Location Based Servs., LLC v. Niantic, Inc.

295 F.Supp.3d 1031

LOCATION BASED SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.NIANTIC, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04413 NC

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed December 19, 2017

Kris S. LeFan, Lowe | LeFan, Beverly Hills, CA, Krystal La'Shae McCool, Hao Ni, Neal Gopal Massand, Stevenson Moore, V, Timothy Tiewei Wang, Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Darin Walter Snyder, Alexander Bok-Sing Parker, Luann Loraine Simmons, Alexander B. Parker, Jianing (Jenny) Liu, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ryan K. Yagura, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING NIANTIC'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE UNDER ALICE

Re: Dkt. No. 35

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, United States Magistrate Judge

In the summer of 2016 it was common to see children and adults walking while craning their necks down to their phones in an effort to catch Pokémon or reach Pokéstops. This patent infringement suit goes to the core of the mapping technology used in Pokémon GO. Plaintiff Location Based Services, LLC (LBS) asserts 44 separate claims spread out over four map-related patents that are allegedly infringed at apparently every instant a user is playing Pokémon GO.

Defendant Niantic, Inc. is the developer of Pokémon GO, and Niantic moves to dismiss LBS's complaint for patent infringement under the two-part test developed in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed. 2d 296 (2014). The two-part test considers first whether a patent is directed to an abstract idea, and if so, whether it discloses an inventive concept. If a patent is directed to an abstract idea and does not disclose an inventive concept, the patent is deemed invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Niantic's argument is that the four patents are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information on a map. Niantic further argues that the patents disclose no inventive concept sufficient to save the patents. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that all four of the patents are directed to an abstract idea, and do not disclose an inventive concept. Thus, the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the Court GRANTS Niantic's motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. The Parties

LBS is a Texas limited liability company, which has a principal place of business in Texas. Dkt. No. 30 at 2. Niantic is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. Id.

2. The Patents

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,522,996 ('996 Patent), 7,860,648 ('648 Patent), 8,392,114 ('114 Patent), and 8,768,610 ('610 Patent). Dkt. No. 30 at 3-5. All of the patents are entitled "Map Display System and Method" and have the same inventors listed. Because the four patents share the same abstract, detailed description and figures, the Court will refer to the earliest-filed '996 Patent, unless otherwise noted. The '114 Patent is a continuation of the '648 Patent. '114 Patent at 1. The '648 Patent, in turn, is a continuation of the '996 Patent, which was the earliest-filed patent. '648 Patent at 1. The '610 Patent is a continuation in part of the '114 Patent. '610 Patent at 1.

The patents provide "a computer system and methods related to a map display." '996 Patent at 1. The patents' shared abstract provides that the method includes "receiving a request for a map" for one or more locations. Id. The method includes "determining a status associated with at least one of the" locations on the map. Id. That status is a "function of one or more location interaction rules associated with" one or more of the locations on the map. Id. Lastly, the method generates "a signal related to indicating on the map the status associated with the at least one of the one or more locations." Id. The specification includes a diagram of an embodiment of the claimed subject matter:

'996 Patent Fig. 3A. The patents do not explain how the invention is an improvement on the prior art or what problem it solves.

3. The Asserted Claims

LBS alleges Niantic infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 28 of the '996 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 of the '648 Patent, claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 17 of the '114 Patent, and claims 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 26 of the '610 Patent. Dkt. No. 30. Given the number of claims at issue in this case, the Court concentrates on the asserted independent claims in its discussion.¹ Claim 1 of the '996 Patent provides:

A method for providing map-related data, the method comprising:

receiving a request for a map display illustrating information relative to one or more locations in a predetermined area;

determining a status associated with at least one of the locations on the map display, the status being a function of one or more location interaction rules associated with at least one of the locations on the map display; and

generating a signal to indicating on the map display the status regarding a permitted traverse or visit that is allowed under an applicable location interaction rule associated with the at least one of the locations on the map display.

'996 Patent at col. 17:14-28. Independent claim 19 is an apparatus claim and describes a computer program providing instructions for implementing claim 1. Id . at col. 19:4-19.

Independent claim 1 of the '648 Patent provides:

A method for a display device to receive a map through a predefined area, the method comprising:

transmitting a request including one or more locations, the request including an identifier associated with a user of the display device;

receiving the map at the display device, the map including one or more locations, at least one location of the one or more locations associated with one or more location interaction rules verifiable via one or more monitoring devices; and

interacting with one or more monitoring devices to alter the map on the display device as a function of the one or more location interaction rules.

'648 Patent at col. 17:17-29. Independent claim 9 is an apparatus claim and describes a computer program providing instructions for implementing claim 1. Id . at col. 18:5-19.

LBS asserts independent claim 1 from the '114 Patent :

A method for a display device to receive a map through a predefined area, the method comprising:

transmitting a request including one or more locations, the request including an identifier associated with a user of the display device;

receiving the map including one or more locations; at least one location of the one or more locations associated with one or more location interactions rules verifiable via one or more monitoring devices; and

interacting with one or more monitoring devices to alter the map on the display device as a function of the one or more location interaction rules as modified by one or more user interaction rules associated with the user of the display device.

'114 Patent at col. 17:42-55. Lastly, LBS asserts independent systems claims of the '610 Patent. Independent claim 7 provides:

A system for receiving a map through a predefined area at a display device, the system comprising:

circuitry for transmitting a request for the map including one or more locations, the request including an identifier associated with a user of the display device;

circuitry for receiving the map including one or more locations, at least one location of the one or more locations associated with one or more location interaction rules verifiable via one or more monitoring devices; and

circuitry for interacting with the one or more monitoring devices to alter the map on the display device as a function of the one or more location interaction rules as modified by one or more user interaction rules associated with the user of the display device.

'610 Patent at col. 19:17-30. LBS also asserts independent claim 8, which provides:

A system for receiving a map through a predefined area at a display device, the system comprising:

circuitry for transmitting a request for the map including one or more locations, the request including an identifier associated with a user of the display device;

circuitry for receiving the map including one or more locations, at least one location of the one or more locations associated with one or more location interaction rules verifiable via one or more monitoring devices; and

circuitry for interacting with the one or more monitoring devices to alter the map on the display device as a function of the one or more location interaction rules.

Id . at col. 19:31-42.

A number of terms used in the abstract and claims are not defined in the Detailed Description. For instance, the patents give illustrations of "location interaction rules," such as the amount of time a user is allowed at a location, or the number of visits a user is permitted for a location, but no definition. '996 Patent col. 8:35-36, 8:63-65. In its opposition to Niantic's motion, LBS defines "location interaction rule" as follows: "rules that can be correlated with data in a map display module." Dkt. No. 46-1 at 20 n.5.

The Court accepts this construction of " location interaction rule," as the Court must construe the term in light most favorable to the non-movant. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n , 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Similarly, there are only illustrations of " user interaction rules," such as "the amount of time a user has for all locations, or provide carte blanche for a user to expand on location interaction rules." '996 Patent at col. 8:65-67. LBS proffers a construction for "user interaction rule": "user specific rules stored in a data store that applies to a user and not a location." Dkt. No. 46-1 at 20 n.5. LBS requests " display" be construed as "electronic/ electronically display," and " determining a status" be construed as "using the location interaction rules in combination with the data stored in the map display module to determine a status." Id....