Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01901/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01901-0/pdf.json

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

---

1 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

INFOGATION CORP., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ZTE CORPORATION; ZTE (USA), 

INC., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

[Doc. No. 41.] 

INFOGATION CORP., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

HTC CORPORATION; HTC AMERICA, 

INC., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-cv-01902-H-JLB 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

[Doc. No. 49.] 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 16
2 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

INFOGATION CORP., 

Plaintiff,

v. 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.; 

HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 16-cv-01903-H-JLB 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

[Doc. No. 46.] 

 On February 24, 2017, Defendants ZTE (USA), Inc.,1

 HTC,2 and Huawei,3 each 

filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the 

pleadings. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41; 16-cv-1902-Doc. No. 49; 16-cv-1903-Doc. No. 

46.) On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff InfoGation Corp. filed its oppositions to Defendants’ 

motions. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 45; 16-cv-1902-Doc. No. 55; 16-cv-1903-Doc. No. 50.) 

On March 20, 2017, Defendants filed their replies. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 47; 16-cv1902-Doc. No. 57; 16-cv-1903-Doc. No. 53.) 

 The Court held a hearing on the matter on March 27, 2017. John P. Moy and 

Heather W. Schallhorn appeared for InfoGation. Harold H. Davis appeared for ZTE. 

Fred I. Williams appeared for HTC. David S. Almeling, Mark Liang, and Jason W. 

Wolff appeared for Huawai. For the reasons below, the Court denies Defendants’ 

motions for judgment on the pleadings. 

/// 

/// 

                                                                

1

 Defendant ZTE Corporation was dismissed from the action on October 11, 2016. (16-cv-1901-

Doc. No. 21.) 

2

 Defendant “HTC” includes HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. 

3

 Defendant “Huawei” includes Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 16
3 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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 July 27, 2016, Plaintiff InfoGation Corp. filed three separate complaints for 

patent infringement against Defendants ZTE, HTC, and Huawei, alleging infringement of 

U.S. Patent No. 6,292,743. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv-1902-Doc. No. 1; 16-cv1903-Doc. No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smartphones, which 

run the Android operating system and can connect to a Google Maps navigation server 

through a wireless carrier’s network data, infringe, either literally or through the doctrine 

of equivalents, claim 15 of the ’743 patent. (Id.) 

The ’743 patent is entitled “Mobile Navigation System” and “relates generally to 

[a] mobile navigation system and apparatus, and more particularly to a distributed 

navigation system having a wireless connection to a server for calculating optimal routes 

using real-time data.” U.S. Patent No. 6,292,743, at 1:5-8. In describing the prior art, the 

’743 patent explains that, at the time of the invention, “navigation systems, in which 

automobiles are equipped with a navigational computer that includes a display screen, an 

input means such as a keypad or a remote control, and a storage means such as a CD” had 

become quite popular. Id. at 1:10-14. The ’743 patent explains that the problem with 

these devices is that they are “stand-alone devices that rely completely on data stored on 

the local storage device for geographical and other information. Thus, the capacity of the 

storage device becomes a limiting factor as to how much information is available to 

users. In addition, users must update their mapping databases frequently to stay current.” 

Id. at 1:27-32. 

In light of these problems, the ’743 patent explains that it is desirable to have an 

online navigation system that can provide current information to the user – including 

real-time information such as traffic, weather, and road conditions – without the need for 

the system to update its local databases whenever changes occur. ’743 Patent at 1:36-41. 

The ’743 patent acknowledges that there are some prior art navigation systems, such as 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 16
4 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

Toyota’s MONET system, that are able to connect to online servers and provide real-time 

information to the user. Id. at 1:46-61. But the ’743 patent notes that there are several 

problems with those real-time navigation systems. 

The ’743 patent explains the problems with the real-time navigation systems at the 

time of the invention as follows: 

In these current systems, all geographical data transmitted by the server is in 

a propriety [sic] format. That is, downloaded information used to describe 

geographical data, such as point-of-interest addresses and detailed map data, 

includes data points, indices and the like that are specific to the particular 

mapping database used on the client. 

Accordingly, the client navigation system must have a particular pre-defined 

mapping database installed in order to work with the server. In some cases, 

the mapping database used by the client and server must be identical. If 

there is a mismatch between the expected mapping database and the actual 

mapping database used on the client, the client cannot properly interpret the 

geographical data downloaded from the server and the system will fail to 

operate. 

Accordingly, customers using these current systems must obtain the latest 

version of the mapping database software available. This presents a major 

burden for customers and manufacturers alike due to the high frequency in 

which these databases must be updated. 

In addition, the data downloaded by the client generally requires high 

bandwidth communication channels due the shear volume of data 

transmitted by these current systems. Such high bandwidth communication 

channels are expensive and may not be readily available in all areas. It 

would be desirable to develop a system that requires lower bandwidth 

communication channels than that required by these current systems. 

Another problem with the current systems outlined above is that the client 

must include sophisticated algorithms for calculating optimal routes. In 

addition, these route-calculating algorithms in the client must be updated in 

accordance with current services and options available on the server. . . . 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 16
5 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

Another problem with the current systems is that the proprietary server 

cannot be used with navigation systems and mapping databases provided by 

other manufacturers. 

 

’743 Patent at 1:62-2:37. 

 The ’743 patent seeks to remedy these problems in the prior art systems by using a 

generic natural language description to specify the optimal routing information that is 

generated at the server and then transmitted from the server to the client. ’743 Patent at 

3:21-23. The specification of the ’743 patent describes “a client navigation system” as 

follows: 

The client navigation system establishes a wireless connection to the server 

via cellular telephone technology or the like. Once connected, the client 

requests a specific route by uploading start and stop specifications to the 

server. The server independently calculates an optimal route for the user 

based on real-time and current data available to the server, as well as user 

preferences or the like. 

The routing information is formatted using a natural language specification 

in accordance with each specific embodiment of the present invention. 

 

Id. at 3:27-36. 

The ’743 patent explains that by having the route data generating only at the 

server, it allows the client devices to be much less complex and not require software 

changes when the server provides new information. ’743 Patent at 2:53-3:10. The ’743 

patent further explains that by using a generic natural language description to specify the 

optimal routing information, the optimal routing data from the server “can be interpreted 

by a variety of clients with minimal software additions.” Id. at 3:11-14. Further, the 

patent explains that the natural language routing descriptions can be highly compressed 

allowing the information to travel on lower bandwidth communication channels. Id. at 

3:14-20. 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 16
6 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

Independent claim 15 of the ’743 patent, the only claim asserted by Plaintiff (16-

cv-1901-Doc. No. 45 at 7), claims: 

A mobile navigation system comprising: 

a navigation computer; 

a wireless transceiver coupled to said navigation computer for connecting 

with a navigation server, said navigation server for calculating optimal 

routes based on real-time information, said optimal routes being formatted 

using a non-proprietary, natural language description; 

a mapping database coupled to said navigation computer for reconstructing 

said optimal route from said non-proprietary, natural language description; 

and 

a display screen coupled to said navigation computer for displaying said 

optimal route using said mapping database. 

 

Id. at 17:9-23. 

On November 1, 2016, Defendants each filed an answer and counterclaims to 

Plaintiff’s complaint. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 22; 16-cv-1902-Doc. No. 21; 16-cv-1903-

Doc. No. 22.) On November 22, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order for the three 

actions setting forth all dates leading up to trial and scheduling a trial date of December 

5, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 31; 16-cv-1902-Doc. No. 39; 16-cv-1903-

Doc. No. 31.) 

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

Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1; 16-cv-1902-

Doc. No. 49-1; 16-cv-1903-Doc. No. 46-1.) Specifically, Defendants argue that claim 15 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 16
7 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

of the ’743 patent fails to claim patent-eligible subject matter and, therefore, is invalid 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1 at 1.)4

Discussion 

I. Legal Standards for a Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

 In patent cases, a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(c) is governed by the “the procedural law of the regional circuit.” 

Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early 

enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” 

“‘Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when[, accepting all factual allegations 

in the complaint as true,] there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 

1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit has explained that the standard for 

deciding a Rule 12(c) motion “is ‘functionally identical’” to the standard for deciding a 

motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. 

v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 

Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)); accord Chavez, 

683 F.3d at 1108. 

 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 

                                                                

4

 The parties have filed nearly identical briefing for the Rule 12(c) motions across the three cases. 

(See, e.g., 16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1; 16-cv-1902-Doc. No. 49-1; 16-cv-1903-Doc. No. 46-1.) 

Accordingly, in analyzing Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motions, the Court will cite to the briefing in Case 

No. 16-cv-1901 unless otherwise noted. 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 16
8 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

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). 

 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, e.g., Amdocs, 

841 F.3d at 1293 (reviewing eligibility under § 101 on an appeal from a grant of 

judgment on the pleadings); see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T 

Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Courts may . . . dispose of patentinfringement 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 § 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 16
9 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

101 can proceed before claim construction.5

 Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1373; 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.”). 

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 

                                                                

5

 Here, neither side has asserted that there is a claim construction dispute relevant to the § 101 

eligibility issue in these cases. (See generally 16-cv-1901-Doc. Nos. 41-1, 45.) 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 16
10 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

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, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 

2016). 

III. Analysis 

The Court begins with step one of the Alice inquiry. Defendants argue that under 

step one, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea because the claim is specifically directed 

to the idea of providing directions in a natural language. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1 at 7-

16.) In response, Plaintiff argues that neither claim 15 specifically nor the ’743 patent as 

a whole is directed to providing the end-user of the navigation system with directions in a 

natural language; rather, claim 15 is directed to a specific improvement to the technologic 

process of mobile navigation that existed at the time of the invention. (16-cv-1901-Doc. 

No. 45 at 7-9.) Plaintiff argues, therefore, that claim 15 is not directed to an abstract idea. 

(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, No. 2015-5150, __ F.3d __ 2017 WL 914618, at *3 (Fed. 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of 16
11 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

Cir. Mar. 8, 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 

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.” 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of 16
12 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

Thales Visionix, 2017 WL 914618, at *3. 

Here, the invention claimed in claim 15 of the ’743 patent does not merely collect 

electronic information, display information, or embody a mental processes that could be 

performed by humans. Rather, the claim is directed to improving an existing technological 

process, specifically how an online server communicates in real-time with a local mapping 

database within a mobile navigation system. The ’743 patent explains that although prior 

art real-time mobile navigation systems existed at the time of the invention, those 

navigation systems transmitted data from the server “in a proprietary format.” ’743 Patent 

at 1:63. The patent explains that this caused certain problems, for example, the proprietary 

server could not be used with navigation systems and mapping databases from other 

manufacturers, and the transmitted data required high bandwidth communication channels. 

Id. at 2:14-42. Claim 15 of the ’743 patent attempts to alleviate these problems by using 

“a non-proprietary, natural language description” to format the route data that is generated 

at the server and then sent from the server to the local mapping database, rather than using 

a proprietary format. See id. at 3:21-45, 17:9-23. The ’743 patent explains that by using a 

generic natural language description generated at the server, navigation systems from any 

vendor can more easily be adapted with the server of the invention, and also the transmitted 

data is able to travel on lower bandwidth communication channels. Id. at 3:4-20. Thus, a 

review of the ’743 patent’s claimed advance over the prior art shows that claim 15 focuses 

on a specific means, here route data formatted using a non-proprietary, natural language 

description generated at the server, for improving an existing technological process, here 

how an online server communicates in real-time with a local mapping database in a mobile 

navigation system. See Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1257 (explaining that under step one of 

the Alice inquiry, a court should focus on the claimed advance over the prior art).6 As 

                                                                

6

 At times, Defendants criticize Plaintiff for focusing on language in the specification during the § 

101 inquiry. (See, e.g., 16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 47 at 3-4.) But, as Defendants themselves admit, in 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of 16
13 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

such, claim 15 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.”); Thales 

Visionix, 2017 WL 914618, at *4-5. 

 Further, the Court rejects Defendants’ characterization of claim 15 as simply being 

directed to “providing directions in a natural language.” (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1 at 7.) 

Defendants’ characterization impermissibly oversimplifies claim 15. See TLI Commc’ns, 

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

claims”). Claim 15 is not simply directed to the idea of providing directions in a natural 

language in the abstract, nor is it directed to the idea of providing directions in a natural 

language to a person, such as the end user in a navigational system.7

 Rather, claim 15 is 

specifically directed to formatting the route data into a non-proprietary, natural language 

description that is generated at the server and then transferred to a local mapping database 

within a mobile navigation system. 

When properly characterized, it becomes clear that claim 15 is directed to a specific 

improvement to an existing technological process rather than an abstract idea. For 

example, Defendants argue that claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea because the claim 

                                                                

performing step one of the Alice inquiry, a court should consider what the specification describes as the 

claimed invention’s innovation over the prior art. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1 at 7.) See Affinity Labs, 

838 F.3d at 1257; see, e.g., Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337, 1339. 

7

 Because claim 15 is not directed to communicating with an end user using natural language, the 

present case is distinguishable from Concaten, Inc. v. Ameritrak Fleet Sols., LLC, 131 F. Supp. 3d 1166 

(D. Colo. 2015), aff’d, No. 2016-1112, 2016 WL 5899749 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016), O2 Media, LLC v. 

Narrative Sci. Inc., 149 F. Supp. 3d 984 (N.D. Ill. 2016), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One 

Fin. Corp., No. 2016-1077, __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 900031 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017), cited by Defendants 

in their briefing. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1 at 10-12; Doc. No. 47 at 5-6.) The claims at issue in those 

cases were directed to an improved method/system for providing certain data/information to end users of 

the network/system, not between technical components within the network/system. See Concaten, 131 

F. Supp. 3d at 1170, 1172-73; O2 Media, 149 F. Supp. 3d at 991-95; Intellectual Ventures, 2017 WL 

900031, at *4-5. 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of 16
14 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

is directed to a process that could be performed by a human with a pencil and paper. (16-

cv-1901-Doc. No. 41-1 at 8-11; Doc. No. 47 at 5.) See 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). But a human with a pencil and paper cannot format route data into a 

natural language description that is generated on a server and then transferred to a local 

database. Claim 15, as properly characterized, “stand[s] apart” from claims that courts 

have found to be directed to abstract ideas “because [it does] 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. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily 

rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the 

realm of [mobile navigation] computer networks.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 

L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Defendants argue that claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea because it fails to 

adequately claim a specific technical improvement to a computer process. (16-cv-1901-

Doc. No. 41-1 at 14-16; Doc. No. 47 at 1-4.) Defendants argue that claim 15 merely 

describes the desired outcome of providing directions in a natural language without reciting 

the technical manner in which this is achieved. (Doc. No. 41-1 at 14; Doc. No. 47 at 3.) 

Under step one of the Alice inquiry, 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 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 

837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The abstract idea exception has been applied to 

prevent patenting of claims that abstractly cover results where ‘it matters not by what 

process or machinery the result is accomplished.’”); see, e.g., Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 

1269 (finding claims directed to abstract idea where claims did “no more than describe a 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of 16
15 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim 

to a particular solution to an identified problem”); but see Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1295 

(stating that the dissent’s means/ends analysis for determining patent-eligibility “is not now 

the law, either in statute or in court decision”). But claim 15 is not directed to some abstract 

result or effect. Rather, claim 15 provides a specific technological means for remedying 

the specific problems with real-time mobile navigation systems that the ’743 patent sought 

to address: formatting the route data using a non-proprietary, natural language description. 

By confining claim 15 to the use of route data formatted in a non-proprietary, natural 

language description within a mobile navigation system, the patent confines claim 15 to a 

particular technologic solution to identified technical problems within mobile navigation 

systems. See Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1303 (finding claim patent-eligible where it “recite[d] 

a technological solution to a technological problem specific to computer networks”). 

Defendants criticize claim 15 for failing to include a means-plus-function limitation that 

could be limited to a specific algorithm in the specification. (16-cv-1901-Doc. No. 47 at 

3.) But Defendants fail to provide the Court with any authority holding that in order for a 

claim related to computer technology to be patent-eligible under § 101, the claim must be 

tied to some specific algorithm in either the claim language itself or the specification.8

In sum, Defendants have failed to establish that claim 15 of the ’743 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 

                                                                

8

 Indeed, for example in Amdocs, the Federal Circuit found claims involving computer technology 

to be patent-eligible even though the claims were not tied to any specific algorithm. See, e.g., Amdocs, 

841 F.3d at 1299-1304; see also e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249-50, 1256-59. 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of 16
16 

16-cv-01901-H-JLB 

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

of § 101.”). At this stage in the proceedings, Defendants have failed to establish that claim 

15 of the ’743 patent is invalid for failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter as required 

by 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motions for judgment on 

the pleadings. 

Conclusion 

 For the reasons above, the Court denies Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motions for 

judgment on the pleadings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2017 

 

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:16-cv-01901-H-JLB Document 52 Filed 03/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of 16