing for user preferences to be tracked independent
of the hardware location of the user.” Docket No. 64 at 29. According to Uniloc, the inventive
concept of the ʼ578 Patent lies in “enabling sharing of a storage device between computers or use
of separate but synchronized databases of preferences values at the computer,” providing an
unconventional technological solution to the technological problem of “roaming users within a
heterogeneous computer network.” Docket No. 103 at 3–4. Uniloc asserts that these limitations
“also provide for reduced costs and increased uniformity in managing software in a network
environment by delivering configured applications when demanded by a user.” Id.
Defendants argue that, like the other Asserted Patents, the ʼ578 Patent couches
conventional techniques in computer-specific terms. Docket No. 17 at 16. Defendants claim that
claim 1 of the ʼ578 Patent recites language, like “installing” applications on servers and clients
and “exchang[ing] data,” which are generic computer tasks. Id. As discussed above, Defendants
analogize that the claimed methods offer the same central management of multiple preferences
that exist in business practices, such as making procurement requests. Docket No. 17 at 15, 29.
Uniloc argues in its sur-reply that the language of the ʼ578 limitations “inherently requires
performance on a computer,” and therefore is not a function that could be performed by a librarian.
Docket No. 103 at 4.
Page 22 of 25
As the Federal Circuit stated in Enfish, “fundamental economic and conventional business
practices are often found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer.” 822 F.3d at 1335.
The Court finds that the individual limitations of claim 1 of the ʼ578 Patent do not provide an
inventive concept. Each limitation of claim 1 relies upon generic computer components used in a
routine arrangement. See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1346; see also Docket No. 17 at 27. The first step
of claim 1, “installing an application program having a plurality of configurable preferences and a
plurality of authorized users on a server coupled to a network” recites standard computer
functionality between client-server systems. ʼ578 Patent, col. 14:63–67. The second step of
“distributing the application launcher program” to a client on the network also recites a generic
computer function. ʼ578 Patent, col. 15:1–3; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. The third and
fourth steps of “obtaining” the configurable preferences from the users and administrators recite
generic electronic recordkeeping functions of querying and relaying information. ̓ 578 Patent, col.
15:4–9; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Nothing in the claim or specification indicates how the
information is obtained. Moreover, the Federal Circuit has held that “merely selecting
information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. The
fifth step of the claim, “executing the application program” using the obtained information from
the administrator and user, is also a generic function without claiming any “particular way of
programming or designing the software” to facilitate execution of the program according to the
claim, and “merely claim[s] the resulting systems.” ʼ578 Patent, col. 15:10–13; Apple, Inc. v.
Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Page 23 of 25
Moreover, as discussed above and in the Court’s AVG Order, the benefits of reducing costs
or increasing uniformity or efficiency claimed by the ʼ578 Patent are not technological benefits or
improvements to a computer’s functionality. Docket No. 129 in AVG, at 11–12.
Finally, as with the ʼ466 and ʼ766 Patents, Uniloc does not identify any limiting language
to suggest that an inventive concept could exist as to dependent claims 2–8, and 10–14. See Docket
No. 64. Defendants, on the other hand, argue that these claims only specify where the configurable
preferences come from (claims 2, 3, 10), where the preferences are stored (claim 6), where the
command to execute the application program comes from (claims 4, 5, 7), whether to obtain default
preferences (claim 8), and whether multiple user sets and application programs may be used
(claims 11–14). See Docket No. 17 at 17–18. The Court agrees that these claims, individually and
in any ordered combination, recite conventional practices in generic computer technology, similar
to the ʼ766 Patent.13
Accordingly, the Defendants have met their burden of showing that the claims of the ʼ578
Patent do not provide an inventive concept and are drawn to ineligible subject matter.
The ʼ293 Patent
Uniloc claims that the individual limitations of claim 1 of the ʼ293 Patent, or the ordered
combination of these limitations contribute to the inventive concept of “enhancing installation and
registration of application programs on computers of the network” to solve the technological
problem of “limited capabilities associated with centralized management of software distribution.”
Docket No. 103 at 4.
In addition to arguing that the Asserted Patents recite generic computer equipment and
functions, and therefore do not provide for an inventive concept, see supra p. 15–16, Defendants
13 The ʼ578 and ʼ766 Patents share a common specification.
Page 24 of 25
assert that the claimed methods of the ʼ293 Patent are digital analogs to indexing and distributing
physical media, such as books. Docket No. 17 at 29. ADP Defendants analogize that the “file
packets” and “directories” of the claims perform the same functions as analog cards and shelves,
and that the claimed methods are “no more efficient or effective at distributing information than
their classical analogs[sic], save for the inherent speed of digital communication.” Id. at 29.
In its sur-reply, Uniloc argues that the ̓ 293 Patent specifications teaches that the limitations
of the ʼ239 claims includes programmed instructions for processing specific data, which can only
be performed by a computer, and is not performable by a librarian. Docket No. 103 at 3–4.
The Court agrees with Defendants that claim 1 of the ʼ293 Patent does not provide for an
inventive concept, similar to the ʼ466 Patent.14 The first step of claim 1 “provid[es] an application
program to be distributed to the network management server,” which recites a generic computer
function that existed at the time of the invention, and which is to be performed on a brand-name
server. ʼ239 Patent, col. 21:26–27; see also ʼ239 Patent, col. 7:26–27 (“TivoliTM server provides
a means for software distribution and management in computer network system.”). The second
step of the claim which “specif[ies] a source directory and a target directory” for distribution of
the application program amounts to electronic recordkeeping. ʼ239 Patent, col. 21:29–30; see also
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. E-MDS, Inc., 6:14-CV-00625-RWS, 2015 WL 10791906, at *4, 6 (E.D. Tex.
Aug. 19, 2015). The third and fourth steps of “preparing a file packet associated with the
application program and including a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the
application program at the target on-demand server” and distributing this file packet to the target
on-demand server also recite generic computer functions of indexing and distributing a program.
ʼ239 Patent, col. 21:31–37; see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.
14 The ʼ293 and ʼ466 Patents share a common specification.
Page 25 of 25
Defendants have adequately shown that claim 1 of the ̓ 293 Patent recites generic computer
components, and provides for functions that are merely digital analogs to indexing and distributing
data. Accordingly, claim 1 of the ʼ293 Patent does not provide an inventive concept and is drawn
to ineligible subject matter.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendants have shown that claims 3–5, 8, 9, 13, 15–20, 22–24, 28–33, 35–37, 41 and 42
of the ʼ466 Patent, claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and 17 of the ʼ766 Patent, claims 1–8, 10–39 and 41–
46 of the ʼ578, and claims 1, 12 and 17 of the ʼ293 Patent are drawn to ineligible subject matter
and, therefore, invalid. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED as to
those claims. The Motion is DENIED as to any unasserted patent claims. The Motion is DENIED
AS MOOT as to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for infringement of the ʼ293 Patent for
failure to plead sufficient factual allegations.
Defendant Big Fish’s Motion (Docket No. 80) is also GRANTED-IN-PART and
DENIED-IN-PART consistent with this Order.
It is therefore ORDERED that all claims asserted by Uniloc against Defendants in these
actions (2:16-cv-741; 2:16-cv-858) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Any motions remaining in these cases are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close these cases.
____________________________________ROBERT W. SCHROEDER IIIUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of September, 2017.