Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02670/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02670-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

14cv2670

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

WEST VIEW RESEARCH, LLC, a 

California corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE 

AG, a German corporation; 

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 

a Delaware corporation; and BMW 

MANUFACTURING CO., LLC, a 

Delaware corporation,

 Defendants.

And Related Counterclaim(s).

Case No.: 14-CV-2670-CAB (WVG)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

[Doc. No. 89]

Before the Court is the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Bayerische 

Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC,

(collectively, “BMW”). [Doc. No. 89.] BMW argues that United States Patent Nos. 

8,301,456 and 8,311,834, which Plaintiff West View Research, LLC (“West View”) asserts 

against BMW, are invalid because they are not directed to patentable subject matter under 

35 U.S.C. §101. West View opposed the motion. [Doc. No. 90.] For the reasons set forth 

below, the motion is GRANTED.

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 1 of 13
2

14cv2670

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

I. Background

The ‘456 patent is titled “Electronic Information Access System and Methods.”

[Doc. No. 89-1 at 5-44.]1 The ‘834 patent is titled “Computerized Information Selection 

and Download Apparatus and Methods.” [Doc. No. 89-1 at 46-86.] Both patents are

continuations of United States Patent No. 6,615,175 for a “‘Smart’ Elevator System and 

Method.” The common specification discloses a system and subsystems utilizing computer 

hardware, software and other peripherals to provide information to occupants in an elevator 

or users of other “personnel transport devices,” such as moving walkways or shuttles. 

Among the many sub-systems described in the specification is a system designed to 

identify authorized users and provide them with access or information personalized to the 

identified user.2

The continuation claims of the ‘456 and the ‘834 patents, filed some 13 years after 

the original parent application, relate to the disclosed user identification subsystem. The

asserted claims are directed at an information system that uses electromagnetic energy to 

identify whether one is an authorized user of the information system. Then, if the system 

determines that the person is authorized to access information, the system is configured to 

communicate information, perhaps tailored or specific to the person, to a personal 

electronic device of the authorized user.3

Claim 1 of the ‘456 patent reads:

1. An information system associated with a transport apparatus, the transport 

apparatus configured to move from one location to another, the access to 

information of said information system being authorized for only one or more 

certain persons, the system comprising:

an antenna adapted to receive electromagnetic energy, said 

electromagnetic energy encoding first data associated with at least one 

person; and

 

1 Page cites to docket references are to the CM/ECF assigned page numbers. 

2 The portions of the common specification discussed herein are referenced to the column and line 

locations in the ‘456 patent. [Doc. No. 89-1 at 39-40, Col. 17:46-20:6.]

3 The asserted Claims of the ‘456 patent are independent Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 

and 17.

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 2 of 13
3

14cv2670

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

processing apparatus in signal communication with said antenna, said 

processing apparatus configured to:

access a first database containing second data relating to said one or 

more certain persons;

analyze at least portions of said first data and said second data to 

determine if said at least one person is authorized to access said 

information; and

if said at least one person is authorized access, facilitate download of 

said information to a personal electronic device (PED) of said at 

least one person. 

[Doc. No. 89-1 at 42, Col. 24:38-55.] The asserted dependent claims add these limitations:

2. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing apparatus is further 

configured to enable data communication with the PED before said download 

occurs.

4. The system of claim 1, further comprising an interrogator apparatus 

configured to elicit transmission of said electromagnetic energy from a radio 

frequency device associated with the at least one person.

6. The system of claim 1, wherein the information comprises information 

specifically tailored for the at least one person based on more prior preferences 

or selections of the at least one person.

7. The system of claim 1, wherein the information comprises information 

specific to the at least one person.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein the antenna is configured for short-range 

radio frequency communications with a corresponding radio frequency device 

of said at least one person. 

17. The system of claim 1, where in the system is further configured to retain 

a record of said access by said at least one person.

[Doc. No. 89-1 at 42-43, Col. 24:56-25:34.]

West View asserts four independent claims of the ‘834 patent.4 Claim 36 and its 

dependent claims are representative:

36. A method of providing information to a user of a portable electronic 

apparatus, the method comprising:

 

4 The asserted Claims of the ‘834 patent are independent Claim 1 and its dependent claim 4, independent 

claim 36 and its dependent claim 39, independent claim 52 and its dependent claim 54, and independent 

claim 66. 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 3 of 13
4

14cv2670

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

receiving, via a wireless link, data specifically identifying a wireless 

device, the device associated with a user of the portable electronic 

apparatus;

based at least in part on the data, identifying at least one information profile 

associated to that user; and

causing provision of information configured according to the at least one 

profile to the portable electronic apparatus via a data interface;

wherein said data is part of a radio frequency (RF) signal emitted at a 

particular frequency when proper authentication of an interrogation 

apparatus by said wireless device occurs.

37. The method of claim 36, wherein said wireless device comprises a short 

range radio frequency identification (RFID) device, and the data interface 

comprises a data interface operating according to a communication protocol 

different than that of the RFID device.

38. The method of claim 37, wherein the portable electronic apparatus 

comprises application software resident thereon, the software configured to 

receive the provided information and store it within the storage device of the 

portable electronic apparatus.

39. The method of claim 38, wherein the act of causing provision comprises 

causing provision of information relevant and useful to the user, the 

information relevant and useful to the user having been previously selected by 

the user.

[Doc. No. 89-1 at 85, Col. 27:49-28:9.]

West View asserts that these claimed systems/methods are an advancement to a 

computer-specific technology problem, specifically an improvement in the operation or 

functionality of the computer system to prevent electronic fraud, such as “spoofing” or 

“man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks” in wireless interface systems. [Doc. No. 90 at 6-7.] 

According to West View these problems are addressed by the patents through “various 

mechanisms, including (i) use of a short-range wireless protocol (so as to mitigate 

interception); (ii) use of e.g., reader authentication; and (iii) optional use of encrypted 

data.” [Id. at 7, emphasis in the original.]

BMW argues that the claims of these continuation patents are directed at an 

abstraction: retrieving data associated with a user and providing relevant information to 

that user in return. Further, according to BMW: (1) the asserted claims provide no element 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 4 of 13
5

14cv2670

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

or combination of elements that is significantly more than a patent on that abstraction; (2) 

the asserted claims are not new solutions to fraud prevention in wireless interface systems; 

(3) the asserted claims do not include limitations of encrypted data protocols, or disclose 

any new or improved system or method of doing so;

5

and (4) the asserted claims do not 

recite improvements in the technological function of an RFID tag or advancement in 

encoding technology, but employ existing systems and methods in conventional ways. 

II. Legal Standard Under Rule 12(c)

Ninth Circuit procedural law for Rule 12(c) motions applies here. Imation Corp. v. 

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., 586 F.3d 980, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In reviewing a 

grant of judgment on the pleadings, this court applies the procedural law of the regional 

circuit.”). In the Ninth Circuit, a “motion for judgment on the pleadings faces the same 

test as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6).” McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 

(9th Cir. 1988). The standard under Rule 12(b) is a familiar one, and there is no need to 

address it at length here. In short, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must 

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 

Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the Iqbal standard applies to 

Rule 12(c) motions). 

III. 35 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101 defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection 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 clarified that Section 101

“contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and 

 

5 Even if a security protocol limitation was included as an element of any of the asserted claims, the 

specification does not teach any advancement in the utilization of security protocols. Rather the 

specification discloses that “the use of passwords, encrypted data protocols and spread spectrum 

techniques for security is well known in the art, and accordingly will not be described further herein.” 

[Doc. No. 89-1 at 39, Col. 18:14-17.] 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 5 of 13
6

14cv2670

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

abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 

2354 (2014); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 

1289, 1293 (2012) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and 

abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and 

technological work.”) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). However, 

“an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract 

concept.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354. Rather, “applications of such concepts to a new and 

useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.” Id. (internal quotations and brackets 

omitted). “Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, [the court] must distinguish 

between patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate 

the building blocks into something more, thereby transforming them into a patent-eligible 

invention.” Id. (internal quotations, citations, and brackets omitted); see also Potter Voice 

Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. C 13-1710 CW, 2015 WL 5672598, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 

2015) (same).

“The issue of invalidity under Section 101 presents a question of law.” OpenTV, 

Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-1622-HSG, 2015 WL 1535328, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 

2015). The analysis of whether a patent falls within the exceptions to Section 101 is a twostep process. In the first step, the Court must “determine whether the claims at issue are 

directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355; see also DDR Holdings, 

LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). With regard to computerrelated technology, this inquiry concerns whether the claims focus on the specific asserted 

improvement in computer capabilities (in this case West View contends an improvement 

in electronic fraud prevention in wireless systems) or, instead, on a process that qualifies 

as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. 

Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In some cases involving 

computer-related claims, there “may be close calls about how to characterize what the 

claims are directed to,” in which case, “an analysis of whether there are arguably concrete 

improvements in the recited computer technology could take place under step two.” Id. at 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 6 of 13
7

14cv2670

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

1339; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 

(“[T]he two stages involve overlapping scrutiny of the content of the claims ... [and] there 

can be close questions about when the inquiry should proceed from the first stage to the 

second”). 

At step two, if the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the Court must 

“consider 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 patenteligible application.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355. This second step is also known as “a search 

for an inventive concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to

ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the 

ineligible concept itself.” Id. (internal quotations and brackets omitted).

Although novelty, obviousness and enablement, under §102, §103 and §112 are 

separate considerations from a §101 analysis, certain questions relevant to those 

determinations overlap with the “search for an inventive concept.” For example: Do the 

elements of the claim, individually or in combination, and viewed in the context of the 

specification, disclose and teach advancements to the technology to solve the identified

problem? Or, do the claim elements merely use known procedures, or conventional steps, 

specified at a high level of generality? See Market Track, LLC v. Efficient Collaborative 

Retail Marketing, LLC, No. 14 C 4957, 2015 WL 3637740, *5 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2015) 

citing Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l. Ass’n, 776 

F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (discounting “well-known” or long-practiced 

procedures and finding no “inventive concept” in claims that “merely recite the use of []

existing . . . technology”).

IV. Analysis

A. Abstract Ideas

BMW argues that the claims at issue here are invalid under Section 101 because they 

are patent-ineligible abstract ideas. “The “abstract ideas” category embodies the 

longstanding rule that an idea of itself is not patentable.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2355 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 7 of 13
8

14cv2670

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

(internal quotations and brackets omitted). “The Federal Circuit has characterized an 

abstraction as ‘an idea, having no particular concrete or tangible form.’” Potter Voice 

Tech., 2015 WL 5672598, at *2 (quoting Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 

714 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).

The ‘456 patent simply describes the invention as an electronic information access 

system and associated methods. [Doc. No. 89-1 at 5.] The ‘834 patent describes the 

invention as methods and apparatus for providing information useful to a particular user of 

a computerized apparatus. [Doc. No. 89-1 at 46.] The asserted claims are directed at 

authenticating a user of the system and providing information to that user that is 

downloaded to the user’s personal electronic device. The claims broadly recite a system 

employing a wireless device that uses electromagnetic energy as an identifying signal sent 

to an interrogating receiver, which upon identifying the signal, accesses and provides 

information associated with the identified user, which is communicated to the user’s 

portable electronic device.

The claim language is result-oriented and functional—requesting a signal from a 

wireless device; receiving, analyzing and authenticating the response signal; and thereafter 

providing access to information customized to the user and transmitting that information 

to that user to be communicated/downloaded to the user’s personal electronic device. The 

physical components of the claims, such as an antenna or interrogator apparatus, a radio 

frequency device, a processing apparatus, a personal electronic device are generic 

descriptions of well-known components used to carry out this abstract function. See

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 

(affirming invalidity under § 101 of claims that set forth routine and generic capabilities of 

computers that the patentee did not invent, and at a level generality known in the art as of 

the priority date of the patent). 

West View describes the asserted claims as inventions that improve the operation or 

functionality of a computer by “preventing it from being ‘spoofed’ or subjected to MITM 

attacks and improv[ing] technology in the field of wireless information provision or 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 8 of 13
9

14cv2670

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

commerce by enabling secure transactions and preventing release of a user’s sensitive data

to a malicious third party.” [Doc. No. 90 at 7.] Although this description implies inventions

that introduce advancements to computer technology addressing a problem specifically 

arising in the realm of computer networks, it is a fiction. There is nothing in the 

specification to support this representation that the inventions provide new and improved 

systems, protocols or methods of securing wireless transactions from interception by 

unauthorized users. Rather the claims recite known RFID tag and reader systems used to 

provide authentication of system users for access to information. 

The asserted claims are directed at identifying an authorized user and providing 

information to that user. The concept of identifying a system user and then delivering userspecific content to that user’s portable electronic device is an abstract idea.

B. Inventive Concept

Having determined that the claims at issue are directed at abstract ideas, the next 

step is to “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive 

concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible 

application.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (internal quotations omitted.) An abstract 

process could be directed to a patent-eligible subject if it discloses a specific improvement 

in computer performance designed to implement the process. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai 

Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, “the mere 

recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a 

patent-eligible invention.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358; see also DDR Holdings, 773 

F.3d at 1256 (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer 

limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).

West View emphasizes that the patents claim systems or methods that are an 

advancement to a computer-specific technology problem, specifically an improvement in 

the operation or functionality of a wireless computer system to prevent electronic fraud. 

West View identifies the following claim elements as the purported advancements to the 

operation of the claimed information system introduced to frustrate interception by a third 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 9 of 13
10

14cv2670

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

party: (1) the use of a short-range wireless protocol; (2) the use of reader authentication; 

and (3) the optional use of encrypted data.

The asserted claims broadly recite wireless devices to interrogate, receive and 

transmit signals. When specified in a claim, the only identification and access system 

disclosed in the patent consists of an RFID tag, a reader and an access database “of the type 

well known in the art.” [Doc. No. 89-1 at 39, Col. 17:49-52.] Independent claim 66 of the 

‘834 patent includes the limitation that the signal sent from the reader/interrogator to the 

wireless device (i.e., the RFID tag) and the return signal from the wireless device are shortrange wireless transmissions.6

 West View asserts that this limitation is an improvement 

to the operation of the system intended to mitigate interception by third parties. There is 

nothing in the patent, however, to suggest that West View introduced the use of short-range 

wireless transmission to RF systems, let alone that West View did so as an advancement 

intended to mitigate third party interception of the signals. The patent does not disclose 

how such transmissions would operate if they are an innovation to the operation of RF 

systems. The specification in fact makes no specific reference to the use of short-range 

wireless transmission other than to state that the RFID interrogator/reader “has limited 

range and is directional in nature such that it will not interfere with the readers of other 

elevators cars nearby or other RF devices.” [Id., Col. 18:23-26.] 

West View also asserts that the claims introduce the use of reader authentication to 

the RF system to frustrate third party interception. However, the asserted claims of the 

‘456 patent do not include as a limitation of the system that the RFID tag authenticate the 

transmission from the interrogator before responding. Therefore, this limitation is not 

claimed in the ‘456 patent as a purported advancement in an RF identification system. The 

asserted method claims of the ‘834 patent do include the step of the wireless device (i.e., 

 

6 The only asserted independent claim of the ‘456 patent, claim 1, does not have a limitation that the 

transmission be short-range. It appears in dependent claim 8 of that patent. The other asserted 

independent claims of the ‘834 patent, claims 1, 36, and 52, also do not have this limitation, but it appears 

in their dependent claims 4, 37 and 53, respectively. 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 10 of 13
11

14cv2670

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

RFID tag) evaluating or authenticating the signal from the interrogating device to 

determine if it should respond. [Doc. No. 89-1 at 83-86, Col. 24:66-67; Col. 27:59-62; Col. 

30:20-25.] The specification discusses this step of the RFID tag authenticating the tag 

reader before it transmits a response signal as follows:

In one embodiment, the RFID tag of the present invention 

authenticates the tag reader of the access sub-system such that 

when the tag is interrogated by the reader ..., an appropriate code 

or password must be provided within the RF signal from the 

reader for the tag to radiate its RF identification signal. In this 

fashion, unauthorized access to the RF signature or emission of 

the tag through use of an unauthorized reader are [sic] frustrated.

[Doc. No. 89-1 at 39, Col. 17:54-63.] 

The language of the claims reciting this particular step is generic in its description 

of the function. The RFID tag “evaluates” or “authenticates” the signal received from the 

interrogator before responding. The specification describes the manner in which such 

authentication is performed as providing an “appropriate code or password ... within the 

RF signal from the reader for the tag to [identify].” Nothing further is disclosed to explain 

the operation of this step if such a step was indeed inventive. Nor is there any suggestion 

that the implementation of this step is a concept introduced in these patents as a security

innovation for RF signal transmission systems. To the contrary, the specification 

represents that there are known methods of defeating this authentication process and 

therefore suggests the optional implementation of encryption protocols to enhance security. 

[Id., Col. 17:63-18:7.] 

The last claim element West View identifies as an improvement in computer 

functionality to solve the problem of electronic fraud in wireless systems is the disclosed 

optional use of encrypted data in the RF signal transmission system. As noted supra, none 

of the asserted claims include limitations of encrypted data protocols or include a step of 

encrypting or decrypting data. Even if the Court construes claim language requiring the 

step of authenticating a transmitted signal configured in a way to frustrate unauthorized 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 11 of 13
12

14cv2670

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 [Doc. No. 89-1 at 86, Col 30:4-25] to implicate the use of encryption protocols, 

there is no disclosure of any new or improved system or method of doing so. Instead, the

specification discloses that “the use of passwords, encrypted data protocols and spread 

spectrum techniques for security is well known in the art, and accordingly will not be 

described further herein.” [Doc. No. 89-1 at 39, Col. 18:14-17.]

West View does not identify anything else that might constitute an inventive 

concept. The Court is not persuaded by West View’s contention that the claimed systems 

and methods introduce a security advancement designed to protect the users of portable 

electronic devices from having their communications intercepted or altered. These 

wireless communication issues – “spoofing and MITM attacks,” asserted by West View as 

huge computer problems of today7are not the technology problems identified in the 

patents. Now a decade and a half after the specification supporting these claims was 

initially filed, West View’s contention that these alleged problems were the motivation for 

the conception of the claimed inventions is without foundation or even suggestion in the 

specification.

West View’s argument blatantly jettisons any relationship to the actual field of the 

invention stated in the specification: “the field of personnel transport apparatus, and 

specifically elevators and similar devices for transporting people from one location to 

another which incorporate various information technologies.” [Id., Col 1:37-42.] It ignores

the only problems identified in the patent as the issues to which these claims relate: the 

goal of replacing magnetic striped cards and card readers, prone to wear and unauthorized 

use, as a means of restricting elevator access to certain floors during certain time periods,

with RFID systems to “allow for automatic recognition of an individual in order to provide 

 

7 As West View itself explains, “electronic ‘fraud’, ‘spoofing’, MITM attacks, etc. are a huge problem 

today for wireless interfaces” [Doc. No. 90 at 11], but provides no citation to any portion of the 

specification of these patents that indicates these were problems in 1999 (when the specification was 

originally filed) or that they were the problems addressed by RFID systems claimed. 

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 12 of 13
13

14cv2670

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 to certain restricted locations and initiation of certain functions such as lighting and 

HVAC.” [Id., Col. 2:34-59, 3:15-19.] 

Untethered to the problems the patent disclosure identifies, these continuation claims 

are written at a level of abstraction that purports to claim any system employing a wireless 

device that sends an identifying signal to a receiver, which upon identifying the signal, 

accesses and provides information associated with the identified user, which can be 

downloaded to that user’s portable electronic device. Without any reference to actual 

language in the disclosure required to support its assertions, West View argues that the 

technological problem being addressed is in the field of wireless information provision or 

commerce, to enable secure transactions and prevent the release of the user’s sensitive data 

to a malicious third party. [Doc. No. 90 at 7.] This contention only serves to underscore 

the level of abstraction of these continuation claims and the intention to preempt a field 

never contemplated in the patent disclosure.

V. Conclusion

Having considered the submissions of the parties and based on the language of the 

asserted claims and the specification common to the patents at issue, the Court finds that 

the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,301,456 and US. Patent No. 8,311,834 are not 

drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are invalid. BMW’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore GRANTED.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2016

Case 3:14-cv-02670-CAB-WVG Document 105 Filed 12/30/16 Page 13 of 13