Case 2:17-cv JAK-PLA Document 43 Filed 09/07/17 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:1478

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster (SBN 0) mfenster@raklaw.com Benjamin T. Wang (SBN ) bwang@raklaw.com Kent N. Shum (SBN ) kshum@raklaw.com Wilshire Boulevard, th Floor Los Angeles, California 00 Tel: (0) - Fax: (0) - DESMARAIS LLP Alan S. Kellman (admitted pro hac vice) Ameet A. Modi (admitted pro hac vice) Richard M. Cowell (admitted pro hac vice) C. Austin Ginnings (admitted pro hac vice) 0 Park Avenue New York, New York 0 Tel: () -00 Fax: () -0 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, HULU, LLC, v. Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. (b)() Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

2 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... II. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING... III. LEGAL STANDARD... A. Framework Of A Section 0 Analysis... i. Step One: Is The Claim Directed To A Patent-Ineligible Concept?... ii. Step Two: Do The Claim Elements, Considered As A Whole, Recite An Inventive Concept?... B. Improvements To Computer Functionality Are Patent-Eligible.... C. Hulu Bears The Burden Of Proving Patent-Ineligibility Under Section IV. ARGUMENT... A. The Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section i. The Patent Improved Computer Functionality By Reducing The Inefficiencies Of Database Management Versioning Schemes.... ii. The Patent Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea.... iii. The Patent Also Claims An Inventive Concept.... B. The Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section i. The Patent Improved Computer Functionality With A New Real-Time Event Processing System Structure That Incorporates A Main Memory Database.... ii. The Patent Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea.... iii. The Patent Also Claims An Inventive Concept.... C. The 0 Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section i Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

3 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 i. The 0 Patent Improved Computer Functionality By Creating A Software Development Environment With Reusable Interoperable Software Operators.... ii. The 0 Patent Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea.... iii. The 0 Patent Also Claims An Inventive Concept D. The 0 Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section i. The 0 Patent Improved Computer Functionality By Enabling High Quality Streaming On A Network With Helper Servers That Operate As Caching And Streaming Agents Inside The Network.... ii. The 0 Patent Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea.... iii. The 0 Patent Also Claims An Inventive Concept.... V. CONCLUSION... ii Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

4 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int l, S. Ct. (0)...,,, Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., F.d (Fed. Cir. 0)...,, Ass n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., S. Ct. 0 (0)... Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance. Co. Can. (U.S.), F.d, - (Fed. Cir. 0)... BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, F.d (Fed. Cir. 0)... passim Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc ns Inc., F.Supp.d (C.D. Cal. 0)... Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat l Ass n, F.d (Fed. Cir. 0)..., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, F.d (Fed. Cir. 0)... passim Diamond v. Diehr, 0 U.S. ()... Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., F.d (Fed. Cir. 0)... Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., F.d (Fed. Cir. 0)... passim In re TLI Telecomms. LLC, F.d 0 (Fed. Cir. 0)... Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 0 F.d (Fed. Cir. 0)..., iii Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

5 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 McRO, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc., No. CV-0-GW (FFMx), 0 WL 0 (C.D. Cal. Sept., 0)..., Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Earthlink, Inc., No. SA CV -0-DOC, 0 WL (C.D. Cal. Mar., 0)..., Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 0 F.d (th Cir. 00)... Proxyconn, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. SA CV -0-DOC, 0 WL 00 (C.D. Cal. Sept., 0)... Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., F.d 0 (Fed. Cir. 0)... Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. LA CV -0-JAK (JEMx), 0 WL 0 (C.D. Cal. Mar., 0)... Sound View Innovations, LLC, v. Facebook, Inc., No. --RGA, D.I. (D. Del.)... Timeplay, Inc. v. Audience Ent. LLC, 0 WL (C.D. Cal. Nov. 0, 0)..., Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 0-, 0 WL (Fed. Cir. Aug., 0)... passim Statutes U.S.C passim U.S.C iv Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

6 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION The,, 0, and 0 Patents are not directed to abstract ideas like hedging risk, intermediated settlement, or other fundamental, longstanding practices where a computer is invoked merely as a tool. To the contrary, each of those patents, which were developed by a group of researchers at the world-renowned Bell Laboratories, claim specific technological improvements to computer functionality: The Patent discloses a technical solution to the inefficiencies associated with multi-versioning in computer databases i.e., the process by which a database creates multiple versions of the same file. As the patent explains, creating multiple versions of the same file increased database speed and integrity, but did so at the expense of memory (in which those multiple file versions had to be stored). The claimed inventions introduced a new scheme for storing and organizing multiple versions of the same file based on timestamps and measurable characteristics of the memory, thereby leveraging the advantages of multi-versioning while conserving memory resources. The Patent claims an improved real-time event-processing system to deliver increased performance in telecommunications and computer networks. The specification explains that conventional event-processing systems were only compatible with specialized custom database systems, which were costly to develop and maintain. The inventions of the Patent claim an improvement in computer functionality namely, a real-time analysis engine that is associated with a main memory system. By associating an engine with a main memory system (which is much faster than secondary storage used in the prior art), the inventions provide the performance benefits of custom database systems with the cost savings and flexibility associated with conventional general-purpose database systems. Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

7 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 The 0 Patent is directed to a technical improvement in software technology over the rigid general purpose data analysis applications and expensive custom applications that existed in the 0s. The novel software structure of the claimed inventions enabled users to engineer their own purpose-built data analysis applications with reusable interoperable software operators. The 0 Patent is directed to an improved network architecture for the delivery of streaming media over the Internet. As the patent describes, conventional architectures were designed to deliver web objects (like static web pages) to client computers, but they were inadequate to deliver streaming media (like audio and video), which were larger in size and (unlike web files) must be delivered to the user in a specific order (such as beginning, middle, and end). The claimed inventions solved these problems by introducing a new architecture with helper servers and specific storage replacement policies to ensure efficient storage and delivery of streaming media files to users. Each of those patents claims eligible subject matter under Section 0 as determined under the Supreme Court s two-step Alice framework. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int l, S. Ct., (0). In its effort to invalidate the patents as abstract before any discovery or claim construction Hulu largely ignores the claim language and meaning, as well as the patent specifications, which describe in detail the problems with the prior art and the technological solutions disclosed that overcome those problems. Instead, Hulu relies on oversimplified analogies. But oversimplifications and overgeneralizations do not suffice to invalidate patent claims, particularly at the pleading stage. Indeed, as a decision in this District observed, courts should be wary of facile arguments that a patent preempts all applications of an idea [because it] may often be easier for an infringer to argue that a patent fails 0 than to figure out a different way to Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

8 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 implement an idea, especially a way that is less complicated. McRO, Inc. v. Sega of Am., Inc., No. CV-0-GW (FFMx), 0 WL 0, at * (C.D. Cal. Sept., 0); see also Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., F.d, (Fed. Cir. 0) (explaining that, were it appropriate to invalidate claims at a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims, the exceptions to [Section] 0 would swallow the rule ). Hulu s Motion should be denied. II. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING On June, 0, Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC ( Sound View ) filed its Complaint for Patent Infringement (D.I. ) against Hulu, LLC ( Hulu ) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.,0,0;,,;,0,;,0,;,,; and,,0. On August, 0, Sound View filed a First Amended Complaint (D.I. 0) ( Complaint ). On August, 0, Hulu filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)() (D.I. ) and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support (D.I. -) ( Br. ). In its motion, Hulu argues that the 0,,, and 0 Patents are invalid under U.S.C. 0. III. LEGAL STANDARD A. Framework Of A Section 0 Analysis A patent may be obtained for any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. U.S.C. 0. Three limited exceptions apply: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Ass n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., S. Ct. 0, (0). Courts analyze whether a patent is directed to an abstract idea under U.S.C. 0 pursuant to a two-step process ( Alice Step One and Alice Step Two ). Alice, S. Ct. at. i. Step One: Is The Claim Directed To A Patent-Ineligible Concept? The first step of the Alice inquiry focuses on the characterization of the claims i.e., what the claims, considered as a whole and in light of the specification, are directed to. See Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc ns Inc., F.Supp.d, Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

9 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 (C.D. Cal. 0) ( The characterization of the claim is essential to the 0 inquiry. ); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., F.d 0, 0 (Fed. Cir. 0) ( [I]t is not enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must determine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is directed to. ). In asking this threshold question, courts focus on the specific claimed solution, rather than high-level simplifications, because [a]t some level, all inventions... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Alice, S. Ct. at. [T]he first step of the [Alice] inquiry is a meaningful one, [and] a substantial class of claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Enfish, F.d at (emphasis added). For example, [c]laims that are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate are patent eligible. Proxyconn, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No.SA CV -0-DOC, 0 WL 00, at * (C.D. Cal. Sept., 0) (quoting Enfish, F.d at ). A patent s description of technological shortcomings in the prior art supports the conclusion that the claims are directed to a specific, patent-eligible invention, rather than to an abstract idea. See Enfish, F.d at. By contrast, a claim may be directed to an abstract idea where it discloses a well-known process in which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Id. at -. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held claims directed to specific improvements in computer technology valid under 0. See section III.B, below. ii. Step Two: Do The Claim Elements, Considered As A Whole, Recite An Inventive Concept? Claims directed to abstract ideas under Alice Step One are still valid under Alice Step Two if they recite an inventive concept : an element or combination of This Court has explained that it will ordinarily be desirable and often necessary to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a 0 analysis, for the determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter. Timeplay, Inc. v. Audience Ent. LLC, 0 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. Nov. 0, 0) (quoting Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance. Co. Can. (U.S.), F.d, - (Fed. Cir. 0)). Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

10 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of Page ID #: 0 0 elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself. Alice, S. Ct. at (internal quotes omitted). For example, claims that specify how interactions between computers may be manipulated in a way that overrides routine, conventional computer activity recite an inventive concept. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, F.d, (Fed. Cir. 0). The claims must be considered as an ordered combination i.e., as a whole, not by simply isolating elements or focusing on whether only certain elements recite a patentable invention. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, F.d, -0 (Fed. Cir. 0). B. Improvements To Computer Functionality Are Patent-Eligible. Numerous Federal Circuit decisions have explained that technological improvements to computer functionality are patent-eligible under 0. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 0-, 0 WL, at *- (Fed. Cir. Aug., 0); Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., F.d, - 0 (Fed. Cir. 0); BASCOM, F.d at -; DDR, F.d at -; Enfish, F.d at -. A key inquiry is whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, F.d at -. In Enfish, the claims at issue disclosed a self-referential table for a computer database. Id. at. The district court held that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a logical table or, more simply, the concept of organizing information using tabular formats. Id. at. On appeal, the Federal Circuit warned against oversimplif[ying] the [invention] and downplay[ing] [its] benefits by describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims. Id. at,. The Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue were not directed to an abstract idea because [they were] not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

11 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database. Id. (emphasis in original). As such, the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of the computer, and were therefore not abstract. Id. at ; see also id. at ( [The claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. Accordingly, we find the claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea. ). In Visual Memory, the claims at issue pertained to a computer memory system. See 0 WL, at *. As the patent at issue in that case explained, prior art memory systems lacked versatility because they were designed and optimized based on the specific type of processor selected for use in that system. Id. The claimed system addressed those deficiencies by creating a memory system with programmable operational characteristics that can be tailored for use with multiple different processors without the accompanying reduction in performance. Id. The Federal Circuit held that the claims were patent-eligible because they were directed to an improved computer memory system, not to the abstract idea of categorical data storage. Id. at *. In particular, [t]he claims focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities instead of on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Id. Significantly, as in other cases finding claims directed to patent-eligible concepts, the specification discusse[d] the advantages offered by the technological improvement. Id. Similarly, inventions necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks are patent-eligible. DDR Holdings, F.d at. In that case, the patent-at-issue addressed the problem of losing website visitors who click hyperlink advertisements. Id. The claimed invention included a web server which directs the visitor to an automatically-generated hybrid web page that combines visual look and feel elements from the host website and product information from the third-party merchant s website related to the clicked advertisement. Id. The Federal Circuit Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

12 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 explained that the claimed solution amount[ed] to an inventive concept for resolving [a] particular Internet-centric problem, rendering the claims patent-eligible. Id. at ; see also BASCOM, F.d at ( The [patent at issue] is instead claiming a technology-based solution (not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems. ); Amdocs, F.d at 00 (finding claim valid that entail[ed] an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases). ); see also Signal IP, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. LA CV -0-JAK (JEMx), 0 WL 0, at * (C.D. Cal. Mar., 0). Finally, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces. BASCOM, F.d at 0. The claims at issue in BASCOM were directed to filtering content on the Internet. Id. at. While the individual claim limitations recite[d] generic computer, network and Internet components, none of which [was] inventive by itself, id., the Court explained that [t]he inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. Id. Because the claims at issue covered a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content[ a] particular arrangement of elements [that was] a technical improvement over [the] prior art, they recited an inventive concept under Alice Step Two. Id. at 0 (emphasis added). C. Hulu Bears The Burden Of Proving Patent-Ineligibility Under Section 0. [T]he movant bears the burden of establishing that the claims are patentineligible under 0. Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Earthlink, Inc., No. SA CV - 0-DOC, 0 WL, at * (C.D. Cal. Mar., 0). In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court accept[s] factual allegations in the complaint as true and Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

13 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 0 F.d, 00 (th Cir. 00). Specifically, in applying 0 jurisprudence at the pleading stage, the Court construes the patent claims in a manner most favorable to Plaintiff. Modern Telecom, 0 WL, at * (citing Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat l Ass n, F.d, (Fed. Cir. 0)). IV. ARGUMENT The,, 0, and 0 Patents were each developed by a group of researchers at the world-renowned Bell Laboratories. (See D.I. 0,.) Bell Labs (now Nokia Bell Labs), often referred to as The Idea Factory, has been innovating in a variety of technical fields for almost a century. Its many inventions permeate our everyday lives. Hulu, which was established in 00 (well after the Bell Labs inventions at issue in this case), uses the inventions in its highly successful video streaming operations. The patents at issue in Hulu s motion are directed to improved computer and computer network functionality. Further, they claim technical solutions to overcome problems that specifically arise in the context of computers. Each is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 0. A. The Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section 0. i. The Patent Improved Computer Functionality By Reducing The Inefficiencies Of Database Management Versioning Schemes. The Patent is directed to a novel versioning scheme that leverages the performance benefits of multi-versioning in computer database systems. It is a patenteligible improvement to computer functionality. As the specification of the Patent explains, database systems are required to ensure data integrity while maintaining an acceptable level of performance. (ʼ Patent, :-, -0.) Systems maintain data integrity by delaying updates to the Copies of the patents are attached as Exs. A-C and F to the Complaint (D.I. 0). Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

14 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 data until certain operations are processed but that delay sacrifices performance. (Id., :-.) Before the inventions of the Patent, databases relied on multiversioning schemes which create and store consistent, but old or out-of-date versions of database records to achieve acceptable performance without sacrificing data integrity. (Id., :-.) In a multi-versioning scheme, a request to read a data record would receive an older version of the data, which allowed that same record to be updated in parallel reducing the delay associated with performing those tasks in serial fashion. (Id., :0-0; :-.) But while multi-versioning alleviated delay, it did so at the cost of memory or storage capacity, which is used to store versions of files that are no longer needed. (D.I. 0,.) [A] need exist[ed] in the art for an efficient means of reclaiming main memory space for a multi-version database that is, to age logically and economically, data record versions in a main memory database. (ʼ Patent, :-.) The Patent discloses and claims a solution to this computer-based problem by aging data record versions in the database based on timestamps and measurable characteristics of the memory itself. (Id., :-:, cls.,.) With the invention of the Patent, database systems can now obtain the performance benefits of multiversioning without the shortcomings (like decreased memory capacity) associated with prior art schemes. ii. The Patent Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea. As explained above, the Patent is directed to a versioning scheme that leverages the performance benefits of multi-versioning. It is a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, not an abstract idea. See, e.g., Visual Memory, 0 WL, at * (finding claims covering an improved computer memory system not directed to an abstract idea). Like the patents held patent-eligible in Visual Memory, Enfish, and other cases, the Patent describes the shortcomings of prior art systems that its inventors addressed. See, e.g., id.; Enfish, F.d at. Specifically, prior art database versioning schemes either continuously ran Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

15 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 aging processes at the cost of processor efficiency or failed to utilize memory capacity efficiently. ( Patent, :-.) Those prior art versioning schemes could not efficiently balance memory utilization and processing resources. (Id., :-.) The claimed inventions focus on how to better implement multi-versioning. For example, Claim provides: A method of operating a processing system for use with a database of data records, said database stored in a memory, comprising the steps of: assigning a time stamp to transactions to be performed on said database; creating multiple versions of ones of said data records affected by said transactions that are update transactions; monitoring a measurable characteristic of said memory; and deleting ones of said multiple versions of said ones of said data records in response to said time stamp and said measurable characteristic thereby to increase a capacity of said memory. The method of Claim balances processor resources and memory capacity by efficiently aging, or deleting, records based on the current level of one or more measurable characteristics of the memory, such as statistical trend analysis of memory utilization over a period of time. (See Patent, :-.) If the one or more characteristics remains within predetermined threshold(s) (e.g., utilization is trending downward), the aging process remains idle, and processing resources are conserved. (Id., :-, :-.) If the threshold(s) is surpassed, the system initiates the aging process to increase capacity deleting those record versions that are no longer needed as indicated by the time stamps of the queued transactions. (Id., :-:.) By tying the aging process directly to the actual needs of the system, the claimed versioning system dedicates processor resources to aging only when necessary, while also conserving memory. Much like the approach the Federal Circuit disparaged in Enfish, Hulu oversimplifies the claimed invention and downplays its benefits under Alice Step One. See Enfish, F.d at. Hulu argues that the Patent is directed to freeing up storage space by discarding old information, akin to deal[ing] with a cabinet full of old papers tossing out papers that are no longer needed by current (or future transactions) when the cabinet is full. (Br. at.) But a cabinet full of old papers is 0 Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

16 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 nothing like a database with a multi-version scheme. A cabinet of papers, for example, does not involve creating multiple versions of ones of said data records affected by... [time-stamped] update transactions. ( Patent, cl..) Moreover, a database is unique because the availability of older, but consistent, record versions improves performance. As a result, database managers purposely create and store copies of old versions. Those versions, however, do eventually become out of date. The Patent addresses the issue of determining which old versions are no longer needed and efficiently deleting them. That problem only arises in the context of a computer database. Hulu also attempts to explain away the significance of the measurable characteristic. (Br. at (citing Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., F.d, 0 (Fed. Cir. 0)).) But in Digitech, the Federal Circuit held the claims invalid under 0 because they were directed to data in its ethereal, nonphysical form. Id. The claims of the Patent do not purport to cover data or the claimed measurable characteristic itself. Rather, it is the function of the measurable characteristic in combination with remaining elements that changes the way prior art database versioning systems worked. Hulu s reliance on Content Extraction, F.d at, and In re TLI Telecomms. LLC, F.d 0, (Fed. Cir. 0) (see Br. at ) likewise is misplaced. Unlike the claims at issue in those cases, which were directed to wellknown computer functions, the claims of the Patent are focused on a new and specific aging solution that improves processor efficiency and memory utilization. Similarly, the Patent does not claim collect[ing], classify[ing] or otherwise Hulu makes this argument without proposing a construction for the term. In Sound View Innovations, LLC, v. Facebook, Inc., No. --RGA, D.I. at - (D. Del.), Sound View has proposed the following construction for measurable characteristic : a current utilization or capacity of memory, a trend analysis of a utilization or capacity of memory over a time period (t), or any other applied mathematics- or statistics-based analysis, including a comparison of any of the same with a threshold, ceiling/floor, limit, set point or the like. Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

17 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 filter[ing] data. Br. at (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 0 F.d, (Fed. Cir. 0)). The claims at issue in Erie were directed to searching an index to locate information the most basic embodiment of collecting, classifying and filtering data based on its content. Erie, 0 F.d at. Unlike the claims in Enfish and the claims of the Patent, the claims in Erie were not focused on how usage of the purported invention improved the functionality of the relevant technology. Id. The claimed inventions here, by contrast, disclose a specific improvement in the technology the aging of certain data based on variables unrelated to the content of the data itself: the measurable characteristic of memory on which the data is stored and the time stamp on transactions to be performed. As in Enfish, the Patent does not invoke a computer merely as a tool. Rather, it claims a specific way to fix that computer, so that it functions better than its predecessors. Accordingly, the Patent is not directed to an abstract idea under Section 0. iii. The Patent Also Claims An Inventive Concept. The Patent is similar to the patents in DDR Holdings (see F.d at ), BASCOM (see F.d at ) and Amdocs (see F.d at 00), all of which claimed inventive concepts. Like the patents in those cases, the Patent claims an invention necessarily rooted in computer technology (a database multiversioning scheme) in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computers (inefficient usage of processor resources by multi-versioning schemes). As a threshold matter, Sound View disputes that every limitation of Claim of the Patent was known in the art, conventional, or generic. Such a determination is not possible without claim construction to provide guidance as to the meaning of certain claim terms in the context of the Patent. As a result, Hulu has not met its burden of showing that the patented invention does not constitute an inventive concept. See, e.g., Timeplay, 0 WL, at *. In any event, whether the claims rely on arguably known or generic individual elements is irrelevant, because an inventive concept can be found in the non- Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

18 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. BASCOM, F.d at 0. As discussed above and as Hulu acknowledges (Br. at ), before the invention in the Patent, aging was performed continuously, which wasted processor resources. The sum of the individual limitations of the claims is a scheme that provides the benefits of creating and storing copies of old versions without the inefficiencies of the prior art. This inventive concept is in each of the claims of the Patent. With respect to Claim for example, the claimed invention controls the aging process of old record versions based on a measurable characteristic, thereby controlling when and how processor resources are spent on aging. B. The Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section 0. i. The Patent Improved Computer Functionality With A New Real- Time Event Processing System Structure That Incorporates A Main Memory Database. Hulu argues that the Patent is directed to nothing more than bookmarking. (Br. at 0.) That argument should be rejected, because Hulu essentially ignores the specification and claims of the Patent in favor of what it wishes the patent actually taught and claimed. As the specification explains, and as discussed in the Complaint, the Patent is directed to an improved real-time event processing system which provides the performance benefits of custom database systems, without sacrificing the flexibility and maintainability typically associated with conventional general-purpose database systems. ( Patent, :-.) A realtime event processing system is a high-throughput computer system that includes an underlying database system and real-time analysis engines that aggregate or process computer events nearly instantaneously. (See D.I. 0, ; Patent, :0-:.) To deliver real-time processing, the system must process an event or save its state in a few milliseconds. ( Patent, :-.) In addition, real-time environments demand that, following a failure, recovery systems respond with the same high performance to minimize downtime. (See id., :-.) Conventional database systems at the time of the Patent could not deliver Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

19 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 the necessary performance because they relied on the relatively slow operation of client-server network interfaces and remote secondary storage (such as a hard disk). (See id., :-.) Just a single attempt to access secondary storage or to perform a structured query language (SQL) operation across a client-server interface could require hundreds of milliseconds orders of magnitude slower than required for true real-time processing. (See id.) As such, real-time performance goals were simply unattainable with conventional structures. (Id.) In addition, the slow client-server interfaces made it more difficult to maintain data integrity (and data recovery) across distributed networks. (See id., :-, :-.) As a result, engineers had to design custom-built databases rather than use conventional databases every time they implemented a real-time event processing system. (See D.I. 0 at -; Patent, :-.) Similar to the way racecar engineers achieve peak performance in a car by tuning it to the driver and specific race conditions, engineers met real-time performance goals by tuning purpose-built database systems to meet the requirements of a particular application. (See Patent, :-.) But, of course, purpose-built database systems lacked the flexibility and adaptability offered by general purpose systems, and their costs could not be shared across applications. (See id., :-.) The inventors of the Patent recognized the need for real-time event processing systems with the performance of a purpose-built system and the flexibility and cost advantages of a conventional system. (See D.I. 0 at -, Patent, :-.) They addressed that need through a specific improvement in the structure of then-existing computer systems: by incorporating a main memory database into their real-time processing system. (Id. at -; Patent, cl..) Main memory is much faster than the secondary storage used in prior art systems. (See Patent, :-, :-:.) As a result, the event processing system can access the main memory database (for example, to save a recovery point) without the need for a clientserver interface. (See id., :-, :-.) A real-time event processing system in Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

20 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of Page ID #: 0 0 accordance with the invention delivers the requisite performance in a robust, reliable, highly usable, and easy to maintain package. (D.I. 0, -; Patent, :-.) It also maintains the high-level, declarative programming interfaces found in conventional databases and the transactional correctness properties of atomicity, consistency, isolation, and durability (ACID). ( Patent, :0-.) ii. The Patent Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea. As explained above, the Patent is directed to an improved real-time event processing system which provides the performance benefits of custom database systems, without sacrificing the flexibility and maintainability typically associated with conventional general-purpose database systems. ( Patent, :-.) The inventors of the Patent achieved the necessary performance increase in event processing and recovery by creating a system that implements a main-memory database system with real-time analysis engines. Such an improvement to computer functionality is not an abstract idea. See, e.g., Enfish, F.d at. Hulu, without meaningfully addressing the specification, the claim language, or Sound View s Complaint, argues that the Patent is directed to bookmarking. (Br. at 0.) But bookmarking does not capture the character of the claimed invention. As discussed above, the Patent is directed to a need in the art for real-time event processing systems that deliver high performance without sacrificing flexibility in use and application. See Section IV.B.i, supra. Sound View detailed this concept in its Complaint (D.I. 0, -), and the inventors explored the shortcoming of prior art systems throughout the specification of the patent. Claim, for example, addresses that shortcoming with a method for processing events comprising processing the events in at least one real-time analysis engine and storing in a main-memory database system associated with the real-time analysis engine.... Claim further specifies storing in [the] main-memory database system... recovery information regarding a recovery point for the real-time analysis engine. This requirement is more narrowly directed to the inability of prior art Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

21 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 conventional databases to deliver data integrity across distributed networks. The storage of a recovery point in the main-memory database of the claimed invention eliminates speed draining client-server interfaces. ( Patent, :-.) Should the system suffer a failure, the claimed invention provides the expedited recovery demanded by users of modern real-time event processing systems. (See id., :-.) The Patent certainly involves recording recovery data, but Alice Step One does not simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept. Instead, the inquiry is whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Enfish, F.d at ( The directed to inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely patenteligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon. ) (emphasis in original). The patent at issue in Enfish also involved keeping track of incoming information, yet the Federal Circuit found the patent to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter because the plain focus of the claims [was] on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Id. at. The same is true here; the claims of the Patent focus on the computer-specific challenge of designing a database system that delivers real-time performance while avoiding the high costs and rigidity of custom database systems. And the Patent accomplishes that goal by claiming a specific database architecture that improves database performance. (See Patent, :-.) iii. The Patent Also Claims An Inventive Concept. The Patent claims a patent-eligible technology-based solution that improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself in a non-conventional arrangement. BASCOM, F.d at. Specifically, it describes and claims a real-time event processing system in which recovery information is stored in a specific location (i.e., a main-memory database system, as opposed to remote secondary storage), which allows users to achieve both the performance benefits of custom Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

22 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 database systems and the flexibility and maintainability of general-purpose systems. (See ʼ Patent, :-, :-, cl..) The Patent is similar to the patent in BASCOM. In that case, [t]he inventive concept described and claimed [was] the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, which gave the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. F.d at 0 (emphasis added). The court in BASCOM noted that prior art filters were either susceptible to hacking and dependent on local hardware and software, or confined to an inflexible one-size-fits-all scheme, and the inventors recognized there could be a filter implementation versatile enough that it could be adapted to many different users preferences while also installed remotely in a single location. Id. (emphasis added). Like the patent at issue in BASCOM, the Patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art here, the ability to perform real-time data processing and recovery without the bottlenecks caused by secondary storage and client-server structures in the prior art. Cf. BASCOM, F.d at 0; Patent, :-:. C. The 0 Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section 0. i. The 0 Patent Improved Computer Functionality By Creating A Software Development Environment With Reusable Interoperable Software Operators. The 0 Patent is directed to a specific software structure that supports the flexible creation of cohesive software applications using reusable interoperable software operators. It is a specific improvement to computer functionality, and is patent-eligible under 0. Data analysis applications at the time of the invention of the 0 Patent lacked flexibility and compatibility. (See D.I. 0, -.) The building blocks of those applications were operators, computer programs that extract or convert information from a database. (See id., -.) An operator receives a source document (also called a virtual database) as input, processes the input, and produces some output. Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

23 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: (See id.) Before the 0 Patent, users lacked a convenient way to combine various operators to create new applications. (See id., -0.) While operators with different functionality were available, they were designed for specific applications with varying input and output formats. (See id.) For example, a user could first indicate which operator she wished to apply to a repository (e.g., a set of documents and information about those documents); the system processed the repository; and the system presented the output when the processing finished. (See id.) To create a new operator, a user needed to start from scratch. ( 0 Patent, :-.) Data analysis systems at that time also were closed. ( 0 Patent, :-.) In other words, a given system had a limited set of operators with access to a limited set of databases defined by the system. (Id.) As a result, output from prior art data analysis applications could not be processed by an operator located outside the closed system. (See id.) For example, an output file could not be processed by an external graphics program to present the analysis results in an alternative format. (See id.) Instead of building an application from the ground up, the 0 Patent claims an apparatus and method for creating data-analysis-tailored applications using reusable interoperable software operators. (See D.I. 0, 0.) The novel classes of operators are engineered to receive a virtual database or data in a certain format (or schema ) and output the processed virtual database or data in that same schema. Claim, for example, illustrates this feature of the operators:. A method for processing information comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of software operators each configured to receive a virtual database having a first schema, for processing information contained in said virtual database, and for outputting a virtual database having said first schema; and combining at least two of said software operators to create an application. Because inputs and outputs all are in the same schema, or format, data may be passed between operators through a UNIX Pipe an operating system mechanism that allows two operators to exchange information as streams of characters or through a virtual database pipeline. ( 0 Patent, :-:0.) The operators also may Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

24 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 be contained in a library that allows users to create customizable applications. (Id., :-.) In this way, the 0 Patent created a programming environment that enabled software engineers to quickly and efficiently build software applications by combining multiple operators that function together as a cohesive unit. ii. The 0 Patent Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea. As explained above, the 0 Patent is directed to a software structure architecture that supports the flexible creation of cohesive software applications using reusable interoperable software operators. (See, e.g., 0 Patent, cl..) The inventions represented an improvement over () general purpose data analysis applications that lacked versatility and () custom applications that were expensive. (D.I. 0, -; 0 Patent, :-.) The claimed solutions improved computer functionality they are not abstract ideas. Hulu argues that the 0 Patent is directed to performing two processes in sequence, and that the claims cover building blocks of human ingenuity and preempt a broad swath of computing functionality. (Br. at,.) But Hulu s articulation of the claims as performing two processes in sequence is not even remotely tied to the claim language indeed, it could equally apply to any method claim. Its preemption argument likewise lacks merit. See McRO, 0 WL 0, at * (noting that courts should be wary of facile arguments that a patent preempts all applications of an idea ). The 0 Patent is directed to an improved software engineering environment. Despite Hulu s argument to the contrary, that feat was not as simple as or even related to heat before serving, chew before swallowing, or look both ways before crossing the street. (See id.) If it were, users of prior art systems would not have struggled with the limited functionality of general purpose applications or incurred the cost of prior art custom applications. (See 0 Patent, :-.) With reusable operators that share a single output format (schema) and a suitable connection (e.g., virtual database pipeline), the claimed structure empowers users to combine and organize operators to meet the needs of specific applications. Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

25 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 The 0 Patent is similar to the patent at issue in Visual Memory, which the Federal Circuit held was directed to a patentable improvement in computer memory functionality. See 0 WL, at *. Like the general purpose data analysis applications that predate the 0 Patent, prior art memory systems in Visual Memory lacked versatility in that they were compatible with only a single processor. The claimed memory system in Visual Memory was compatible with multiple processors which, like the 0 Patent, empowered users to design their own systems. Just as Hulu argues here, the defendant in Visual Memory argued that the claims at issue were directed to an abstract idea of categorical storage which humans have practiced for many years. Id. at *. Rejecting that argument, the Federal Circuit explained that [t]he claims focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities... [a]nd like the patents at issue in Enfish and Thales, the specification discusses the advantages offered by the technological improvement. Id. at *. The same is true here. The 0 Patent claims are patent-eligible under Alice Step One because they focus on an improvement to computer functionality how to merge multiple operators into a functioning application and the specification describes the advantages of that improvement. iii. The 0 Patent Also Claims An Inventive Concept. The 0 Patent claims an invention necessarily rooted in computer technology (an improved software engineering environment for data analysis applications) to overcome a problem specifically arising in the context of computers (expensive or rigid data analysis applications). See, e.g., DDR Holdings, F.d at. Prior art data analysis applications forced users to choose between applications with limited functionality or significantly increased expense. The 0 Patent provides a software environment for software engineers to build their own specialized applications. To argue that the claims are directed to conventional computer technology under Alice Step Two, Hulu relies solely on its contention that the claimed elements were individually known in the art. (See Br. at -.) But that argument amounts to 0 Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)

26 Case :-cv-0-jak-pla Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 nothing more than an obviousness analysis under U.S.C. 0, which the Federal Circuit has explained is not proper for a patent-eligibility analysis under Alice. See BASCOM, F.d at 0 ( The district court s analysis in this case, however, looks similar to an obviousness analysis under U.S.C The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. ). Even if the claims of the 0 Patent comprised conventional pieces, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Id. Any challenge to the novelty of the 0 Patent under 0 and 0 will be resolved at a later juncture in the case. Under 0, the 0 Patent claims an inventive concept and is patent-eligible. D. The 0 Patent Is Not Invalid Under Section 0. i. The 0 Patent Improved Computer Functionality By Enabling High Quality Streaming On A Network With Helper Servers That Operate As Caching And Streaming Agents Inside The Network. The 0 Patent describes and claims an improvement over conventional caching technology to facilitate the streaming of large media files using helper servers. It is a specific improvement to the architecture and function of computer network technology, not an abstract idea. Streaming multimedia, like a movie or TV show, is the process by which a server sends data to a client, which displays the data as it arrives. ( 0 Patent, :-.) In 000, when the 0 Patent s parent application was filed, streaming multimedia over the Internet was becoming increasingly popular and began to tax existing content delivery systems. (See D.I. 0, -.) Content providers experienced dramatically increased demand on networks and servers, as the server load increased linearly with the number of clients. (See id.) Users experienced long delays between a video request and playback (i.e., high start-up latency) and unpredictable quality. (See id.) To address the problems with streaming multimedia files, the inventors of the 0 Patent developed an architecture in which multiple helper servers act as caching Case No. LA CV-0 JAK (PLAx)