Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02181/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02181-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONFIDENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a 

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AXS GROUP LLC, a Delaware 

corporation; and AEG FACILITIES, LLC, 

a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-cv-02181-H-MDD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

[Doc. No. 14.]

On December 22, 2017, Defendants AXS Group LLC and AEG Facilities, LLC filed 

a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Confident Technologies, Inc.’s complaint. (Doc. No. 14.) On 

January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 

15.) On January 12, 2018, Defendants filed their reply. (Doc. No. 18.) 

The Court held a hearing on the matter on January 22, 2018. Trevor Q. Coddington,

Donny K. Samporna, and Cody R. LeJeune appeared for Plaintiff. Brian W. LaCorte

appeared for Defendants. For the reasons below, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss.

///

///

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 13
2

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Background

On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff Confident filed a complaint for patent infringement

against Defendants AXS and AEG, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,621,578. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ use of ReCAPTCHA 

verification technology in connection with AXS’ websites, mobile apps, and ticket 

purchasing services infringes and/or induces infringement of the ’578 Patent. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10, 

12.)

The ’578 patent is entitled “Methods and Systems for Protecting Website Forms 

From Automated Access” and “is directed to a method and system of telling apart a human 

from a computer” through a “graphical image verification system.” U.S. Patent No. 

8,621,578, at (54), 1:7-8 (filed Dec. 31, 2013). The specification of the ’578 patent 

describes the claimed invention and the state of the prior art at the time of the invention as 

follows:

The present invention provides a system and method to tell apart a 

human from a computer using a test generally known as a Completely 

Automated Public test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart (hereinafter 

“CAPTCHA”). Websites, and in particular web-based forms, are often the 

target of malicious programs designed to register for service on a large scale, 

consume large amounts of resources or bias results in on-line polls or voting.

In response to these malicious programs CAPTCHA-based test have been 

developed in an attempt to discern between a human’s attempt to access a 

website and automated access to a website.

CAPTCHA tests attempt to require a user to correctly answer a question 

which only a human could provide a correct answer. Most current CAPTCHA 

tests are text based and require the user to interpret and input a distorted piece 

of test presented to the user. However, user friendliness is lacking and 

automated attacks are not eliminated by current [CAPTCHA] tests. Thus, 

there remains a need for improved systems and methods to tell apart a human 

from a computer when allowing access to a website.

. . .

. . . 

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 13
3

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The present invention provides a method and system for an improved 

CAPTCHA test which requires users to select randomly generated images 

from a dynamic graphical arrangement of images. The images the user must 

select are based on selected categories selected by the verification service 

provider.

Id. at 2:39-3:16. Figure 1 of the ’578 patent provides an illustration of an example of a 

dynamic graphical arrangement of images as utilized by the claimed invention. Figure 1 

is displayed below:

Independent claim 1 of the ’578 patent claims:

A method for generating a completely automated test to tell computers and 

humans apart comprising:

generating a matrix of non-overlapping randomly selected images in response 

to an access request of a user, the dynamic graphical arrangement comprising 

one randomly selected image from a selected image category chosen for an 

image recognition task and at least one image not from the selected image 

category, wherein each image is associated with a unique randomly generated 

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 13
4

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

access code, wherein the image recognition task comprises an instruction to 

select one image corresponding to the selected image category from the matrix 

of non-overlapping randomly selected images;

presenting the dynamic graphical arrangement of randomly selected images 

to the user and communicating the image recognition task to the user;

receiving an input from the user access device at a server system, the input 

comprising the unique randomly generated access code associated with the 

one image from the selected category;

the server system comparing the input from the user access device to an 

authenticating reference code to confirm the user is a human and not a 

computer; and

wherein the matrix comprises at least one image known to belong to the 

selected image category, at least one image known to not belong to the 

selected image category and at least one image suspected to belong to the 

selected image category and wherein the user is still granted access to the 

website when the input from the user access device comprises selection of the 

at least one image known to belong to the selected image category and 

selection or omission of the at least one image suspected to belong to the 

selected image category.

Id. at 9:2-35.

By the present motion, Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) to dismiss all of the claims in Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that the patentin-suit, the ’578 patent, is invalid as a matter of law. (Doc. No. 14-1.) Specifically, 

Defendants argue that the ’578 patent fails to claim patent-eligible subject matter and, 

therefore, is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Id.)

Discussion

I. Legal Standards for a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

In patent cases, a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) is governed by the applicable law of the regional circuit. K-Tech 

Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 

2013). A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal 

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 13
5

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sufficiency of the pleadings and allows a court to dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Conservation Force v. Salazar, 

646 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that 

a pleading stating a claim for relief containing “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The function of this pleading requirement is 

to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it 

rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

A complaint will survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if it contains “enough 

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable 

for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “A pleading 

that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action will not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Nor does a complaint 

suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Accordingly, dismissal for failure to state a claim is 

proper where the claim “lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a 

cognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 

(9th Cir. 2008).

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a district court must accept as true 

all facts alleged in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

plaintiff. See Retail Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 

938, 945 (9th Cir. 2014). But, a court need not accept “legal conclusions” as true. Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Further, it is improper for a court to assume the plaintiff 

“can prove facts which it has not alleged or that the defendants have violated the . . . laws 

in ways that have not been alleged.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State 

Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). 

///

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 13
6

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Legal Standards for Patent Eligibility under § 101

Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter as “any new and 

useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful 

improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has “‘long held that this 

provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, 

and abstract ideas are not patentable.’” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 

Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013). “The concern underlying these judicial exclusions is 

that ‘patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these 

building blocks of human ingenuity.’” Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 

F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

“The Supreme Court has devised a two-stage framework to determine whether a 

claim falls outside the scope of section 101.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, 

LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 

S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). “The prescribed approach requires a court to determine (1) 

whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, a natural 

phenomenon, or an abstract idea, and if so, (2) whether the elements of the claim, 

considered both individually and as an ordered combination, add enough to transform the 

nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1257

(internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). “In the context of 

claims that are challenged as containing only abstract ideas, those two stages are typically 

referred to as the ‘abstract idea’ step and the ‘inventive concept’ step.” Id. 

“The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry” requires courts “to look at the ‘focus of the 

claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is 

directed to excluded subject matter.” Id. at 1257. “The ‘inventive concept’ step requires 

[courts] to look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine 

‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject 

matter’ to which the claim is directed. Id. at 1258. “This inventive concept must do more 

than simply recite ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity.’” FairWarning IP, 

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 13
7

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The accused infringer 

bears the burden of proof on both steps.” InsideSales.com, Inc. v. SalesLoft, Inc., No. 

2:16CV859DAK, 2017 WL 2559932, at *2 (D. Utah June 13, 2017); see Microsoft Corp. 

v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011).

The Federal Circuit has expressly recognized that “it is possible and proper to 

determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Genetic 

Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Bascom Glob. 

Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

(“Courts may . . . dispose of patent-infringement claims under § 101 whenever procedurally 

appropriate.”). Further, the Federal Circuit has explained that where there is “no claim 

construction dispute relevant to the eligibility issue,” evaluation of a patent claim’s subject 

matter eligibility under § 101 can proceed before claim construction. Genetic Techs., 818 

F.3d at 1373; see Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 

1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e have repeatedly affirmed § 101 rejections at the motion to 

dismiss stage, before claim construction or significant discovery has commenced.”); see 

also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[C]laim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity 

determination under § 101.”).

III. Analysis

The Court begins its analysis with step one of the Alice inquiry. Defendants argue 

that under step one, the ’578 patent is directed to an abstract idea because the claimed 

invention is specifically directed to the abstract idea of an image-recognition test. (Doc. 

No. 14-1 at 1-2, 8-13; Doc. No. 18 at 2.) In response, Plaintiff argues that the Court should 

reject Defendants’ characterization of the claimed invention as merely being an imagerecognition test. (Doc. No. 15 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that the claimed invention is not 

directed to an abstract idea because the invention is directed to improving an existing 

technological process, specifically how an online server distinguishes human users from 

computer users in order to address the problem of automated computers (“bots”) accessing 

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 13
8

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

websites. (Id.)

“The step one inquiry focuses on determining ‘whether the claim at issue is ‘directed 

to’ a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea.’” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 

1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has explained that “[w]hile the two steps 

of the Alice framework are related, the ‘Supreme Court’s formulation makes clear that the 

first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101 inquiry.’” Thales 

Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

The Federal Circuit has cautioned that the step one inquiry does not “simply ask 

whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every routinely 

patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions involves a law of nature 

and/or natural phenomenon—after all, they take place in the physical world.” Enfish, LLC 

v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re TLI Commc’ns 

LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]n determining whether the 

claims are directed to an abstract idea, we must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the 

claims because ‘[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply 

laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’”). “Rather, the ‘directed to’ inquiry 

applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on 

whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, 822 

F.3d at 1335.

In so doing, a court should “determine whether the claims ‘focus on a specific means 

or method that improves the relevant technology’ or are ‘directed to a result or effect that 

itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.’” Apple, 

842 F.3d at 1241; see Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 

1270 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“In addressing the first step of the section 101 inquiry, as applied to 

a computer-implemented invention, it is often helpful to ask whether the claims are directed 

to ‘an improvement in the functioning of a computer,’ or merely ‘adding conventional 

computer components to well-known business practices.’”); see also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 

1335 (“The Supreme Court has suggested that claims ‘purport[ing] to improve the 

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 13
9

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

functioning of the computer itself,’ or ‘improv[ing] an existing technological process’

might not succumb to the abstract idea exception.”). The Federal Circuit has “held claims 

ineligible as directed to an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, 

display information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by humans.” 

Thales Visionix, 850 F.3d at 1346-47.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the invention claimed in the ’578 patent is not 

directed to an abstract idea. The invention claimed in the ’578 patent does not merely 

collect electronic information, display information, or embody a mental processes that 

could be performed by humans. Rather, the invention is directed to improving an existing 

technological process, specifically the process of how an online server is able to discern 

between a human’s attempt to access a website and an automated computer’s attempt to 

access a website – the CAPTCHA test. See ’578 Patent at 2:39-49. The ’578 patent 

explains that the prior art CAPTCHA tests – which presented a user with distorted text and 

required the user to interpret and input that distorted text – lacked user friendliness and 

were still susceptible to automated attacks from bots. See id. at 2:50-56. 

The invention claimed in the ’578 patent attempts to improve on the technological 

process of the CAPTCHA test by utilizing “a matrix of non-overlapping randomly selected 

images” where “each image is associated with a unique randomly generated access code.” 

Id. at 9:4-11. This matrix of images is then presented to the user along with an “image 

recognition task compris[ing] an instruction to select one image corresponding to [a] 

selected image category.” Id. at 9:16-18. A “server” then receives the access code 

associated with the image selected by the user from the “user access device,” and the server 

then compares that access code “to an authenticating reference code to confirm the user is 

a human and not a computer.” Id. at 9:19-25. Accordingly, a review of the ’578 patent’s 

claim language and its claimed advancement over the prior art shows that the claimed

invention focuses on utilizing a specific means, here a matrix of non-overlapping randomly 

selected images that is presented to the user along with an image recognition task, to 

improve an existing technological process, here the CAPTCHA test, in effort to solve a 

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 13
10

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

problem necessarily rooted in computer technology, automated attacks from bots.

1

 See

Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1257 (explaining that under step one of the Alice inquiry, a court 

should focus on the claimed advancement over the prior art). Accordingly, the ’578 patent

is not directed to an abstract idea. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339 (“[T]he 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.”); DDR Holdings, LLC v. 

Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding claims not directed to an 

abstract idea where “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in 

order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); 

Trading Techs., 675 F. App’x at 1004–05 (“Precedent has recognized that specific 

technologic modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known 

system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter.”).

Further, the Court rejects Defendants’ characterization of the invention as merely 

being an image-recognition test. In making this characterization, Defendants oversimplify 

the claimed invention and fail to view it in its proper context. See TLI Commc’ns, 823 

F.3d at 611 (explaining that courts must be careful to “to avoid oversimplifying the 

claims”). The claimed invention is not simply directed to an image-recognition test in the 

abstract. Rather, the claimed invention is directed to a specific type of image recognition

 

1 Defendants argue that the Court’s § 101 analysis should not focus on the technology-based 

problem of Internet “bots” because this concept is not in the claim language itself. (Doc. No. 18 at 2.) 

The Court disagrees. The Federal Circuit has explained that in analyzing patent-eligibility under § 101, 

a reviewing court should apply the Alice step one filter to the claims as “considered in light of the 

specification,” in particular what the specification describes as the claimed invention’s innovation over 

the prior art. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335; see Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1257; Intellectual Ventures I LLC 

v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, in performing step one of the Alice

inquiry, it is entirely proper for the Court to consider what the ’578 patent’s specification describes as 

the problem addressed by the claimed invention and the claimed invention’s purported advancements 

over the prior art. See, e.g., Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 

2017) (affirming a district court’s patent eligibility analysis under Alice step one where the district court 

analyzed the specific problems the claimed invention sought to address). Further, the Court notes that

even if it could only consider the language in the claims, the claim language itself expressly states that 

the purpose of the claimed method is “to tell computers and humans apart.” ’578 Patent at 9:2-3.

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 13
11

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

test that is purportedly useful in assisting an online server with the task of determining 

whether a user attempting to access a website is a human or a computer/bot. When viewed 

in this proper context, the claimed invention represents a specific solution to a problem that 

exists in the computer world and, thus, is not an abstract idea. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 

1339; DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.

Indeed, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the claimed invention is directed to 

solving a problem that currently exists only within the technical world. (Doc. No. 15 at 2.) 

The need to distinguish humans from computers is an issue specific to computer 

networking fields. Defendants have failed to identify any comparable situation within the 

analog world.2

 That the claimed invention focuses on solving a specific problem that exists

only in the technical world supports the Court’s conclusion that the ’578 patent is not 

directed to an abstract idea.3

 See DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257 (“[T]hese claims stand apart 

because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from 

the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet.”); Trading 

Techs., 675 F. App’x at 1004 (affirming district court’s conclusion at Alice step one that 

 

2 The Court does not find persuasive Defendants’ argument that visual verification tests that utilize

a user’s photo ID at polling stations for political elections represents a real world example of the 

problem addressed by the claimed invention. (Doc. No. 18 at 3.) Unlike the test utilized by the claimed 

invention, in the polling station scenario, the test is being used to determine the user’s identity not 

whether the user is a human or a computer. 

Similarly, the Court rejects Defendants’ argument presented at the hearing that a visual

verification test presented in a children’s magazine represents a real world example of the claimed 

invention. The context and purpose of the visual verification test is different from what is claimed in the

’578 patent. In Defendants’ example, the test is being administered for the simple purpose of 

determining whether the user, the child, is able to correctly solve the test. In the ’578 patent, the 

randomized test is being administered in order to determine whether the user is a human or a computer.

3 In addition, the fact that the claimed invention addresses a problem that is rooted in and only 

exists in the computer world distinguishes the present case from the cases relied on by Defendants such 

as FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Ultramercial, Inc. v. 

Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For example in FairWarning, the Federal Circuit expressly 

noted that the claims at issue were an attempt to simply computerize methods that had already existed in 

the analog world for decades. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (“The claimed rules ask . . . the same 

questions humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.”).

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 13
12

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the patents at issue are not directed to an abstract idea where the “patents are directed to 

improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no ‘pre-electronic 

trading analog’”).

Defendants argue that the methods claimed in the ’578 patent can be performed by 

a human using a pencil and paper. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 3, 8-9, 12; Doc. No. 18 at 2-3.) Cf.

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining 

that a claim is directed to an abstract idea if the claim is directed to a process that could be 

performed mentally or with pencil and paper). The Court disagrees. First, the claim 

language requires that the dynamic graphical arrangement of images be “randomly 

selected.” ’578 Patent at 9:4, 9:16-17. Defendants fail to adequately explain how a human 

with a pencil and paper would be able to randomly select the images utilized in the dynamic 

graphical arrangement of images.4

 Second, Defendants’ argument fails to consider the 

invention in its proper context. The invention is directed to a specific type of imagerecognition test in the context of an online server attempting to determine whether a user 

attempting to access a website is a human or a computer/bot. Defendants fail to adequately 

explain how a human with a pencil and paper could administer the claimed CAPTCHA test 

to both human users and computer users in order to determine whether a certain user should 

be granted access to a website. 

Finally, Defendants argue that the ’578 patent is directed to an abstract idea because 

the claim language is too vague and fails to provide any specific hardware or software 

examples or sample code that provides a precise means for implementing the claimed 

method. (Doc. No. 14-1 at 2, 4; Doc. No. 18 at 5.) But Defendants fail to provide the 

Court with any authority holding that in order for a computer-based patent to be patenteligible under § 101, the claims must be so precise as to specifically provide sample code 

 

4 Defendants argue that a human could randomize the process by utilizing “a coin, rolling dice, or 

shuffling cards.” (Doc. No. 18 at 4.) But as Plaintiff correctly explained at the hearing, in that situation,

you would not have just a human with a pencil and paper; it would be a human with a pencil, paper, and 

some additional device.

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 13
13

17-cv-02181-H-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

within the claim language. The Court also notes that Defendants’ arguments regarding the 

specificity of the ’578 patent’s claim language are premature at this stage in the litigation 

as the Court has not yet held claim construction proceedings in this case. 

In sum, Defendants have failed to establish that the ’578 patent is directed to an 

abstract idea under step one of the Alice inquiry. Accordingly, the Court does not need to 

proceed to step two of the inquiry. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339; see McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312 

(“If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends.”); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. 

Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“If the answer [to the step 

one inquiry] is no, the inquiry is over: the claim falls within the ambit of § 101.”). At this 

stage in the proceedings, Defendants have failed to establish that the ’578 patent is invalid 

for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter as required by 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, the Court denies Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss. Defendants must file their answer to the complaint within thirty (30) days from 

the date this order is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2018

 

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:17-cv-02181-H-MDD Document 23 Filed 01/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 13