Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-01058-RWS LEAD CASE CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-01061-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-01066-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-01068-RWS CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-01071-RWS
08-21-2019
SEMANTIC SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. ALDO U.S., INC., Defendant. Semantic Search Technologies LLC, Plaintiff, v. Fry's Electronics, Incorporated, Defendant. Semantic Search Technologies LLC, Plaintiff, v. O'Reilly Automotive, Inc., Defendant. Semantic Search Technologies LLC, Plaintiff, v. Shop MA, Inc., Defendant. Semantic Search Technologies LLC, Plaintiff, v. The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc., Defendant.
David R. Bennett, Direction IP law, Chicago, IL, Charles Craig Tadlock, Tadlock Law Firm, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff. Neil J. McNabnay, Ricardo Joel Bonilla, Vasiliy Mayer, Fish & Richardson P.C., Scott E. Yackey, Dykema Cox Smith, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.
David R. Bennett, Direction IP law, Chicago, IL, Charles Craig Tadlock, Tadlock Law Firm, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff.
Neil J. McNabnay, Ricardo Joel Bonilla, Vasiliy Mayer, Fish & Richardson P.C., Scott E. Yackey, Dykema Cox Smith, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.
ORDER
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Defendants Fry's Electronics, Incorporated, O'Reilly Automotive Inc., Shop MA, Inc., and The Pep Boys – Manny, Moe & Jack, Inc.'s Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Docket No. 17. The Court heard argument on Defendants' motions on June 12, 2019. Docket No. 95. Based on the briefing and argument and for the reasons below, Plaintiff's motion (Docket No. 127) is DENIED and Defendants' motions (Docket No. 17) are GRANTED .
Defendants filed nearly identical motions in each member case before the cases were consolidated. See Case No. 6:16-cv-1061, Docket No. 18; Case No. 6:16-cv-1066, Docket No. 18; Case No. 6:16-cv-1068, Docket No. 20 ("Shop MA's Motion"); Case No. 6:16-cv-1071, Docket No. 15. The member cases were consolidated on December 2, 2016. Docket No. 28. All docket references refer to the lead case unless otherwise noted.
BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed its original complaints against the Defendants on July 27, 2016, alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,793,237 ("'237 Patent"), 8,880,497 ("'497 Patent"), 9,069,860 ("'860 Patent"), and 9,378,521 ("'521 Patent") (collectively, "Asserted Patents"). See, e.g. , Docket No. 1. Defendants each filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss asserting that the asserted patents are subject-matter ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g. , Docket No. 7. Defendants addressed the specific claims raised in the complaints and held those claims as representative for purposes of the motion to dismiss. See id. at 2 n.1. Plaintiff subsequently filed Amended Complaints (see, e.g. Docket No. 13), prompting Defendants to file the present Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss rearguing that the asserted patents are subject-matter ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendants reassert that the claims in the complaint are representative for purposes of the motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 17 at 3 n.1.
The Court heard argument on the refiled motions to dismiss on February 2, 2017. See Docket No. 119. At the end of the hearing, Plaintiff raised to the Court, for the first time, that it intended to include dependent claims in its infringement contentions. See id. at 43:5–11. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants failed to address the dependent claims in their briefing and that the independent claims addressed by Defendants are not representative of the dependent claims. See id. at 43:20–23. Plaintiff acknowledged that the specific dependent claims were not asserted in the complaint and that the infringement contentions had not yet been provided. Id. at 44:10–12. The Court suggested the parties proceed as normal and, if any party had a concern regarding the contentions, to file an appropriate motion for the Court's consideration. See id. at 47:13–22.
Following the Court's suggestion, Defendants filed their Motion to Strike or in the Alternative Motion for Leave to Supplement. Docket No. 75. The Court rejected Defendants' request to strike the relevant portions of the infringement contentions but granted their alternative request for leave to file supplemental briefing addressing the newly-asserted dependent claims. Id. at 2. Accordingly, the parties filed supplemental briefing addressing whether the independent claims addressed in the original briefing were representative of the newly-asserted dependent claims and whether those newly-asserted dependent claims are subject-matter eligible. See Docket Nos. 125, 126.
After the supplemental briefing, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on Motions to Dismiss and Treat Rule 12(b)(6) Motions as Rule 56 Motions for Summary Judgment. See Docket No. 127. The Court heard argument on this motion on August 18, 2017. See Docket No. 142. Faced with further delay and impending case deadlines, the Court sua sponte stayed the case pending resolution of the motions before the Court. See Docket No. 130. Plaintiff's motion to supplement was recently denied. See Docket No. 144.
B. Asserted Patents
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges infringement of Claim 10 of the '237 Patent, Claim 1 of the '497 Patent, Claim 1 of the '860 Patent, and Claim 1 of the '521 Patent (collectively, the "Asserted Claims"). Docket No. 13. Each of the Asserted Patents is entitled "Computer-Aided Extraction of Semantics From Keywords to Confirm Match of Buyer Offers to Seller Bids" and is related to the identically-titled parent U.S. Patent No. 8,244,726 ("'726 Patent"). The Asserted Patents also share a common specification ("Specification") with each other and the '726 Patent.
"The patents in suit share a common specification." Docket No. 13 ¶ 10 (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint).
The Asserted Patents are directed to searching for and retrieving information by "mapping lexical keywords into entity description semantics [using] a computer." Specification at 2:27–29. The Specification explains:
There are many descriptions of computer-aided searches of large search spaces, such as the world wide web, whereby narrowing the search space to a successively smaller and more precise area of interest is accomplished using one or more algorithms involving lexicons.
Id. at 1:14–19. The Specification alleges that a "pure textual search" presents the inherent problem of returning results "wildly outside of the target scope (false hits)." Id. at 1:21–22; 1:46–49. The Specification also states that "sophisticated computer-aided lexical searches employing lexical associations" similarly fail to reduce false hits. Id. at 1:46–49. The Specification discusses existing solutions that inject "lexical associations into the lexical refinements," but asserts that such techniques rely on a "virtual expert advisor" or "other access to a domain-specific knowledgebase." Id. at 1:51–55. The Specification asserts that the result of the existing technique is that lexical associations are merely added "iteratively" in a practice that produces "longer and longer search strings." Id. at 1:55–57. Further, although such techniques "narrow[ ] the search space," they allegedly do not "reliably eliminate or reduce ... false hits." Id. at 1:58–60.
The Specification contrasts the existing techniques for lexical searches with the approach of a human. The Specification asserts that "when humans interact with computer-aided search engines," they use keywords that "tend to be values or characteristics of the desired information. Id. 1:61–64. Therefore, humans imply certain attributes through a keyword string and would be able to "infer a mapping of the keywords to the attributes." Id. at 2:3, 2:6–7. Accordingly, the Specification explains:
Thus, what is desired is a method and apparatus to confirm the mapping between the human-specified values/characteristics and the correct correspondence to characteristics found in an entity description (e.g. product, service, or information)
Specification at 2:16–20. The purported invention is, therefore, "mapping lexical keywords into entity description semantics" to unambiguously identify desired entities. See id. 2:31–33.
As a specific example of the invention, the Specification describes a customer searching for a "blue sweater." Id. at 3:1. First, a potential purchaser viewing a website provides a text string associated with a search interest of the user. Id. at 3:1–2. Then, the user-inputted text string is compared against a set of product category descriptions to identify potentially relevant categories. See id. at 3:25–49, 62–66; Fig. 2. The potentially relevant product category descriptions are displayed to the user for review to refine the search. Id. at 4:10–14; Fig. 2. The descriptions may also be used to suggest further relevant attributes. Id. at Fig. 3. The attributes can be displayed with "scorings" (or rankings), where "such scoring is based on the empirical or human-entered likelihood of a particular attribute being important to a buyer in search of that entity." Id. at 3:16–18; Fig. 7.
The Specification thus describes the invention as the process where a user enters a search term (e.g., blue sweater), the user is then presented with potential attributes of interest (e.g., size, gender, material, style), and the user then iteratively selects through the attributes until the user finds the desired item. See id. at Figs. 3, 4.
1. '237 Patent
Plaintiff asserts independent Claim 10 and dependent claim 12. Claim 10 recites:
10. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving user input received from a web site interface configured to capture user input constituting a search for an item;
storing an enumerated list of category descriptions of items potentially responsive to the search and including the item, at least some of the category descriptions comprising two or more item attributes;
storing, in a first database, an entity description for at least some of the potentially responsive items, the entity description comprising at least one value assigned to each item attribute of the two or more item attributes;
receiving from a user an input word list comprising a search input to a search engine, wherein at least one word of the input word list comprises a value of an implied attribute of the item;
performing a lexical search on the input word list using the search engine to
return search results from a search corpus accessible by the search engine;
scoring each category description of a plurality of category descriptions, the scoring determined at least in part by mapping each word of the input word list against corresponding entity descriptions and tallying a number of lexical matches between the word and the entity descriptions to form a plurality of scored category descriptions, wherein an occurrence of one or more lexical matches increases the score of a corresponding scored category description;
displaying to the user the scored category descriptions based at least in part on the tally of lexical matches;
prompting the user to select a first category description of the scored category descriptions;
receiving a user selection of the first category description to generate a selected category description;
displaying to the user, suggested item attributes based at least in part on the selected category description;
receiving from the user, in response to the displayed suggested item attributes, a selection of a specific order of the suggested item attributes of the selected category description;
iteratively displaying to the user, after respective responsive inputs from the user, a value or a range of values for each suggested item attribute of the suggested item attributes of the selected category description until the user has selected one of a preferred value or acceptable range of values for at least some of the suggested item attributes, wherein at least some of the respective responsive inputs by the user causes a dynamic generation and display of user-selected ranking of attribute values;
displaying to the user at least some user selected attribute values in a final order based on a selection by the user; and
displaying to the user an organized array of matching items from the search corpus to enable selection by the user of a final selected item.
Dependent Claim 12 recites:
12. The method of claim 10 wherein the input word list includes excluded words not to be matched by the search engine.
2. '497 Patent
Plaintiff asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10. Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method of performing a search entered by a user through a computer-parsable graphical user interface page, the method comprising:
storing, in first database records, category descriptions of items potentially responsive to the search, at least some of the category descriptions comprising two or more item attributes of a respective item;
storing, in second database records, an entity description for at least some of the items potentially responsive to the search, the entity description comprising at least one value assigned to each item attribute of the two or more item attributes;
presenting, on a client computer screen displaying the graphical user interface page, a search area comprising an interface to a search engine executing a computerized search function, wherein the search area is configured to capture user input constituting the search;
performing a lexical search on the user input constituting the search using the
search engine to return search results from a search corpus accessible by the search engine;
presenting, on the client computer screen, a results area to display the search results to the user;
receiving an input word list selection by the user, wherein at least one word of the selected input word list comprises a value of an implied attribute of the items potentially responsive to the search;
scoring at least some of the category descriptions, the scoring determined at least in part by mapping at least one word of the selected input word list against corresponding entity descriptions to form a plurality of scored category descriptions, wherein an occurrence of one or more lexical matches constitutes a mapping;
displaying at least some of the scored category descriptions based at least in part on the mapping;
prompting the user to select a first category description of the at least some of the scored category descriptions;
receiving a user selected category description of the at least some of the scored category descriptions;
displaying, on the client computer screen, suggested item attributes and suggested item attribute values based at least in part on the user selected category description;
receiving from the user, in response to the displayed suggested item attributes, a selection of the suggested item attributes of the selected category description;
iteratively displaying to the user, after respective responsive inputs from the user, a value or a range of values for at least some of the suggested item attribute values of the selected category description until the user has selected one of a preferred value or acceptable range of values for at least some of the suggested item attribute values, wherein at least some of the respective responsive inputs by the user causes a dynamic generation and display of the preferred value or the acceptable range of values; and
displaying, on the client computer screen, matching items corresponding to at least some of the preferred value or the acceptable range of values from the search corpus to enable selection by the user of a final selected item.
The dependent claims recite:
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the input word list includes excluded words not to be matched by the search engine.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the mapping is performed to a lowest level of category descriptions below which no further levels of category descriptions are defined.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the graphical user interface page comprises a hypertext markup language (HTML)-based page accessible over a network coupling a client computer having the client computer screen to a server computer.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein user input receiving steps are performed on the client computer and the search engine function is performed on the server computer.
10. The method of claim 1 further comprising presenting, on the client computer screen, a browsing area displayed within the graphical user interface page, wherein the browsing area is accessible at least upon exit of the search by the user.
3. '860 Patent
Plaintiff asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 5, 7, 8 and 10. Claim 1 recites:
1. A server-implemented method of returning results responsive to a search entered by a user through computer-parsable graphical user interface pages, the method comprising:
accessing, from stored first database records, category descriptions of items potentially responsive to the search, at least some of the category descriptions comprising two or more item attributes of a respective item;
accessing, from stored second database records, an entity description for at least some of the items potentially responsive to the search, the entity description comprising at least one value assigned to each item attribute of the two or more item attributes;
executing at least a portion of a client-server protocol to send, over a network, a first computer-parsable graphical user interface page displayable on a client computer coupled to the network, the first computer-parsable graphical user interface page comprising an interface to a search engine executing a computerized search function, wherein the interface to the search engine has a text search area to capture user input constituting the search;
performing a lexical search on the user input constituting the search using the search engine to return search results from a search corpus accessible by the search engine;
executing at least another portion of the client-server protocol to send a second computer-parsable graphical user interface page; to display at least some of the search results on the client computer;
receiving an input word list selection by the user, wherein at least one word of the selected input word list comprises a value or a range of values of an attribute of the items potentially responsive to the search;
scoring at least some of the category descriptions, the scoring determined at least in part by mapping at least one word of the selected input word list against corresponding entity descriptions to form a plurality of scored category descriptions, wherein an occurrence of one or more lexical matches constitutes a mapping;
sending a third computer-parsable graphical user interface page to display at least some of the scored category descriptions based at least in part on the mapping;
receiving a selected category description of the at least some of the scored category descriptions;
sending a fourth computer-parsable graphical user interface page to display, on the client computer, suggested item attributes and suggested item attribute values based at least in part on the selected category description;
receiving from the user, in response to the displayed suggested item attributes, a selection of the suggested item attribute values of the selected category description;
iteratively displaying to the user, after respective inputs from the user, a value or a range of values for at least some of the suggested item attribute values of the selected category description until the user has selected one of a preferred value or acceptable range of values for at least some of the suggested item attribute values, wherein at least some of the respective inputs by the user causes a dynamic generation of the preferred value or the acceptable range of values; and
sending a fifth computer-parsable graphical user interface page to display,
on the client computer, matching items corresponding to at least some of the preferred value or the acceptable range of values from the search corpus to enable selection by the user of a final selected item, wherein the matching items comprise at least a portion of the results responsive to the search.
The dependent claims recite:
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the mapping is performed to a lowest level of category descriptions below which no further levels of category descriptions are defined.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the graphical user interface page comprises a hypertext markup language (HTML)-based page accessible over the network coupling the client computer to a server computer.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein user input receiving steps are performed on the client computer and the search engine is performed on the server computer.
10. The method of claim 1 further comprising presenting, on the client computer, a browsing area displayed within the first computer-parsable graphical user interface page, wherein the browsing area is accessible at least upon exit of the search by the user.
4. '521 Patent
Plaintiff asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9. Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method of returning results responsive to a search entered by a user through computer-parsable graphical user interface pages, the method comprising:
accessing, from stored first database records in memory, category descriptions of items potentially responsive to the search, at least some of the category descriptions comprising two or more item attributes of a respective item;
accessing, from stored second database records in the memory, an entity description for at least some of the items potentially responsive to the search, the entity description comprising at least one value assigned to each item attribute of the two or more item attributes;
storing, in third database records in the memory, a set of buyer profiles comprising at least one profile pertaining to a previous search by the user as a returning buyer;
executing at least a portion of a client-server protocol to send, over a network, a first computer-parsable graphical user interface page displayable on a client computer coupled to the network, the first computer-parsable graphical user interface page comprising an interface to a search engine executing a computerized search function, wherein the interface to the search engine has a text search area to capture user input constituting the search;
performing a lexical search on the user input constituting the search using the search engine to return search results from a search corpus accessible by the search engine;
executing at least another portion of the client-server protocol to send a second computer-parsable graphical user interface page, to display at least some of the search results on the client computer;
receiving an input word list selection by the user, wherein at least one word of the selected input word list comprises a value or a range of values of an attribute of the items potentially responsive to the search;
scoring at least some of the category descriptions, the scoring determined at least in part by mapping at least one word of the selected input word list against corresponding entity descriptions to form a plurality of scored category descriptions, wherein an occurrence of one or more lexical matches constitutes a mapping;
sending a third computer-parsable graphical user interface page to display at least some of the scored category descriptions based at least in part on the mapping;
receiving a selected category description of the at least some of the scored category descriptions;
sending a fourth computer-parsable graphical user interface page to display, on the client computer, suggested item attributes and suggested item attribute values based at least in part on the selected category description;
receiving from the user, in response to the displayed suggested item attributes, a selection of the suggested item attribute values of the selected category description;
storing in the memory the selected category in the set of buyer profiles;
iteratively displaying to the user, after respective inputs from the user, a value or a range of values for at least some of the suggested item attribute values of the selected category description until the user has selected one of a preferred value or acceptable range of values for at least some of the suggested item attribute values, wherein at least some of the respective inputs by the user causes a dynamic generation of the preferred value or the acceptable range of values; and
sending a fifth computer-parsable graphical user interface page to display, on the client computer, matching items corresponding to at least some of the preferred value or the acceptable range of values from the search corpus to enable selection by the user of a final selected item, wherein the matching items comprise at least a portion of the results responsive to the search.
The dependent claims recite:
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the input word list includes excluded words not to be matched by the search engine.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the mapping is performed to a lowest level of category descriptions below which no further levels of category descriptions are defined.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the graphical user interface page comprises a hypertext markup language (HTML)-based page that is accessible over a network by a client computer having a client computer screen.
8. The method of claim 7 wherein user input receiving steps are performed on the client computer and at least some functions of the search engine are performed on a server computer coupled to the client computer over the network.
9. The method of claim 7 further comprising presenting, on the client computer screen, a browsing area displayed within the graphical user interface page, wherein the browsing area is accessible at least upon exit of the search by the user.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). To state a plausible claim, plaintiffs must plead facts sufficient to allow a court to draw a reasonable inference that defendants are liable for the alleged patent infringement. See id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). 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).
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold issue that "may be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion" as a matter of law, before formal claim construction or fact development, where there are no relevant factual disputes. SAP Am. Inc. v. Investpic, LLC , 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for patent eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 217–218, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014). 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." Id. at 218, 134 S.Ct. 2347. In other words, the court must distinguish between ineligible "abstract-idea-based solution[s] implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way" from the eligible "technology-based solution" and "software-based inventions that improve the performance of the computer system itself." Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. , 841 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC , 827 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a court must not over-generalize a patent's claims because "[a]t some level, ‘all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’ " Alice , 573 U.S. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 71, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012) ).
If a court determines that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, it must then determine whether the claims contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Alice , 573 U.S. at 221, 134 S.Ct. 2347. 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 , 573 U.S. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal quotations omitted). Even if each claim element, by itself, was known in the art, "an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Bascom , 827 F.3d at 1350. Plausible allegations that "individual elements and the claimed combination are not well-understood, routine, or conventional" and that the claimed combinations resulted in "improvement to the functioning of the computer" are sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss based on patent ineligibility. Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. , 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; see Berkheimer v. HP Inc. , 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
ANALYSIS
For Alice step one, Defendants argue that the Asserted Claims are directed to the abstract idea of "searching for and retrieving information based on lexical mapping" or "iteratively searching for and presenting information based on user feedback." Docket No. 17 at 11; Shop MA's Motion at 16. Defendants assert that the patents merely disclose "human-to-human communication methods—carried out on a computer." Docket No. 17 at 1. Defendants contend that, beyond the use of generic, general-purpose computers, the patents recite purely functional steps that humans have long performed mentally and manually. Id. at 17–18.
Specifically, Defendants identify at least seven functional steps common to the claims across the Asserted Patents: (1) gathering information from a buyer about what the buyer wants, (2) maintaining a list of descriptions, (3) searching the list of descriptions, (4) comparing and ranking descriptions from the list, (5) presenting some of the descriptions and their rankings to the buyer, (6) continuously presenting description selection options to the buyer and gathering buyer description selections, and (7) presenting final, buyer-confirmed product descriptions. Id. Defendants argue that these steps reduce to "traditional human-to-human interactions involving a buyer and a seller—where the buyer describes and refines details about a product sought, and where the seller must then imply meaning from the buyer's descriptions and refinements to infer a matching product." Id. at 5, 23.
Defendants argue the claims are directed to an abstract idea because the claims are directed to a process that can be, and has been, manually performed by humans. Id. at 21 (citing Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC , 576 F. App'x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ); see also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC , 772 F.3d 709, 714–15 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claims also fall within a familiar class of claims that the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held is directed to abstract concepts of "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis." Id. at 11 (citing Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ).
For Alice step two, Defendants argue that the '748 Patent claims add nothing inventive to overcome ineligibility. Id. at 22 (citing Mayo , 566 U.S. at 70–73, 132 S.Ct. 1289 ). Defendants assert that the claims merely recite the use of generic and conventional computer components to automate the abstract idea. Id. For example, Defendants contend that the recitation of generic computer terms, such as "server," "network," "client-server protocol," and "graphical user interface," does not meaningfully limit claim scope and "cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. at 23 (quoting Alice , 573 U.S. at 223, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ). According to Defendants, the computer-related technology recited in the Asserted Claims "serves nothing more than to be a stand-in software brain for roles played by humans." Id. However, "none of the computer elements in the Asserted Claims ‘offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers.’ " Id. at 23–24 (quoting Alice , 573 U.S. at 226, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ).
Defendants also contend that the Asserted Claims fail to capture an inventive application of the abstract idea or a technological solution to a technological problem. Defendants argue that the Asserted Claims do not present a new or specific way of performing information search and retrieval, but "recite only the idea of inferring information from search keywords in a particular environment." Id. at 24 (emphasis in original). For example, Defendants assert the Asserted Claims fail to claim how "information is to utilized, how to decide in which ‘category’ a buyer keywords should be ‘categorized’ how to decide which ‘attributes’ should be provided as options for buyer selection, how to combine buyer profile information with other inputs to generate a mapping, or how to perform a ‘scoring.’ " Id. at 25. Similarly, Defendants contend the Asserted Claims do not solve a technical problem but merely describe how to use a generic computer environment to replace the traditionally mental process of back-and-forth conversations with sales persons. Id. at 29–30.
In response, Plaintiff argues that the Asserted Claims are not directed to an abstract idea because "the inventors improved upon prior art approaches and solved an open problem related to the accuracy and efficiency of textual, lexical, semantic searches within a computerized environment." Docket No. 24 at 13. Plaintiff asserts that computerized search technology was already known and that the Specification describes technical problems with the known search techniques. Id. at 13–14. According to Plaintiff, the Asserted Claims therefore recite "technical computerized solutions to problems that are particular to computer networks and the Internet." Id. (citing Docket No. 13 ¶ 12). Plaintiff also argues that, because the claims recite "specific, structured methods for computer searches in a computer environment," the claims do not cover fundamental economic and conventional business practices or preempt all search functionality or methods of e-commerce. Id. (citing Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1335–36 ).
For example, Plaintiff asserts that the steps in Claim 10 of the '237 Patent contain numerous technical requirements as to the structure and contents of a database, or other "search corpus," and requirements for how the search is initiated, conducted and completed. Id. at 16–20. Elements such as "items," "entity descriptions," "category descriptions," and "item attributes" allegedly impose "structure and limitations on the database and the information contained therein." Id. at 16. The "scoring," "mapping," and "tallying" elements describe "certain limitations to how the search is initiated and how the improved search functionality will return the first level of results to the user." Id. at 17. Then the "selected category description" element is used to display "suggested item attributes," which "further refine[s] the search results in a very specific way." Id. at 17–18. Lastly, "once inputs for values of item attributes have been obtained from the user, the user receives a display of an organized array of items that match his or her search." Id. at 19. According to Plaintiff, the claimed steps and elements improve on the prior art and therefore are not directed to abstract ideas but to a technological solution. Id.
For similar reasons, Plaintiff argues that the claims provide an inventive concept or sufficiently allege an inventive concept to overcome to defeat a motion to dismiss. Id. at 20. Plaintiff contends "the claims do not merely recite the abstract idea ... along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components." Id. Plaintiff asserts that the claims contain significant "individual steps" and structure such as the information that is required to be in the database, the lexical mapping, the scoring, and the iterative steps of the patented methods. Id. at 20–21. Because the claims "describe how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways" of searching for and retrieving information, the claims "improve an existing technological process" and, therefore, contain an inventive concept. Id. at 21 (quoting Bascom , 827 F.3d at 1350–51 ).
A. Representative Claims
The Court has discretion over whether to treat the asserted independent claims, the claims asserted in the complaints, as representative of the Asserted Claims for purposes of this motion. See, e.g. , 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."); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC , 874 F.3d 1329, 1337–39 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having reviewed the Asserted Patents and considered the supplemental briefing regarding the dependent claims asserted in Plaintiff's infringement contentions, the Court agrees with Defendants that the independent claims asserted in the Amended Complaints are representative of the Asserted Claims for purposes of patent eligibility analysis.
Defendants argue that the independent claims identified in the complaint, and addressed by Defendants in the original briefing, are representative of all claims in the patent. Docket No. 17 at 3 n.1. Plaintiff did not explicitly dispute this assertion in its original briefing. At the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff acknowledged that the dependent claims now included in the Asserted Claims were "not asserted in our Complaint." Docket No. 119 at 44:10–12. In a later hearing regarding supplemental briefing on the dependent claims, Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that he made "a choice not to respond ... because the defendants had not satisfied their burden with respect to those claims by any stretch of the imagination." Docket No. 142 at 23:1–3. Plaintiff's counsel argued that "one sentence in a footnote" does not shift the burden onto Plaintiff. Id. at 23:5–12.
The Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive. The unique procedural issue in this case arose out of Plaintiff's request to extend the deadline for infringement contentions, without clearly articulating that any dependent claims included in the infringement contentions would affect this motion. See Docket No. 119 at 47:1–23. Whether or not Defendants met their burden to demonstrate representativeness, Plaintiff failed to raise any argument concerning Defendants' assertion in the original briefing or in correspondence with Defendants regarding the extension to the infringement contentions deadline. Despite that failure, the Court still allowed supplemental briefing regarding the ineligibility of the asserted dependent claims. See Docket No. 120.
Having reviewed the supplemental briefing, the Court finds that the independent claims identified by Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint, and individually addressed by Defendants in the original briefing, are representative of the Asserted Claims. The independent claims are representative because the Asserted Claims are all "substantially similar in that they recite little more than the same abstract idea." Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n , 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As explained below, the Court finds that all the claims are directed to the abstract idea of iteratively searching for and presenting information based on user feedback. The claims therefore fall within the class of claims related to abstract ideas of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. See, e.g. , Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1353.
The dependent claims consist of identical claims across the four Asserted Patents. Defendants grouped the claims into five categories of limitations: (1) HTML-based GUI, accessible over a network; (2) Client-server arrangement for searching; (3) Excluding words from search; (4) Mapping to a lowest level of category descriptions; and (5) Browsing area. Docket No. 125. In its responsive Supplement Brief, Plaintiff does not substantively address the second category, but states that "Dependent claim 8 of each patent is subject-matter eligible for the same reasons as Dependent claim 7." Docket No. 126 at 5 n.5. Nor does Plaintiff address the third category. Id. Instead, Plaintiff addresses only the first, fourth and fifth categories.
See '497 Patent at Claim 7, '860 Patent at Claim 7 and '521 Patent at Claim 7.
See '497 Patent at Claim 8; '860 Patent at Claim 8 and '521 Patent at Claim 8.
See '237 Patent at Claim 12; '497 Patent at Claim 3 and '521 Patent at Claim 3.
See '497 Patent at Claim 10; '860 Patent at Claim 10 and '521 Patent at Claim 9.
See '497 Patent at Claim 5; '860 Patent at Claim 5 and '521 Patent at Claim 5.
The third category is the only one concerning the claims of the '237 Patent. Because Plaintiff fails to address the category, Plaintiff fails to raise any meaningful argument regarding the representativeness of Claim 10 of the '237 Patent. See Berkheimer , 881 F.3d at 1365. Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendants that Claim 10 of the '237 Patent is representative of the remaining claims in the '237 Patent.
Even otherwise, the Court does not find the generic recitations of a client-server arrangement or the mere exclusion of words from a search sufficient to transform the dependent claims into something distinctly different from their independent claims.
--------
For the first category, Plaintiff argues that the limitation is tied "to a particular technology, HTML," and requires certain limitations in the independent claims to be "computer data records with particularized formats." Docket No. 126 at 5. The Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive. The limitation requires that the claimed graphical user interface ("GUI") be an HTML-webpage but Plaintiff acknowledges it did not invent the GUI. See Docket No. 119 at 36:15–19. Plaintiff has also not alleged that its combination of elements is somehow non-conventional as Plaintiff's amended complaint does not reference the dependent claims. The Specification only references HTML in Figure 8 but does not otherwise address HTML, network protocols, network configurations or the Internet. Accordingly, this limitation does not alter that the dependent claims are substantially similar to the representative claims and do not otherwise include an inventive concept sufficient to support patent eligibility under Alice step two.
For the fourth category, Plaintiff argues that the limitation describes a particularized technical solution that is separate from any human or mental work because humans do not use levels of category descriptions. Docket No. 126 at 7. The Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive. The limitation simply requires the claimed mapping to be "performed to a lowest level of category descriptions," but, in this case, limiting an element already recited does not change the focus of the claims or introduce an inventive concept. Plaintiff argues that there is no evidence that a human "scores" or "maps," which are specific steps in the claims, but that raises the same argument as for the representative claim. Accordingly, this limitation does not alter that the dependent claims are substantially similar to the representative claims and do not otherwise include an inventive concept sufficient to support patent eligibility under Alice step two.
For the fifth category, Plaintiff argues that the limitation "add[s] an additional step that constitutes an unconventional method that only makes sense in the technical computer environment." Docket No. 126 at 8. The Court finds Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive. The limitation requires "a browsing area displayed within the graphical user interface page, wherein the browsing area is accessible at least upon exit of the search by the user." Plaintiff asserts this limitation is a technical solution with no manual analogue that occurs "separate from and in addition to the patented method of Independent claim 1." See Docket No. 126 at 9. Plaintiff acknowledges it did not invent the GUI and does not explain how the technology or arrangement is non-conventional. See Docket No. 119 at 36:15–19. Nonetheless, the limitation, which Plaintiff asserts "allows the user to shop ... separate from and in addition to" the alleged invention, does not change the focus of the claim away from the abstract idea or introduce an inventive concept that covers more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, this limitation does not alter that the dependent claims are substantially similar to the representative claims and do not otherwise include an inventive concept sufficient to support patent eligibility under Alice step two.
Defendants have met their burden to demonstrate that none of the dependent claims in the Asserted Claims introduce any substantially different allegations for limitations or inventive concepts. Therefore, for purposes of this motion and patent eligibility analysis, Claim 10 of the '237 Patent is representative, Claim 1 of the '497 Patent is representative, Claim 1 of the '860 Patent is representative and Claim 1 of the '521 Patent is representative.
B. Alice Step One
Step one of the Alice two-step test requires analyzing the "focus" of the claims, or their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1353. The goal is to identify the basic concept at the "heart" of the claims. See Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 714–15 ("[M]ethods which can be performed mentally or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas—the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.") CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. , 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson , 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972) ).
"The Supreme Court has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ sufficient to satisfy the first step of the Mayo / Alice inquiry.... Rather, both this court and the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases." Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1334. Courts have consistently characterized "method[s] of organizing human activity" as abstract. See Alice , 573 U.S. at 220, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc. , 899 F.3d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In the field of computers and telecommunications, claims directed to simply implementing long-standing practices on a computer are not patent-eligible and do not become patent-eligible simply because such operations are faster or more efficient than the long-standing practice. See Alice , 573 U.S. at 217–21, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ; BSG , 899 F.3d at 1285 ("If a claimed invention only performs an abstract idea on a generic computer, the invention is directed to an abstract idea at step one" of Alice .); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 717 ("Any transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis."); see also, e.g. , OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com , 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps" fail Alice step one).
Therefore, claims regarding computer applications must be directed to an improvement in the capabilities of computer technology as opposed to simply providing for the use of a computer to perform "economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity." Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1336 ; see also Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC , 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (methods for making electronic spreadsheets more accessible); Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs. , Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (improved display devices); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc. , 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (novel method of virus scanning); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. , 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (improved computer memory system). However, a claim must focus on a specific means, method or solution for achieving the improvement, as opposed to merely the result or effect; otherwise the claim's risk of preempting all solutions renders it patent ineligible. See Alice , 573 U.S. at 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ("We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principle as one of pre-emption."); ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. , 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("[T]he concern that drives the judicial exceptions to patentability is one of preemption."); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. , 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Instead of claiming a solution for producing [a] result, the claim in effect encompasses all solutions.").
In this case, the Asserted Claims are directed to the abstract idea of iteratively searching for and presenting information based on user feedback. Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, the claims are not rooted in an improvement to computer technology but merely apply generic computer technology to a traditional and routine method of commercial and human activity.
As explained above, the Asserted Patents are directed to searching for and retrieving information by "mapping lexical keywords into entity description semantics [using] a computer." Specification at 2:27–29. The Specification discusses that the prior search techniques fail because "lexical" searches do not contain context for the search terms and, therefore, can produce "false hits," where results match the search terms but are "wildly out of scope" for the user's intended search. Id. The Specification also discusses that "when humans interact with computer-aided search engines," they use keywords that "tend to be values or characteristics of the desired information" and "infer a mapping of the keywords to the attributes." Id. at 1:61–64, 2:3, 2:6–7. Accordingly, as the parties agree, the focus and alleged improvement of the Asserted Patents is in "confirming" that the search terms in a user's search query are mapped to appropriate item attributes. See Docket No. 24 at 15; Docket No. 29 at 2. For example, the Specification explains that the purported solution is "a method and apparatus to confirm the mapping ... between the human-specified values/characteristics and ... characteristics found in an entity description." Specification at 2:15–21 (emphasis added). Similarly, the Asserted Patents are all identically-titled "Computer-aided extraction of semantics from keywords to confirm match of buyer offers to seller bids." The issue is whether the "extraction of semantics" and "confirming a mapping," as recited by the Asserted Claims, represents an abstract idea.
Plaintiff argues that the Asserted Claims "describe various solutions to the previously-existing problems with computer searches, each through a defined sequence of method steps (and, in the '860 Patent, also via certain system claims), such that implementation of the specific steps results in achieving a desired result." Docket No. 24 at 15. The Asserted Claims, however, are not directed to a specific technological solution or improvement but merely use conventional computer technology to perform longstanding commercial and human activities. Thus, "the claimed idea represents routine tasks that could be performed by a human." eDekka LLC v. 3Balls.com, Inc. , No. 2:15-CV-541 JRG, 2015 WL 5579840, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2015) ; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp. , 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (collecting cases). Humans have traditionally and routinely fielded search requests where back-and-forth communication is necessary to narrow the query (e.g., salespersons, librarians, etc.). Indeed, the Specification even acknowledges that humans have and could conduct such activity. See, e.g. , Specification at 1:65–2:10. Thus, the claims "merely implement an old practice in a new environment." FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc. , 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Specification also does not claim to have invented a particular mapping technique but rather explains that the invention is to "confirm" or "extract" the inferred mapping as a user intended . See Specification at 2:15-21. The Asserted Claims merely recite the steps of collecting information from the user (search terms), maintaining and storing potentially related information (the database), ranking information based on potential relevancy (scoring) and having the user "iteratively" select the user's preferred results. Such steps are not directed to specific technological improvements in the capabilities of computer technology but simply provide for the use of a computer to perform "economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity." Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1336. A computer is used in its ordinary capacity to receive input, store data, analyze data and present results. See id. Further, all the steps "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper." CyberSource , 654 F.3d at 1372 ; see Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 715. Indeed, the Asserted Claims do not even recite fully automating the human activity because they still require a user's input. See, e.g. , '237 Patent at Claim 10 ("prompting the user to select a first category description of the scored category descriptions" and "iteratively displaying to the user, after respective responsive inputs from the user ....").
The process of iteratively searching for and presenting information based on user feedback, without more, is directed to an abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1354 ("[A] process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions ... [is] directed to an abstract idea."). Performing the claimed steps by using the conventional functionality of a computer and communications system, does not make the process any less abstract. See Two-Way Media , 874 F.3d at 1338 ; Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1338 ; Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 717 ("Any transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis.").
The additional functions recited in the '860 and '521 Patents do not shift the focus of the claims from the abstract idea. The '860 and '521 patents require performing the steps in a graphical user interface environment and with a search engine available over the internet. For example, Claim 1 of the '521 Patent recites an additional shared data attribute function for storing and accessing buyer demographic, buyer profile, and search history information. See '521 Patent at Claim 1 ("storing, in third database records in the memory, a set of buyer profiles comprising at least one profile pertaining to a previous search by the user as a returning buyer."). The addition of storing and accessing buyer profiles for returning buyers does not provide meaningful limitations on the abstract idea.
For the reasons provided above, the Asserted Claims are directed to abstract ideas.
C. Alice Step Two
The Court must next determine whether an inventive concept exists that is sufficient to transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. Intellectual Ventures I , 850 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Ultramercial , 772 F.3d at 715 ). The Court "look[s] to see whether there are any ‘additional features’ in the claims that constitute an ‘inventive concept,’ thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea." Id. (citing Alice , 573 U.S. at 221–22, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ). "Those ‘additional features’ must be more than ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity.’ " Id. (citing Mayo , 566 U.S. at 79–80, 132 S.Ct. 1289 ).
Defendants argue that the claims fail to include any inventive concept beyond an abstract idea because they "merely recite automation of traditionally mental and manual methods using generic computer components and simplistic flow charts." Docket No. 17 at 22. Plaintiff responds that the claims survive step two because specific elements, either alone or in combination, provide an inventive concept. Docket No. 24 at 20–21. Plaintiff identifies the "significant individual steps and structure such as the information that is required to be in the database, the lexical mapping, the scoring, and the iterative steps of the patented methods." Id. (internal quotations removed). Further, Plaintiff asserts that the "particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art" and, therefore, contain an inventive concept. Id. at 21 (quoting Bascom , 827 F.3d at 1350–51 ). Plaintiff also argues that its allegations at least raise factual disputes sufficient to survive at the pleadings stage. Id. at 12.
The Asserted Claims recite nothing more than conventional computer components operating according to their ordinary functions. See Two-Way Media , 874 F.3d at 1339. None of the recited computer elements are alleged to be anything other than generic computer components and no limitation in the Asserted Claims "require[s] a new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it." Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1355. The steps of receiving, scoring, storing, displaying, and transmitting required in the Asserted Claims "fall squarely within [Federal Circuit] precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea." In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig. , 823 F.3d 607, 614–20 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the mere recitation of conventional computer and client-server elements "provides no additional limitation beyond applying an abstract idea, restricted to the Internet, on a generic computer." See Intellectual Ventures I , 792 F. 3d at 1371 ; see also Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1355 (The claims "do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods.... They do not invoke any assertedly inventive programming. Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information ... by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.").
Further, the use of conventional technology that differs from the prior art only in that it is being used to transmit different information is not patentable subject matter. See Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd. , 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Claim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship [to the medium] are not entitled to patentable weight, because such information is not patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101."). The Asserted Claims merely recite transmitting different information as compared to the prior art and are, therefore, not patent eligible subject matter. See id. For example, the '860 and '521 patents require performing the steps over the internet in a server-client setup but do not recite any improvement or change to the server-client protocols themselves.
The Asserted Claims also do not recite an inventive application of the abstract idea. Plaintiff relies extensively on the Specification's discussion of the failings in the prior art and the purported benefits of the invention. See Docket No. 24 at 20–21 and Docket No. 39 at 2–3 ("The specification, which cannot be impugned or challenged by Defendants on a motion to dismiss ... confirms that the inventions ... improv[e] upon existing computer-aided search technology."). But the Specification does not contain allegations that any of the specific steps, individually, are an improvement on the prior art. For instance, Plaintiff points to the "scoring" limitation as inventive according to the Specification. Docket No. 39 at 7. However, neither the Specification nor the complaints allege that "scoring," itself, is inventive. The Specification contains only a handful of references to "scoring" or "scores" and does not claim that any specific scoring method as inventive. See Specification at 3:16–20 ("A database (355) containing a relative scoring of entity attributes. Such scoring is based on the empirical or human-entered likelihood of a particular attribute being important to a buyer in search of that entity. An example of this scoring database is given in FIG. 7."), 3:51–52 (" one of many scoring algorithms is selected on the basis of the profile"), 7:31–40 ("Those skilled in the art may now recognize that ... a match between the buyer's search criteria and entities can be made on the basis of a scoring system") (emphasis added).
Instead, the Specification and Plaintiff plainly allege that it is the overall combination of the limitations, particularly the scoring system combined with the iterative responsive inputs, that purportedly provides the inventive concept. See Docket No. 24 at 21. That is, the alleged "inventive concept" is, itself, the abstract idea of iteratively searching for and presenting information based on user feedback. "[A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Bascom , 827 F.3d at 1350. However, the "inventive concept" of Alice step two requires "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. See id. ; see also First-Class Monitoring, LLC v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc. , 389 F.Supp.3d 456, 471 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (A plaintiff cannot "avoid dismissal simply by reciting in the complaint that the invention at issue is novel and that the inventive concept resides in the abstract idea itself."). Even accepting Plaintiff's allegations regarding the improvement to search techniques as true, Plaintiff's allegations lie in the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to allege any specific limitation or arrangement in the claims that is "significantly more" than the abstract idea.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons listed above, the Court finds that the Asserted Claims are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim (Case No. 6:16-cv-1058, Docket No. 17; Case No. 6:16-cv-1061, Docket No. 18; Case No. 6:16-cv-1066, Docket No. 18; Case No. 6:16-cv-1068, Docket No. 20; Case No. 6:16-cv-1071, Docket No. 15) are GRANTED .