Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04991/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04991-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Uniloc 2017 LLC
Counter-claimant
Uniloc Licensing USA LLC
Counter-claimant
Uniloc USA, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants/CounterClaimants.

Case No. 18-cv-04991-SI 

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF/COUNTERDEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Now before the Court is plaintiff/counter-defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, 

which seeks a finding that U.S. Patent No. 6,980,522 is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

Dkt. No. 43. This matter came on for hearing on May 3, 2019.

BACKGROUND

On August 15, 2018, plaintiff/counter-defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) filed this 

action against Uniloc USA, Inc., Uniloc 2017 LLC, and Uniloc Licensing USA LLC (collectively, 

“Uniloc” or “defendants/counter-claimants”) seeking a declaration of non-infringement of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,980,522 (“the ’522 patent”). Dkt. No. 1. On October 12, 2018, Cisco filed an amended 

complaint. Dkt. No. 16 (“FAC”). On October 26, 2018, Uniloc answered and counterclaimed 

against Cisco for infringement of at least claim 6 of the ’522 patent. Dkt. No. 19. In January 2019, 

upon Uniloc’s unopposed motion and with the Court’s approval, Uniloc filed an answer and 

supplemental counterclaim, removing Uniloc Licensing USA LLC as a counter-claimant. Dkt. Nos. 

27, 28, 29, 30 (“Suppl. Countercl.”).

The ’522 patent, titled “Ad Hoc Radio Communication System,” contains the following 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 21
2

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

Northern District of California

abstract: 

In an ad-hoc radio communication system comprising a plurality of stations formed 

into at least one network, each station is assigned a rank representative of its 

suitability for performing the role of master station in a network. The rank may for 

example be assessed depending on the performance of the station’s antenna or its 

access to mains power. It is arranged that the station having the highest rank in a 

network performs the role of master for that network, thereby improving the 

efficiency of communication in the network.

FAC, Ex. A (“Patent”) at cover page.1 The patent “relates to a radio communication system 

comprising a plurality of stations capable of forming an ad-hoc network” as typified in a Bluetooth 

system. Id. at 1:4-8. “Such a network is intended to provide low-cost, short range radio links 

between mobile PC’s, mobile phones and other devices, whether portable or not.” Id. at 1:14-17. 

“Stations form ad-hoc networks which are known as piconets, each comprising a master station and 

up to seven slave stations. All stations are identical and capable of acting as master or slave as 

required. A station can take part in more than one piconet, thereby linking piconets and enabling 

communication over an extended range.” Id. at 1:19-25.

According to the specification, a problem with the prior art “is that it is possible for a station 

having an inefficient antenna to operate as the master.” Id. at 2:63-66. This can happen for a “wide 

range of reasons[,]” including inherently poor efficiency of the antenna, the antenna’s radiation 

pattern, “antenna mismatch” that may be caused by the station’s local environment, shadowing of 

the antenna by the host device or a user’s body, and “polarization coupling loss, if the polarization 

of antenna in the master is not aligned with that in one or more of the slaves.” Id. at 2:66-3:10. The 

patent proposes to solve this problem “by ranking each station in terms of its antenna performance. 

A station having the best antenna ranking then preferentially becomes the master. The antenna 

ranking can be determined under static conditions, or it may be adjusted dynamically depending on 

the local environment of a station . . . .” Id. at 3:11-18. Ranking of stations may be based on other 

criteria beyond antenna performance: “other facts might usefully be taken into account in the 

ranking, either instead of or in addition to the antenna performance[,]” such as access to mains 

 

1 Unless otherwise noted, the Court omits references to the accompanying drawings in the 

specification.

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 21
3

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

Northern District of California

electricity versus battery power. Id. at 4:35-44.

Figure 3 of the patent “is a flow chart illustrating a method in accordance with the present 

invention for a new station joining an ad-hoc wireless network.” Id. at 2:11-13.

Claim 6 of the ’522 patent reads as follows: 

A method of operating an ad-hoc radio communication system having a plurality of 

stations formed into at least one network, the method comprising the step of: 

determining a master/slave rank of each station in the network representative of the 

station’s suitability for acting as master in the network using antenna performance 

characteristics of each station in view of the antenna’s local environment; and 

enabling a station with the highest rank to be master.

Id. at 6:4-13.

In its counter-claim, Uniloc alleges that Cisco infringed at least claim 6 of the ’522 patent. 

Cisco now moves for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that claim 6 of the ’522 patent is invalid 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dkt. No. 43 (“Pl.’s Mot.”). Uniloc opposes, and Cisco has filed a reply 

brief. Dkt. Nos. 45 (“Defs.’ Opp’n”), 46 (“Pl.’s Reply”). 

LEGAL STANDARD

I. Judgment on the Pleadings

Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move to dismiss a suit 

“[a]fter the pleadings are closed . . . but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 21
4

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

Northern District of California

motion for judgment on the pleadings is “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 

The court must accept “all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light 

most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(citing Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2004)). “A judgment on the pleadings is 

properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the pleadings as true, [a] party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Lyon v. Chase National Bank, USA, N.A., 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 

2011) (quoting Dunlap v. Credit Protection Ass’n, L.P., 419 F.3d 1011, 1012 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005)). 

Under § 282 of the Patent Act, issued patents are presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. 

As such, an alleged infringer asserting an invalidity defense pursuant to § 101 bears the burden of 

proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 

91, 95 (2011).

II. Subject Matter Eligibility Under § 101

Under Section 101 of Title 35 of the United States Code, the scope of patentable subject 

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

or any new and useful improvement thereof.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010) (quoting 

35 U.S.C. § 101). Section 101 “contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural 

phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 

216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 

(2013)). They are not patent-eligible because “they are the basic tools of scientific and technological 

work,” which are “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. 

Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012) (citations omitted). The United States Supreme 

Court has explained that allowing patents for such purported inventions “might tend to impede 

innovation more than it would tend to promote it[,]” thereby thwarting the primary objective of 

patent laws. Id.

Alice provides the relevant analytical framework for “distinguishing patents that claim laws 

of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 4 of 21
5

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

Northern District of California

of those concepts.” 573 U.S. at 217. First, the court must determine whether the claims at issue are 

directed to one of the patent-ineligible concepts. Id. Second, if the claims are directed to a patentineligible concept, such as an abstract idea, 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 patent-eligible application.” Id. (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). Step two is often described “as a search for an ‘inventive concept[.]’” Id. at 217-18. 

“When viewing claim elements individually, the court must remember that recitation of 

conventional, routine, or well-understood activity will not save an abstract claim.” California Inst. 

of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns, Inc., 59 F. Supp. 3d 974, 980 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223). 

However, “[w]hen viewing claim elements as an ordered combination, the court should not ignore 

the presence of any element, even if the element, viewed separately, is abstract.” Id. “If the ordered 

combination of elements constitutes conventional activity, the claim is not patentable, but courts 

should remember that a series of conventional elements may together form an unconventional, 

patentable combination.” Id.

The Federal Circuit has recently held that “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, 

and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” Berkheimer 

v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, the Berkheimer court also clarified that 

“[n]othing in this decision should be viewed as casting doubt on the propriety of those cases” 

resolving § 101 inquiries on motions to dismiss or summary judgment, where there is no genuine 

dispute over the underlying material facts. Id. “When there is no genuine issue of material fact 

regarding whether the claim element or claimed combination is well-understood, routine, 

conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field, this issue can be decided . . . as a matter of 

law.” Id. “To the extent that the Court must resolve underlying questions of fact related to 

eligibility, they must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Oceanic 

Time Warner Cable, LLC, 135 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1188 (D. Haw. 2015), aff’d sub nom. Broadband 

iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., 669 F. App’x 555 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 5 of 21
6

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

Cisco seeks judgment on the pleadings, arguing that claim 6 of the ’522 patent claims patentineligible subject matter, namely, that it is directed to an abstract idea that lacks an inventive 

concept. Uniloc contests Cisco’s characterization, arguing the patent “departs from the prior art 

with a specific technique to improve the functionality of radio communications systems that form 

ad-hoc networks[,]” that the patent is among those that “solve computer related problems by 

improving the functionality of computers[,]” and that recent Federal Circuit cases confirm that claim 

6 is patent-eligible. Defs.’ Opp’n at 1. Whether the patent is directed towards ineligible subject 

matter and whether there is nonetheless an inventive concept that transforms otherwise unpatentable 

subject matter are discussed in turn below. First, however, the Court discusses whether judgment 

on the pleadings is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

I. Rule 12 Motion

Uniloc argues that Cisco’s motion must fail because, at this stage, all of the allegations in 

Uniloc’s counter-claim must be taken as true. Id. at 16-17. In particular, Uniloc cites to the portions 

of its counter-claim that allege that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’522 patent 

and its claims would understand that the patent’s disclosure and claims are drawn to solving a 

specific, technical problem arising from the evolution of ad-hoc radio communication systems[,] . . . 

would understand that the claimed subject matter of the ’522 patent presents advancements in the 

operation efficiency of ad-doc [sic] wireless networks[, and] . . . would understand that claim 6 of 

the ’522 patent contains the inventive concept of operating an ad-hoc radio communication system 

by determining a master/slave rank of each station in the network representative of the station’s 

suitability for acting as master in the network using antenna performance characteristics of each 

station in view of the antenna’s local environment and enabling a station with the highest rank to be 

master.” See Suppl. Countercl. ¶¶ 13-14. As support for these statements, the counter-claim cites 

back to the patent specification. 

Although it is correct that the Court must take the allegations in a well-pleaded complaint as 

true at this stage, the Court is not required to accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 6 of 21
7

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

Northern District of California

unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 

1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the allegations of Uniloc’s counter-claim that are relevant to the 

Court’s determination of patent eligibility under § 101 are conclusory statements couched as factual 

allegations. See Uniloc USA Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA Inc., No. 18-cv-6738-LHK, 2019 WL 1549968, 

at *18-19 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2019) (finding § 101 issues properly addressed in Rule 12 motion to 

dismiss where “Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint features nothing but conclusions by, for 

instance, calling the ’049 Patent ‘novel and inventive’”). 

Nor does Uniloc argue that the Court must conduct claim construction to determine the 

validity of the patent-in-suit. Although the Federal Circuit has stated “that it will ordinarily be 

desirable—and often necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, 

for the determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the 

claimed subject matter[,]” it has also stated that “claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite 

to a validity determination under § 101.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada 

(U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In any event, looking to the disputed terms and 

proposed constructions as recently briefed in the parties’ joint claim construction brief, see Dkt. No. 

44, the Court finds that construction of these terms would not aid or alter the Court’s determination 

today regarding the subject matter eligibility of the ’522 patent.2 

The Court finds that in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to resolve the question 

of patent eligibility under § 101 on a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

 

2

In their joint claim construction and prehearing statement, the parties identify the following 

disputed terms and proposed constructions: 

Claim Term, Phrase of 

Clause

Uniloc’s Proposed 

Construction

Cisco’s Proposed 

Construction

1. “master in the network” “a station that enables 

communications with other 

stations”

“the one station controlling 

the transmission of all stations 

in the network”

2. “antenna performance 

characteristics”

“a measure of signal quality 

of an antenna”

“two or more performance 

characteristics of the antenna”

3. “the antenna’s local 

environment”

plain meaning local environment of the 

station to which the antenna 

belongs

Dkt. No. 44 at 2.

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 7 of 21
8

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

Northern District of California

II. Abstract Idea

At step one of the Mayo/Alice test, a court must evaluate the patent claims “[o]n their face” 

and determine if the claims are directed to one of the three “patent-ineligible concepts”: laws of 

nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217, 219. 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, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 

F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “The line between a patentable ‘process’ and 

an unpatentable ‘principle’ is not always clear.” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589 (1978). The 

Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have thus “found it sufficient [at step one] to compare claims 

at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.” Enfish, 

822 F.3d at 1334. 

For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that claim 6 of the ’522 patent is directed 

to the abstract idea of ranking stations based on antenna performance characteristics and selecting 

the station with the highest rank to act as master in a network. 

Cisco argues that the asserted claim is directed to an abstract idea and cites to other Federal 

Circuit and district court cases that it states establish that “claims attempting to capture the 

organizing of data, e.g., ranking stations according to a criterion, are abstract.” Pl.’s Mot. at 7. 

Cisco asserts that two cases recently decided by Judge Koh and Judge Tigar of this district “are 

particularly instructive[.]” See id. at 8 (citing Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp., 249 F. Supp. 3d 1123 

(N.D. Cal. 2017); 24/7 Customer, Inc. v. LivePerson, Inc., No. 15-cv-2897-JST, 2017 WL 2311272 

(N.D. Cal. May 25, 2017)). 

In Twilio, Judge Koh found a claim to be directed to an abstract idea where the patent-insuit (the “Delivery Receipts Patent”) related to “controlling messaging routing in the telephony 

messaging field.” 249 F. Supp. 3d at 1126. Because a sender of a telephony message did not control 

the route the message took to its destination, the sender could not trust that the message would reach 

its destination. A prior art solution was to use a delivery receipt to indicate the message was 

received, though the delivery receipts suffered from the same reliability problems as the original 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 8 of 21
9

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

Northern District of California

messages. Id. at 1127. The Delivery Receipts Patent purported “to solve this problem through one 

primary modification to delivery receipt usage: sending the delivery receipt through a ‘second 

channel,’ which is different from the one that the original message was sent through.” Id. Distilling 

the case law, Judge Koh explained that 

courts will generally compare the claims at issue to prior § 101 cases, as well as 

consult several guideposts, including: (1) whether the claims are directed to an 

“improvement to computer functionality;” (2) whether the claims are directed to a 

“new and useful technique;” (3) whether the claims have an analogy to the brickand-mortar world; and (4) whether the claims are directed to a mental process or a 

process that can be performed with a pen and paper.

Id. at 1143. Focusing on the brick and mortar analogy, the court found that “claim 1 of the [Delivery 

Receipts Patent] is directed to “selecting the best message routing option based on separatelytransmitted feedback” and that “[s]electing the best option based on separately-received feedback is 

a fundamental activity that has long been performed by humans.”3 Id. at 1144. The court analogized 

to a person who chooses a restaurant based on diner reviews from a third-party service or a person 

who decides whether to send a package via FedEx, UPS, or USPS based on online feedback from 

customers. The court disagreed with the patent-holder’s argument that the claim was directed to an 

improvement to computer functionality, explaining that nothing about selecting the best message 

routing option based on separately-transmitted feedback improves the functioning of a computer 

 

3 Claim 1 of the Delivery Receipts Patent read, in full: 

1. A method for transmitting telephony messages comprising:

transmitting a first outgoing telephony message through a first channel using a first 

routing option selected from a plurality of routing options;

receiving a message delivery report through at least a second channel, wherein the 

second channel is different from the first channel;

updating message routing data in response to the message delivery report;

selecting a second routing option for at least a second outgoing message, the second 

routing option selected from the plurality of routing options prioritized by the 

updated message routing data; and

transmitting the second outgoing telephony message through the first channel using 

the selected second routing option.

Twilio, 249 F. Supp. 3d. at 1129.

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 9 of 21
10

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

Northern District of California

itself. Id. at 1145. “Rather, at most, it contemplates using a computer as a tool for implementing 

this idea.” Id. Thus, the court found the claim to be directed to an abstract idea and, after also 

finding the claim invalid under step two of the Mayo/Alice test, granted the competitor’s motion to 

dismiss the claim.

Shortly thereafter, Judge Tigar examined a patent related to “a method for routing a call to 

a customer service representative at a call center based on information about the caller and the 

available representatives.” 24/7 Customer, 2017 WL 2311272, at *2. The representative claim 

recited:

A method for routing an incoming call to a customer service representative 

comprising the steps of:

identifying the caller of the incoming call;

retrieving a profile on the caller;

comparing the caller profile with stored customer service representative profiles to 

determine which customer service representatives are more qualified to handle the 

incoming call;

ranking the customer service representatives that can best meet the caller’s needs;

routing the incoming call to a selected highest ranked customer service 

representative; and

automatically updating, at the completion of the call, the caller profile and the 

selected customer service representative profile with information regarding the 

success of the call.

Id. The court held that the patent was “directed to the abstract idea of routing a call to a customer 

service agent based on information about the caller.” Id. at *3. The court found that, as with the 

patent in Twilio, the patent-in-suit was directed to “a fundamental activity that has long been 

performed by humans,” and proposed “only a general, abstract solution to problems in the prior 

art[,]” in which customers decided where to route their own calls. Id. at *3-4 (citing Twilio, 249 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1144). The court further explained that the claims “simply recite a generalized solution 

in broad, functional language – namely, “retrieving,” “comparing,” and “ranking” information about 

the customer and representative. Id. at *4. Thus finding that the claims failed step one of the 

Mayo/Alice test, and after finding they also failed step two, the district court granted the defendant’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 10 of 21
11

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

Northern District of California

This Court agrees with Cisco that the claims in Twilio and 24/7 Customer are analogous to 

the claim at issue here. The claims in those cases, as is the claim here, were directed to abstract 

ideas related to the ranking of information (whether message routing data, customer service 

representative profiles, or antenna performance) and taking subsequent action (whether routing of a 

delivery receipt, the selection of a customer service representative, or the selection of a master 

station) based on those rankings. As in Twilio, the patent here finds analogy in the brick and mortar 

world. Using the analogies that Judge Koh employed, the ’522 patent purports to rank stations based 

on antenna performance, just as a prospective diner could rank restaurant choices based on the 

numbers of stars awarded by online reviewers. 

Additionally, the example of ranking antenna performance that the specification uses could 

be performed by a mental process. The specification gives the following “example of a system in 

accordance with the present invention”: 

a Bluetooth piconet comprising three devices: a laptop PC using antennas located in 

a slot-in PC card; a wireless headset; and a home telephony base station. The base 

station has the highest ranking antenna system, because of its size, possibly diversity, 

and a position that is not badly shadowed. The PC card has a miniature antenna and 

is shadowed by the PC, and therefore has a lower ranking antenna. The headset 

includes a very small and inefficient antenna with losses to the user’s head, 

significant shadowing and poorly defined polarisation, and therefore has the lowest 

ranking antenna. 

Initially the network begins with communication between the PC and the headset. 

Because of its higher antenna ranking the PC becomes master in this piconet. When 

the base station joins the network, for example to enable Internet access by the PC, 

the base station will become master because it has the highest ranking antenna.

’522 patent at 3:38-50. Nothing in the patent’s process for ranking the antennas of the various 

devices or for making one of them the master describes anything that cannot be done manually or 

with a mental process. Even to a lay user, the superiority of the PC’s antenna to that of the headset 

would be obvious. The fact that ranking the antennas and preferencing the one with the highest 

performance could be done by a human performing a mental process thus further supports a finding

that the ’522 patent is directed to an abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec 

Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims abstract because “with the exception 

of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose 

them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); see also Twilio, 249 F. 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 11 of 21
12

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

Northern District of California

Supp. 3d at 1154 (“the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have also held that 

claims directed entirely to a ‘mental process’ are unpatentable . . . because the ‘application of [only] 

human intelligence to the solution of practical problems is no more than a claim to a fundamental 

principle.’”) (citations omitted). Even if what Uniloc has done here is automate a process that could 

otherwise be performed by a human, “[t]he mere automation of [a] process does not negate its 

abstraction.” See Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

The Court finds further support in the Federal Circuit cases on which Twilio and 24/7 

Customer rely. For instance, in In re TLI Commc’ns, LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 

2016), the court found “that the patent-in-suit claims no more than the abstract idea of classifying 

and storing digital images in an organized manner” and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the 

complaint. 823 F.3d 609. The appellate court explained that while the representative claim4

“requires concrete, tangible components such as ‘a telephone unit’ and a ‘server,’ the specification 

makes clear that the recited physical components merely provide a generic environment in which to 

carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.” Id. at 

611. Nor were the claims “directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, 

 

4 The representative claim in TLI Communications recited: 

17. A method for recording and administering digital images, comprising the steps 

of:

recording images using a digital pick up unit in a telephone unit,

storing the images recorded by the digital pick up unit in a digital form as digital 

images,

transmitting data including at least the digital images and classification information 

to a server, wherein said classification information is prescribable by a user of the 

telephone unit for allocation to the digital images,

receiving the data by the server,

extracting classification information which characterizes the digital images from the 

received data, and

storing the digital images in the server, said step of storing taking into consideration 

the classification information.

823 F.3d at 610.

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 12 of 21
13

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

Northern District of California

they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known 

environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem 

presented by combining the two.” Id. at 612. Moreover, “[t]he specification fails to provide any 

technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and 

methods in purely functional terms.” Id. As such, the claim was abstract under step one of Alice. 

Id. at 613; see also Twilio, 249 F. Supp. 3d at 1137 (“[T]he U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that 

information itself is intangible. . . . Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has generally found claims 

abstract where they are directed to some combination of collecting information, analyzing 

information, and/or displaying the results of that analysis.”) (citing, inter alia, TLI Commc’ns, 823 

F.3d at 611).

Where in TLI Communications the claim was directed to the abstract idea of classifying and 

storing digital images in an organized manner, here the claim relates to classifying (or ranking) 

stations in an organized manner (i.e., based on antenna performance). As in TLI Communications, 

the patent-in-suit utilizes “physical components [that] merely provide a generic environment in 

which to carry out the abstract idea.” See TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611. The specification utilizes 

as its primary example of an ad-hoc radio communication system “a Bluetooth network, operating 

according to the specification defined by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group.” ’522 Patent at 1:11-

14. The devices on which the specification relies are used for illustrative purposes only: 

A basic ad-hoc network configuration is illustrated in FIG. 1. Such a configuration 

would typically begin with two connected host devices, for example a portable PC 

and a cellular phone, and grow to include additional connected devices. A wide 

range of additional host devices may be included, for example wireless headsets, 

personal organisers and home entertainment equipment.

Id. at 2:16-22 (emphases added). None of these components represents an inventive solution, nor 

is any one of them even necessary to the patent—they are already existing devices used simply to 

show how the abstract idea may be carried out. See Uniloc, 2019 WL 1549968, at *14 (dismissing 

Uniloc’s patent related to Bluetooth communication system in part because the “’049 Patent 

specification admits that all tangible computing devices found in the Patent are all generic 

computing devices, upon which the ’049 Patent does not purport to improve[,]” and quoting 

language describing basic Bluetooth network configurations and citing “generic potential slave 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 13 of 21
14

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

Northern District of California

stations such as a ‘keyboard, mouse, games controller, graphics pad or the like’ without further 

explication”).

Uniloc states that Cisco ignores binding precedent from the Federal Circuit, some of which 

post-dates the district court decisions in Twilio and 24/7 Customer, and that those cases show that 

claim 6 of the ’522 patent is patent-eligible. In particular, Uniloc focuses on four cases: SRI Int’l, 

Inc., v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 918 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Data Engine, 906 F.3d 999; Finjan, Inc. v. 

Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 

F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Uniloc first argues that Finjan supports the patent eligibility of claim 6. Defs.’ Opp’n at 6-

7. There, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that a patent was not directed to 

an abstract idea where it was “directed to a method of providing computer security by scanning a 

downloadable and attaching the results of that scan to the downloadable itself in the form of a 

‘security profile.’” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303. The representative claim of the patent-in-suit recited: 

1. A method comprising:

receiving by an inspector a Downloadable;

generating by the inspector a first Downloadable security profile that identifies 

suspicious code in the received Downloadable; and

linking by the inspector the first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable 

before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.

Id. At claim construction, the parties agreed to construe “Downloadable” to mean “an executable 

application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination 

computer.” Id. The district court construed “Downloadable security profile that identifies 

suspicious code in the received Downloadable” to mean “a profile that identifies code in the received 

Downloadable that performs hostile or potentially hostile operations.” Id. at 1304 (emphasis added). 

The appellate court explained that a security profile that contains information about potentially 

hostile operations, as opposed to scans that recognized only previously-identified viruses, 

“constitute[d] an improvement in computer functionality.” Id. In this way, “the method of claim 1 

employs a new kind of file that enables a computer security system to do things it could not do 

before.” Id. at 1305 (emphasis added).

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 14 of 21
15

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

Northern District of California

At the hearing in this case, Uniloc likened claim 6 of the ’522 patent to the claim found 

eligible in Finjan by arguing that claim 6 represents a technological solution to a technological 

problem. When asked to identify the technological solution, Uniloc stated that it is “the using of 

antenna performance characteristics in view of the local environment” as the method for determining 

a station’s rank. But unlike in Finjan, where the Federal Circuit found that the method of the claim 

“employ[ed] a new kind of file,” Uniloc has been unable to identify any technological solution 

beyond the idea of using antenna performance characteristics as a way of ranking stations. Finjan, 

879 F.3d at 1306. At the hearing, Uniloc’s counsel briefly referenced software that is programmed 

to select the best antenna, but nothing about this appears in Uniloc’s brief nor, more importantly, 

does it appear in the claim or specification. Nor does claim 6 “recite specific steps . . . that 

accomplish the desired result.” See Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1306 (emphasis added). Rather, at the 

hearing, when the Court inquired whether the claim covered any way of using antenna performance 

characteristics to determine the master in a network, Uniloc answered in the affirmative—that yes, 

as long as it was based on using antenna performance characteristics, it was covered by the patent. 

In other words, the patent-in-suit claims the use of antenna performance characteristics to rank 

stations, but not any particular way of doing this. 

The Court disagrees with Uniloc that “Claim 6 explains exactly how to achieve the desired 

result of a more operationally efficient ad-hoc network[.]” See Defs.’ Opp’n at 7. Claim 6 recites 

the functions of “determining a master/slave rank of each station in the network . . . using antenna 

performance characteristics” and “enabling a station with the highest rank to be master” but fails to 

provide any technical details on how this is achieved. See ’522 Patent at 6:8-13. Claim 6 is more 

like the line of cases that the Finjan court distinguished and that stand for a “foundational patent 

law principle: that a result, even an innovative result, is not itself patentable.” See id. at 1305 (citing, 

inter alia, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC 

v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). 

The remainder of the cases Uniloc cites are of little assistance to the Court’s § 101 analysis, 

as the claims in those cases are directed to entirely different subject matters than the one at issue 

here. In SRI International, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of summary 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 15 of 21
16

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

Northern District of California

judgment to a competitor (Cisco) challenging under § 101 the eligibility of patents related to 

monitoring and surveillance of computer networks for intrusion detection. 918 F.3d at 1372. In 

finding the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the appellate court explained that the “claims 

are directed to using a specific technique . . . to solve a technological problem arising in computer 

networks . . . .” Id. at 1375. Agreeing with the patent holder “that the human mind is not equipped 

to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by 

the claims[,]” the court found the claims patent-eligible under step one of Alice. Id. at 1376. Uniloc 

here argues that “the present case is indistinguishable from the SRI/Cisco case with regard to patent 

eligibility—if computer network functioning is improved and detailed in the specification and the 

claims, it is eligible.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 10. But as the Court has already explained, the claim and 

specification here are not directed to a specific technique to solve a technological problem; rather, 

claim 6 is among the category of claims that are “drawn to using computers as tools to solve a . . . 

problem, rather than improving the functionality of computers and computer networks themselves.” 

See SRI Int’l, 918 F.3d at 1375 (distinguishing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 

(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Nor is the Federal Court’s decision in Thales analogous, where the claims there 

were “directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a non-conventional manner to 

reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving 

reference frame.” See 850 F.3d at 1348-49. The Court finds the patent in Thales, which “specif[ied] 

a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the 

sensors,” distinguishable from the patent-in-suit here. See id. at 1349

Uniloc also relies on the Data Engine decision, but as Cisco notes, Uniloc omits the portion 

of the decision finding some of the patents-in-suit ineligible under § 101 because they failed the 

two-step Alice test. See Defs.’ Opp’n at 11-12; Pl.’s Reply at 8-10. In Data Engine, the Federal 

Circuit found that claims “directed to a specific improved method for navigating through complex 

three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets,” specifically by the creation of “notebook tabs” located 

along the bottom edge of the page, were not abstract under Alice step one. 906 F.3d at 1002. 

However, the appeals court went on to find that the claims of another patent-in-suit that “recit[ed] 

methods for tracking changes to data in spreadsheets” were “directed to the abstract idea of 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 16 of 21
17

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

Northern District of California

collecting, recognizing, and storing changed information” and were patent-ineligible under § 101. 

Id. As with the technology in Thales, the Court sees no similarity between the creation of “notebook 

tabs” to manage electronic spreadsheets and the ad-hoc radio communication systems that the 

patent-in-suit purports to improve. 

Instead, the Court agrees with Cisco that claim 6 bears more similarity to one of the claims 

that the Data Engine court found directed to an abstract idea. That claim at heart embodied the 

concept of “manually tracking modifications across multiple spreadsheets[,]” and “[t]he mere 

automation of this process [did] not negate its abstraction.” Id. at 1013. The Data Engine court 

likened these claims to those held ineligible in another case, where the claims were “directed to 

methods of extracting data from hard-copy documents using an automated scanner, recognizing 

information from the extracted data, and storing that data in memory.” Id. (citing Content Extraction

& Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). 

Where Content Extraction involved claims related to extracting, recognizing, and storing 

information, here claim 6 involves identifying information (that is, antenna performance 

characteristics) and making a selection (i.e., ranking) based on that information. This claim is far 

more like the one the Data Engine court found ineligible than it is like the “notebook tab” patent 

that the court found eligible. Notably, of all the cases that Uniloc cites as demonstrating the patent 

eligibility of claim 6, none involve sorting information, ranking information, or selecting an option 

based on ranked information such as antenna performance. 

For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea and 

therefore proceeds to step two of the Mayo/Alice test.

III. Inventive Concept

At step two of the Alice framework, the court considers the elements of each claim and asks, 

“what else is there in the claims before us?” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The Supreme Court describes 

this process as searching 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. at 217-18. For an abstract idea involving a computer to 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 17 of 21
18

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

Northern District of California

be patent-eligible, “the claim ha[s] to supply a ‘new and useful’ application of the idea.” Id. at 222

(quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 

177 (1981) (validating a claim employing a mathematical equation used in a larger process designed 

to solve a technological problem in the molding of rubber products). An inventive concept occurs 

when the claims are “more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]” and 

“claims may be read to ‘improve[ ] an existing technological process.’” Bascom Glob. Internet 

Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. 

at 221-23). The court’s task at step two “is to ‘determine whether the claims do significantly more 

than simply describe [the] abstract method’ and thus transform the abstract idea into patentable 

subject matter.” Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1262 (citation omitted).

Uniloc argues that the specification “reveals the inventive concept: forming an ad-hoc 

network that enables the station in the piconet with the highest rank based on antenna performance 

characteristics to act as master.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 17. But this is nothing more than a restatement of 

the idea of ranking and selecting devices based on antenna performance characteristics that the Court 

found to be abstract at step one. Uniloc says the appropriate inquiry “is whether the claimed 

technique for forming an ad-hoc network is conventional.” Id. The problem here is that nothing in 

the claim or the specification explains the technique in anything more than broad, generalized, 

functional terms. In this way, claim 6 “do[es] not recite anything more than simply stating the 

abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’” See Data Engine, 906 F.3d at 1013 (citing Alice, 

573 U.S. at 221) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). 

Uniloc disputes Cisco’s attack that claim 6 fails because it doesn’t explain how the antenna 

performance is measured or how those measurements are used to determine the highest ranking 

station. See Pl.’s Mot. at 11-12; Defs.’ Opp’n at 18. Uniloc states that claim 6 “details exactly 

‘how’ to form an ad-hoc network more efficiently—enable the station in the piconet with the highest 

rank based on antenna performance characteristics to act as master.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 18. But claim 

6 does not detail “how” to do this, beyond reciting the general steps of “determining” (or ranking) 

stations based on antenna performance characteristics and “enabling” (or selecting) the station with 

the highest rank to be master. None of these claim elements, viewed individually or as an ordered 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 18 of 21
19

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

Northern District of California

combination, provide an inventive concept. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, 

LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claim uses a conventional ordering of steps−first 

processing the data, then routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception−with conventional 

technology to achieve its desired result.”).

Moreover, neither the claim nor the specification provides for implementation of the abstract 

idea using anything other than existing, conventional technology. The specification describes the 

invention in this way: 

The selection of master station requires the stations to compare their rankings. One 

way in which this can be accomplished is for the master station to request each of the 

other stations to provide their rankings, using standard Bluetooth communication 

protocols. If the master station determines that its ranking is lower than one of its 

slave stations then it hands over the master role to that station, using the normal 

methods defined in the Bluetooth specification.

’522 Patent at 3:24-32 (emphases added). The specification also relies on conventional and generic 

hardware to carry out the method: for instance, a laptop PC, a wireless headset, and a home 

telephony base station; or a mobile phone and a UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunication 

System) enabled laptop computer. See, e.g., id. at 3:38-42, 4:23-26.

But, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does 

not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 

773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 

1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Thus, while the patent may in fact require that the claimed data relate 

to ‘transactions or activities that are executed in the computer environment,’ limiting the claims to 

the computer field does not alone transform them into a patent-eligible application.”); Clarilogic, 

Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp., 681 Fed. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (invalidating computerimplemented method for providing certified financial data indicating financial risk about an 

individual because “a method for collection, analysis, and generation of information reports, where 

the claims are not limited to how the collected information is analyzed or reformed, is the height of 

abstraction[,]” “the claims require only off-the-shelf, conventional computer technology for 

gathering, analyzing, and displaying the desired information[,]” and “[e]ven if the ’243 patent may 

be said to invoke internet-based systems to increase speed . . . [t]he ’243 patent does not claim the 

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 19 of 21
20

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

Northern District of California

technical manner in which financial data is gathered, analyzed, or output”).

What is needed to pass muster at step two of Alice is something “significantly more” than a 

description of the abstract idea itself, as the Federal Circuit explained in Affinity Labs. 838 F.3d at 

1262. That case involved a patent with two independent claims “directed to streaming regional 

broadcast signals to cellular telephones located outside the region served by the regional 

broadcaster.” Id. at 1255. After finding the claims were directed to an abstract idea at step one, the 

court went on to find no inventive concept at step two. The court explained, “The claim simply 

recites the use of generic features of cellular telephones, such as a storage medium and a graphical 

user interface, as well as routine functions, such as transmitting and receiving signals, to implement 

the underlying idea.” Id. at 1262. So too here, where claim 6 and the specification as a whole 

simply use existing Bluetooth technology and existing hardware as the generic environment for 

implementing the abstract idea of ranking and selecting stations based on antenna performance 

characteristics. See Uniloc, 2019 WL 1549968, at *16 (finding no inventive concept where the 

specification did not invent the limitations found in the claim and where the stations disclosed in the 

claim “are generic, conventional computing devices”). 

As in Affinity Labs, the claim here is “so result-focused, so functional, as to effectively cover 

any solution to an identified problem[.]” See 838 F.3d at 1265 (citing Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 

at 1365). The Federal Circuit frequently holds such claims ineligible under section 101. See id.; 

see also SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1169-70 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming 

district court’s judgment on the pleadings where the claims themselves were abstract and where 

“there [were] no factual allegations from which one could plausibly infer that they are inventive[,]” 

finding, “it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require 

no improved computer resources InvestPic claims to have invented, just already available 

computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed 

process”). The Court finds no inventive concept that transforms Uniloc’s abstract idea into 

patentable subject matter. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that claim 6 of the ’522 patent is invalid under § 101.

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 20 of 21
21

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

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Cisco’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings. The parties are directed to file a joint statement identifying 

the issues which remain to be decided in this case and proposing a schedule for same. Such joint 

statement must be filed no later than May 15, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04991-SI Document 49 Filed 05/06/19 Page 21 of 21