Implicit, LLC v. Ziff Davis, Inc.

1

Implicit, LLC v. Ziff Davis, Inc. and Mudhook Marketing, Inc.

No. 2:22-cv-09453-AB-AFMx

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 6, 2023

Present: The Honorable ANDRE BIROTTE JR., United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings [In Chambers] Order regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint [Dkt. No 28]

Defendants Ziff Davis, Inc. and Mudhook Marketing, Inc. (“Defendants”) move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on several grounds including subject matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (“Mot.,” Dkt. No. 28). Plaintiff Implicit, LLC (“Plaintiff') filed an opposition (“Opp.,” Dkt. No. 33), and Defendants filed a reply (“Reply,” Dkt. No. 34). Finding these matters suitable for resolution without oral argument, the Court VACATES the hearing set for July 7, 2023. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,778,966 (the “'966 Patent”). (See generally, “Compk,” Dkt. No. 1; “FAC,” Dkt. No. 23). The '966 Patent, titled “Method and System for Attribute Management in a Namespace,” issued on August 17, 2010. (See '966 Patent.) The patent discloses a method in a computer system for synchronizing a duplicate namespace with an original namespace. (FAC ¶ 12). Typically, namespaces utilize predefined attributes associated with their objects. The '966 Patent purports to provide more flexible handling of object attributes. (Id. ¶ 11). Similarly, the patent teaches flexible views into namespaces, which typically only allowed logical views of objects corresponding to the physical organization of the namespace. (Id.).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe at least claim 1 of the '966 Patent. (Id. ¶ 25.) Claim 1 of the '966 Patent is the only independent claim and recites:

1. A method in a computer system for synchronizing a duplicate namespace with an original namespace, the method comprising:

receiving a query specification and a view specification for one or more objects in the namespace, the view specification indicating how objects satisfying the query specification are to be organized;

identifying from the original namespace the objects that match the query specification;

generating a duplicate namespace using the identified objects and the view specification;

associating the query specification and view specification with the duplicate namespace;

modifying one or more objects so that the original namespace and duplicate namespace are not synchronized;

re-identifying from the original those objects that match the query specification; and modifying one or more objects so that the original namespace and duplicate namespace are synchronized.

('966 Patent, Claim 1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant may move to dismiss a cause of action where the plaintiff has failed to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must first assume the truth of all non-conclusory, factual allegations made in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679-80 (2009). Considering these assumptions, the Court must determine whether the complaint is “plausible on its face,” allowing the Court to “draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Labels, conclusions, and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Similarly, a court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation[,]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In patent infringement actions, an accused infringer may move to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the basis that the claimed invention is ineligible for patent protection and thus the patent is invalid. In this context, the moving party “bear[s] the burden of establishing that the claims are patent-ineligible under § 101.” Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Earthlink, Inc., No. SA CV 14-0347 DOC, 2015 WL 1239992, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015). “[I]n applying § 101 jurisprudence at the pleading stage, the Court construes the patent claims in a manner most favorable to Plaintiff.” Id. at *8 (citing Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).

III. DISCUSSION

a. Representativeness

As a threshold matter, the Court finds claim 1 representative and performs the § 101 analysis on claim 1. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1348 (“The district court, however, correctly determined that addressing each claim of the asserted patents was unnecessary” where claim 1 was “representative” because “all the claims are substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea”). Here, the claims of the '966 Patent all relate to the data synchronization method of claim 1. See '966 Patent, Claims 1-5. Given the common focus, applying the Alice framework to claim 1 provides a representative analysis applicable to all asserted claims. Plaintiff does not raise any meaningful distinctions to the contrary. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1365 (“Courts may treat a claim as representative in certain situations, such as if the patentee does not present any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim or if the parties agree to treat a claim as representative.”)

b. Alice Step 1: Abstract Idea

Defendants argue that the '966 Patent is invalid because its claims are directed to the abstract idea of synchronizing namespaces. (Mot. 19). Defendants further argue that the FAC and the '966 Patent specification identify shortcomings in the prior art yet the '966 Patent fails to teach a solution to address these shortcomings. (Id. at 21.) Typically, prior art namespaces had predefined attributes associated with their objects and logical views of objects corresponding to the physical organization of the namespace. (Id.) The '966 Patent purports to provide greater flexibility as to both of these features but, per Defendants, does not describe the improvements with any specificity. (Id.) Defendants also argue that the claims recite mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or using a pencil. (Id. at 23-24).

Plaintiff argues that claim 1 of the '966 Patent improves upon the prior art's shortcomings by requiring a query specification and a view specification for objects in the namespace, which allows for more flexible handling of object attributes and more flexible views into the namespace. (Opp. 11-12). Defendants reply that Plaintiff does not tie these purported improvements to the claims of the '966 Patent. (Reply 10). Defendants also argue that any claims that would improve upon the identified shortcomings were cancelled during the patent's prosecution. (Id.)

The relevant inquiry at step one is “to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). A claim is directed to an abstract idea if it “consist[s] only of ‘generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.'” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing TLI, 823 F.3d at 612).

The Court finds that claim 1 of the '966 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of “synchronizing data between computer directories.” The claimed invention of the '966 Patent is a computer method involving a search specification and a desired view of the output. (See '966 Patent). The method teaches duplicating a namespace after matching the search specification in the namespace. (See id.) After creating the new namespace, the method provides for altering objects within the new namespace and synchronizing the original and new namespaces. (See id.). This Court previously found the idea of data synchronization abstract. See Data Scape Ltd. v. W. Digital Corp., No. SACV 18-2285-DOC, 2019 WL 6391616, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2019), aff'd, 816 Fed.Appx. 461 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding claim directed to recognizing, extracting, and transferring data abstract).

Further, searching, duplicating, modifying, rearranging, and synchronizing data, without more, are all functions that human beings can perform mentally or using a pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding that claimed processes that can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” abstract). The claim does not provide any additional detail with respect to how the computer systems performs the computer method. Moreover, the fact that the claim is directed to a “computer system,” alone does not render the underlying method eligible. See In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Accordingly, the method is ineligible under § 101 as directed to an abstract idea.

The Court also finds that the '966 Patent does not teach an improvement in computer functionality. Plaintiff argues that patent teaches improvements - greater flexibility in handling object attributes and views in...