Hyper Search, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.

HYPER SEARCH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 17-1387-CFC-SRF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

December 17, 2018

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the court in this patent infringement action is defendant Facebook, Inc.'s ("Facebook") motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (D.I. 9) For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the court grant Facebook's motion to dismiss.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Parties

Plaintiff Hyper Search LLC ("Hyper Search") is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 1) Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California. (Id. at ¶ 2)

B. Facts

Hyper Search asserts claims for infringement regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,085,219 ("the '219 patent"), 6,271,840 ("the '840 patent"), and 6,792,412 ("the '412 patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit"). (D.I. 1)

Hyper Search asserts claims 5, 6, and 12 of the '219 patent against Facebook. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 39) The '219 patent is titled "Home Page Creating Systems Apparatuses and Program Recording Mediums, and Home Page Displaying Systems and Program Recording Mediums," and is directed to a system that permits a user to create a home page automatically based on answer data, without having to have any special knowledge. ('219 patent, abstract) Representative claim 5 recites:

5. A server providing a home page for plurality of clients connected via a network, comprising:

Template storage means for storing a plurality of templates for creating home pages corresponding to respective types of the plurality of clients;

Home page creating means for reading a template corresponding to a type of a requesting client from said template storage means based on type information received from the requesting client, and for creating a home page based on the template and without requiring that said user have any special knowledge of the template creation process; and

Home page storage means for storing the home page created by said home page creating means so as to be freely accessible by the plurality of clients via the network.

('219 patent, col. 13:4-19) Claim 6 depends from claim 5: "the server according to claim 5, wherein said home page creating means creates a home page whose display format is dependent on the type of the requesting client." (Id., col. 13:20-22)

Hyper Search asserts claims 1 and 13 of the '840 patent against Facebook. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 61) The '840 patent is entitled "Graphical Search Engine Visual Index," and is directed to "[a] visual index method [which] provides graphical output from search engine results or other URL lists." ('840 patent, abstract) Representative claim 1 recites:

1. A browser interface for rendering summary graphic information regarding at least one Uniform/Universal Resource Locator (URL), comprising:

A web crawler, said web crawler receiving a first URL from a source of URLs, said web crawler retrieving data associated with said first URL and transmitting said data as output; and

A web page renderer, said web page renderer receiving as input said retrieved data associated with said first URL transmitted as output by said web crawler, said web page renderer also receiving as input image scale and format information, said webpage renderer transmitting as output a reduced image of said data associated with said first URL, said web page renderer transmitting said reduced image with an embedded hyperlink embedded in said data and referring to a second URL separate from said first URL with which said data is associated; whereby

The browser interface delivers to a viewer said reduced image as a graphical summary of said data, allowing said viewer to more easily determine content presented at said URL without having said data occupy an entire computer screen.

('840 patent, col. 11:17-39)

Hyper Search asserts claim 1 of the '412 patent against Facebook. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 85) The '412 patent is entitled "Neutral Network System and Method for Controlling Information Output Based on User Feedback," and claims "[a] system and method for controlling information output based on user feedback about the information that includes a plurality of information sources." ('412 patent, abstract) Claim 1 recites:

1. A system for controlling information output based on user feedback about the information comprising:

A plurality of information sources providing information;

At least one neural network module that selects one or more of a plurality of objects to receive information from the plurality of information sources based at least in part on a plurality of inputs and a plurality of weight values;

At least one server, associated with the neural network module, that provides one or more of the objects to one or more recipients;

The recipients enabling for one or more users to generate feedback about the information; and

Wherein the neural network module generates a rating value for a plurality of the objects at the end of an epoch, redetermines the weight values using the rating values, and selects which objects to receive information during a subsequent epoch using the redetermined weight values and the inputs for that subsequent epoch.

('412 patent, col. 19:49-67)

C. Procedural History

Hyper Search initiated this action on October 3, 2017. (D.I. 1) On January 10, 2018, Facebook filed the pending motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. (D.I. 9) The court heard oral argument on June 11, 2018.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

Rule 12(b)(6) permits a party to move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Servs., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008).

To state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed factual allegations are not required, the complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56.

When determining whether dismissal is appropriate, the court must take three steps.¹ SeeSantiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010). First, the court must identify the elements of the claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675. Second, the court must identify and reject conclusory allegations. Id. at 678. Third, the court should assume the veracity of the well-pleaded factual allegations identified under the first prong of the analysis, and determine whether they are sufficiently alleged to state a claim for relief. Id.; see also Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d Cir. 2011). The third prong presents a context-specific inquiry that "draw[s] on [the court's] experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663-64; see also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal, "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

B. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101 provides that patentable subject matter extends to four broad categories, including "new and useful process[es], machine[s], manufacture, or composition[s] of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101; see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) ("Bilski II"); Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308 (1980). The Supreme Court recognizes three exceptions to the statutory subject matter eligibility requirements: "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas." Bilski II, 561 U.S. at 601 (internal quotations omitted). In this regard, the Supreme Court has held that "[t]he concepts covered by these exceptions are 'part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men . . . free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.'" Id. at 602 (quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)). At issue in the present case is the third category pertaining to abstract ideas, which "embodies thelongstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

In Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), the Supreme Court articulated a two-step "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In accordance with the first step of the Alice test, the court must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. See id. If so, the court must turn to the second step, under which the court must identify an "'inventive concept'—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Id. (internal citation omitted). The two steps are "plainly related" and "involve...