62236959;16 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

Information Images LLC, Case No. 6:20-CV-00268-ADA 

Plaintiff, 

v . 

PGA TOUR, Inc., 

Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

Defendant PGA TOUR’s Motion For 

Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement 

And Invalidity Under Sections 101 and 112 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 42
ii 

62236959;16 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 

II. FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 3 

A. Plaintiff’s Patents And The Claimed Invention ...................................................... 3 

B. PGA TOUR’s ShotLink System ............................................................................. 6 

C. PGA TOUR’s Agreement With IMG Arena .......................................................... 7 

D. The Accused Products And Alleged Damages From Infringement........................ 8 

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD .......................................................................... 8 

IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9 

A. PGA Tour’s Fulfillment Of The IMG Arena Contract Is Noninfringing Because It 

Entirely Omits The Required Second Portable Device........................................... 9 

B. The Asserted Claims Are Not Infringed Because It Is Third Party Golf Fans, Not 

PGA TOUR, That Own And Use The Required “Second Portable Device” ........ 12 

C. PGA TOUR Does Not Infringe Because Its ShotLink System Does Not Include The 

Input Of The “Condition Of The Ball” ................................................................. 17 

D. All The Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 For Claiming The 

Abstract Idea Of Collecting, Processing, And Distributing Data Without A 

Technological Invention ....................................................................................... 23 

E. The Claims Are Invalid For Failing To Meet The Written Description Requirement

............................................................................................................................... 31 

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 36 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 42
iii 

62236959;16 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s) 

Acceleration Bay LLC v. 2K Sports, Inc., 

15 F.4th 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................13, 14 

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 

797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) ...............................................................................16 

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 

573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...............................................................................................23, 25, 26, 29 

BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 

899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................26 

Centillion Data Systems LLC v. Qwest Communications International Inc., 

631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................13, 14 

Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................ passim 

Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., 

No. 1:19-CV-01107-ADA, 2020 WL 4561591 (W.D. Tex. July 21, 2020), 

aff'd, No. 2020-2141, 2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021) ..........................................8 

Gabriel de la Vega v. Microsoft Corp., 

Case No. W-19-CV-0612-ADA, (W.D. Tex. Feb 7, 2020) .....................................................16 

Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 

134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................32 

Heartbrand Holdings, Inc. v. Whitmer, 

No. SA-19-CV-358-HJB, 2021 WL 1947875 (W.D. Tex. May 14, 2021) ...............................8 

In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 

823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................26 

Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, 

554 F. App’x 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................32 

RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 

855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................26 

Rothschild Location Techs. LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc., 

No. 6:15-cv00682 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2016) ..........................................................................29 

Rothschild Location Techs. LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc., 

No. 6:15-cv00682, Op. (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2016) ...................................................18, 19, 29, 33 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 42
iv 

62236959;16 

SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 

930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................27 

Transperfect Glob., Inc. v. Matal, 

703 F. App'x 953 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...........................................................................................32 

Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 

877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................16 

USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., 

6-20-CV-00555-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021) ....................................................................26 

USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., 

Case No. 6-20-CV-00555-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021) ....................................................27 

Vasudevan Software v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 

782 F.3d 671 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................32 

Statutes 

35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................23, 26, 29, 31 

35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 ........................................................................................................................32 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 42
1 

62236959;16 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Defendant PGA TOUR uses a system called ShotLink to collect and determine various 

types of information about golf shots during a golf tournament, such as the location of the ball 

after it has been hit. That ShotLink data is then used in a variety of ways. For example, it is sent 

to third parties who have licensed the data from PGA TOUR for their own use. The ShotLink data 

is also sent to a separate division at PGA TOUR that creates other software, such as TOURCast, 

that enables members of the public to view ShotLink data on their computers and phones through 

PGA TOUR’s website and PGA TOUR’s mobile app for smartphones. 

The two asserted patents here claim a system and method with three primary components: 

(1) a “first portable device” used by an authorized spotter to input information about golf shots 

during a golf tournament; (2) a “production module” (essentially a server computer) that receives 

the input data over a wireless network, and (3) a “second portable device” carried by a patron of 

the tournament (referred to in the claims of the ‘552 patent as a “user viewing the tournament”) to 

obtain that data over the wireless network from the production module and view it. 

A notable requirement for the second (i.e., patron’s/user’s) portable device that is found in 

all the asserted independent claims is that the device include endorsements of participants of the 

golf tournament by manufacturers of equipment used by the participants, such as an endorsement 

of a golfer by the manufacturer of the golf clubs he uses. 

PGA TOUR is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement for several reasons. First, 

PGA TOUR has licensed its ShotLink data to a third party, IMG Arena. PGA TOUR sends 

ShotLink data to IMG Arena in return for a fee. As a standalone component of its infringement 

damages, Plaintiff is seeking a portion of those fees. However, the creation of the ShotLink data 

and transmission of it to IMG Arena is noninfringing as a matter of law because there is no second 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 42
2 

62236959;16 

(patron’s/user’s) portable device used in connection with IMG Arena at all, let alone a second 

portable device with the required endorsement information. 

Plaintiff also asserts that PGA TOUR infringes by the combination of PGA TOUR using 

its ShotLink data collection system (allegedly meeting the first portable device and production 

module limitations) with members of the public using their computers or phones to access the 

ShotLink data using PGA TOUR’s website and mobile app (allegedly meeting the second portable 

device limitation). PGA TOUR is entitled to summary judgment on that alleged infringement too 

because the alleged first portable devices are used by PGA TOUR personnel, but the second 

portable devices are used by members of the public, not PGA TOUR -- a “divided infringement” 

problem. 

Independently, PGA TOUR is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement because 

all the claims require the spotter to input the “condition of the ball” as part of the input data. The 

Court has construed “condition of the ball” to mean the physical state of the ball, and the 

specification provides an example of the ball being “clean” or “dirty.” PGA TOUR’s ShotLink 

system does not include any input of the condition of the ball. 

PGA TOUR is also entitled to summary judgment on invalidity. The Federal Circuit has 

held that gathering, processing, and distributing data is not patentable subject matter unless it 

involves a technological innovation. There is no technological invention here. Instead, 

conventional components – commercially available handheld devices communicating over an 

ordinary wireless network with an ordinary computer server -- are being used in their expected 

manner to gather, process, and distribute data without any special hardware or other technological 

innovation. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 6 of 42
3 

62236959;16 

Finally, several claim elements are not disclosed in the specification, running afoul of the 

written description requirement. 

II. FACTS 

A. Plaintiff’s Patents And The Claimed Invention 

Plaintiff is asserting Patent No. 9,806,832 (the “’832 patent”) and its continuation, Patent 

No. 10,270,552 (the “’552 patent”). The perceived problem that the patents allegedly solve is that 

at “golf tournaments, it is difficult for spectators to get real-time information about the status [of] 

players who may be a great distance away from where the spectator is watching, or may not be 

visible at all.” Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 1:26-30; Ex. 2, ’552 patent at 1:28-30; Ex. 3, Valerdi 

Infringement Report ¶ 63.1 To address that problem, the patents disclose “systems and methods 

of gathering, processing, and broadcasting real-time information of the sporting event to portable 

devices carried by spectators of the sporting event.” Ex. 1 at 1:41-45. Consequently, the preambles 

of all four asserted independent claims (claims 1 and 5 of the ‘832 patent and claims 1 and 13 of 

the ‘552 patent) recite a system or method “of gathering, processing, and distributing information 

of a golf tournament over a wireless network.” Ex. 1 at 15:19-20, 16:14-15; Ex. 2 at 15:20-21, 

16:49-50. 

Three significant components of the alleged invention are: 

(1) A portable device used by an authorized “spotter” to input data about the golf ball after 

it has been hit (the “gathering” of the information). The claims refer to this device as the “first 

portable device.” Ex. 1 at claim 1.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, citations to numbered exhibits are to the exhibits attached to the 

contemporaneously-filed Declaration of David Brafman in Support of PGA TOUR’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 7 of 42
4 

62236959;16 

(2) A portable device used by patrons of the tournament to request and receive input data 

from the production module over the wireless network (the “distributing” of the information). The 

claims refer to this device as the “second portable device.” Id. And 

(3) A “production module” (essentially a back-end computer server which includes a 

“processing module”) that receives the input data from the first portable device over a wireless 

network and distributes it in response to queries (the “processing” of the information). Id. 

These three components and their communication of data over the wireless network are 

depicted in Figure 32: 

Ex. 1 at Fig. 32. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 8 of 42
5 

62236959;16 

The first (spotter’s) portable device, the second (patron’s) portable device, and the 

production module with processing module are all required by each of the asserted independent 

claims. For example, asserted claim 1 from the ‘823 patent states: 

1. A system of gathering, processing, and distributing information of a golf 

tournament over a wireless network, comprising: 

[i.] a first portable device configured to be carried by a broadcast or other 

authorized spotter of the golf tournament ... 

- the first portable device including a map of the golf course, 

- the first portable device being configured to receive input data from the spotter

regarding status of a selected player's golf ball during the golf tournament in real 

time after the golf ball has been hit ... 

- the first portable device being configured to present information regarding the

location and distance of the selected player's ball relative to the map of the golf 

course in real time after the ball has been hit by the selected player, 

- the input data including information pertaining to the lie and the condition of the 

golf ball being tracked by the spotter and the selected player's strokes as they occur, 

- the first portable device being configured to transmit the input data over the 

wireless network in real time during the golf tournament; 

[ii.] a second portable device carried by a patron of the golf tournament to 

receive transmitted input data over the wireless network, and to selectively 

display current statistics pertaining to the selected hole and graphical 

representations of the transmitted input data according to an input from the patron, 

the second portable device comprising a memory with pre-programmed 

information stored therein, the pre-programmed information including 

endorsements of respective participants of the golf tournament by manufacturers 

of equipment used by the respective participants of the golf tournament; and 

[iii.] a production module configured to 

- receive transmitted input data over the wireless network simultaneously from a 

plurality of spotters covering various players of the golf tournament, 

- the production module being configured to display transmitted input data such 

that the production module selectively distributes a portion of the transmitted 

input data to an external television network based on characteristics of 

displayed input data, 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 9 of 42
6 

62236959;16 

- the production module having a processing module connected between the 

production module and the wireless network, the processing module configured 

 - to receive data requests over the wireless network simultaneously from a 

plurality of second portable devices and 

 - to distribute requested data to each second portable device over the 

wireless network based on received data requests from each second portable 

device, respectively. 

Ex. 1 at 15:19-16:4 (formatting and emphases added). The remaining asserted independent claim 

from the ‘832 patent is claim 5, which is a corresponding method claim. The asserted claims from 

the ‘552 patent, claims 1 and 13, are very similar to claims 1 and 5 of the ‘832 patent, respectively. 

B. PGA TOUR’s ShotLink System 

ShotLink is PGA TOUR’s system for capturing and determining information about golf 

shots during golf tournaments. A variety of equipment and personnel are used to determine and 

calculate data such as the path of the ball through the air, the speed of the ball during flight, and 

the location of the ball after it comes to rest. That data is aggregated and then distributed for use 

by PGA TOUR’s Digital Operations team as well as by third parties who have licensed the data. 

Lovell Decl. ¶ 2. 2

PGA TOUR’s Digital Operations team is responsible for creating the digital platforms that 

golf fans can use to interact with PGA TOUR electronically. These platforms include PGA 

TOUR’s website (www.pgatour.com) and PGA TOUR’s mobile app for iPhones and Android 

devices. Lovell Decl. ¶ 3. 

The public generally cannot access ShotLink. However, one of the Digital Operations 

platforms is called TOURCast, which can be found on pgatour.com and within the PGA TOUR 

2 The Declaration of Walter Kenneth Lovell In Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgement is contemporaneously-filed and referred to herein as “Lovell Decl.”

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 10 of 42
7 

62236959;16 

mobile app. By using their computers or phones to access TOURCast, the public can view data 

that originated from ShotLink, such as by viewing shot trails showing the path of a golf shot. 

Lovell Decl. ¶ 5. 

C. PGA TOUR’s Agreement With IMG Arena 

PGA TOUR has a contract with a company in Europe known as IMG Arena that includes 

a license to certain ShotLink data. In connection with the contract, PGA TOUR sends IMG Arena 

data from the ShotLink system during golf tournaments. IMG Arena is then permitted to use the 

data for its own business purposes, which relate to sports betting. Lovell Decl. ¶ 6. 

Critically, PGA TOUR’s performance of its contractual obligations with IMG Arena does 

not involve a second (patron’s/user’s) portable device in any way. PGA TOUR uses its ShotLink 

system to obtain data about golf shots during the golf tournament, and then provides the data to 

IMG Arena. There simply is no “second portable device” as required by the claims – that is, a 

portable device carried by patrons of the golf tournament/users viewing the tournament, let alone 

one that includes the required equipment manufacturer endorsements. Lovell Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 4, 

Valerdi Dep. 206:2-7. 

Indeed, not only does PGA TOUR have nothing to do with a second portable device in 

connection with IMG Arena, but there is not even any evidence that IMG Arena does anything in 

connection with a “second portable device” that meets the requirements of the claims: 

Q. Okay. Is there any evidence that you're aware of that anyone in connection with 

IMG Arena accesses ShotLink data over a second portable device that meets all the 

requirements of the claims? 

MR. BARR:· Object to form. 

THE WITNESS:· Not that I am aware of. 

Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 206:2-7. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 11 of 42
8 

62236959;16 

D. The Accused Products And Alleged Damages From Infringement 

Plaintiff alleges that PGA TOUR is infringing in two ways. First, by using its ShotLink 

system to collect data at golf tournaments and then licensing and sending the data to IMG Arena. 

See Ex. 5 ¶ 9; Ex. 6 at 55:1-21. Second, by the combination of using the ShotLink system with 

members of the public using their computers and phones to access PGA TOUR’s website or PGA 

TOUR’s mobile app to view the ShotLink data. See Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 64:2-8. 

Plaintiff’s damages claim has two corresponding components. First, Plaintiff is seeking a 

lump-sum royalty from the fees that IMG Arena pays PGA TOUR under the IMG Arena contract. 

Ex. 5, Blok Expert Report ¶ 9; Ex. 6, Blok Dep. 55:1-21. Second, Plaintiff is a running royalty 

based on the number of unique users per month who access PGA TOUR’s website and mobile 

app. Ex. 5, Blok Expert Report ¶ 8; Ex. 6, Blok Dep. 26:23-27:11. 

III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

“Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as 

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Flash-Control, 

LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 1:19-CV-01107-ADA, 2020 WL 4561591, at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 21, 

2020), aff'd, No. 2020-2141, 2021 WL 2944592 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021). “A dispute concerning 

a material fact is genuine, and therefore sufficient to overcome a summary judgment motion, if the 

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 

Heartbrand Holdings, Inc. v. Whitmer, No. SA-19-CV-358-HJB, 2021 WL 1947875, at *2 (W.D. 

Tex. May 14, 2021) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)) (internal 

citations omitted).

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 12 of 42
9 

62236959;16 

IV. ARGUMENT 

A. PGA Tour’s Fulfillment Of The IMG Arena Contract Is Noninfringing 

Because It Entirely Omits The Required Second Portable Device 

Plaintiff asserts that PGA TOUR’s actions in licensing and distributing ShotLink data to 

IMG Arena infringe the asserted patents. Thus, as an independent component of infringement 

damages, Plaintiff is seeking a “separate, lump-sum royalty” from the revenues PGA TOUR is 

expected to receive under the IMG Arena contract for “distributing and licensing ShotLink data 

for betting purposes.” See Ex. 5, Blok Report ¶¶ 8-9; Ex. 6, Blok Dep at 55:1-21 

Plaintiff should not be permitted to seek damages in connection with the IMG Arena 

contract because it is undisputed that PGA TOUR’s licensing and distribution of ShotLink data to 

IMG Arena entirely omits any use of the “second portable device” that is required by all the 

asserted patent claims. See Lovell Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 206:2-7. Because there is no 

evidence of the required “second portable device” in connection with the IMG Arena contract, 

PGA TOUR is entitled to partial summary judgment of noninfringement, eliminating that contract 

and the lump-sum royalty being sought by Plaintiff on that contract from the case. 

More particularly, all four asserted independent claims require a second portable device 

carried by a patron/user viewing the golf tournament that both (a) receives over a wireless network 

data about the golf tournament that had been input by a spotter into a first portable device, and (b) 

either displays or has in memory endorsements of golf tournament participants by manufactures 

of equipment used by those participants (for example, as an endorsement of a golfer by the 

manufacturer of the golf clubs he uses): 

‘832 patent claim 1: A system ... comprising: a first portable device ... being 

configured to receive input data from the spotter regarding status of a selected 

player’s golf ball ...; a second portable device carried by a patron of the sporting 

event to receive transmitted input data over the wireless network, ... the second 

portable device comprising a memory with pre-programmed information stored 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 13 of 42
10 

62236959;16 

therein, the pre-programmed information including endorsements of respective 

participants of the golf tournament by manufacturers of equipment used by the 

respective participants of the golf tournament; ... 

‘832 patent claim 5: A method ... comprising: providing a first portable device to 

be carried by a ... spotter; inputting data by the spotter to the first portable 

device ...; transmitting input data over the wireless network to a second portable 

device carried by a patron of the golf tournament in real time during the golf 

tournament, the second portable device comprising a memory with preprogrammed information stored therein, the pre-programmed information 

including endorsements of respective participants of the golf tournament by 

manufacturers of equipment used by the respective participants of the golf 

tournament; ... 

‘552 patent Claim 1: A system ... comprising: a first portable device ... being 

configured to receive input data from the spotter regarding status of a selected 

player’s golf ball ...; a second portable device carried by a user viewing the golf 

tournament to receive distributed input data over the wireless network, ... the 

second portable device being configured to display preprogrammed information 

... including endorsement information of manufacturers of equipment used by the 

respective participants of the golf tournament; ... 

‘552 patent Claim 13: A method ... comprising: providing a first portable device 

...; inputting data by the spotter to the first portable device ...; distributing 

input data over the wireless network to a second portable device carried by a user

in real time during the golf tournament, the second portable device being 

configured to display endorsement information ... including endorsements of 

respective participants of the golf tournament by manufacturers of equipment used 

by the respective participants of the golf tournament; ... 

Ex. 1, ’832 patent at claims 1 and 5; Ex. 2, ’552 patent at claims 1 and 13. 

In connection with the IMG Arena agreement, PGA TOUR collects data concerning the 

golf tournament using its ShotLink system and transmits that data to IMG Arena. Neither step 

involves a “second portable device carried by a patron/user” – let alone one that receives the input 

data over a wireless network and contains or displays endorsement information of participants in 

the tournament by manufacturers of equipment used by the participants, as the claims require. 

Lovell Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 14 of 42
11 

62236959;16 

Notably, Plaintiff’s expert on infringement, Dr. Valerdi, admitted in his deposition that he 

is not aware of any evidence of a “second portable device” in connection with the PGA 

TOUR/IMG Arena contract, and that he has no opinion about whether PGA TOUR’s fulfilment of 

its obligations to IMG Arena involves a “second portable device”: 

Q. Okay. And in connection with this agreement, PGA Tour supplies IMG Arena 

with data that's collected from the ShotLink system, correct? 

A. That's my understanding. 

Q. Okay. The collection of data performed by the ShotLink system does not 

involve a second portable device, correct? 

MR. BARR: Object to form. 

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I could agree with that. 

... 

Q. ... Is it your understanding that the IMG Arena requires PGA Tour to send data 

gathered by the ShotLink system to IMG Arena? 

A. Yes, generally my understanding is that is one of the things they are doing. 

Q. Okay. Do you have any basis for concluding that there is a second portable 

device as required by the claims that is needed or used in conjunction with what 

PGA Tour does for IMG Arena? 

MR. BARR: Object to form. 

... 

THE WITNESS: Okay. You've asked me about the IMG agreement, and I'm just 

turning to that page of my report to refresh my memory. Okay. I have turned to that 

section of my report. I have a -- I have refreshed my recollection on my opinion 

related to the IMG agreement, and I'm happy to answer any questions about that 

section of my report. 

Q. Okay. Well, maybe you don't have an opinion on this. Maybe -- because I don't 

know that it's in your report. So let me just ask you, do you have an opinion as to 

whether or not there is use of a second portable device in conjunction with 

PGA Tour's obligations and fulfilling its obligation to IMG Arena? 

A. I didn't opine on that or include anything of that nature in my report, so I 

do not have an opinion. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 15 of 42
12 

62236959;16 

... 

Q. Is there any evidence that you're aware of that anyone in connection with 

IMG Arena accesses ShotLink data over a second portable device that meets 

all the requirements of the claims? 

MR. BARR: Object to form. 

THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of. 

Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 143:10-18, 146:11-20, 147:4-19; 206:2-7 (emphases added). 

Because there is no “second portable device” meeting the requirements of the asserted 

claims in connection with anything PGA TOUR does for IMG Arena under the IMG Arena 

contract, Plaintiff is not entitled to a portion of the fees PGA TOUR receives under that contract 

as reasonable royalty damages as a matter of law. 

B. The Asserted Claims Are Not Infringed Because It Is Third Party Golf Fans, 

Not PGA TOUR, That Own And Use The Required “Second Portable Device” 

PGA TOUR is also entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement in connection with 

the second category of alleged infringement, which is the combination of PGA TOUR’s use of the 

ShotLink system to collect data at golf tournaments with members of the public using their portable 

devices like phones or laptops to view ShotLink data on PGA TOUR’s website or mobile app. Ex. 

4, Valerdi Dep. 61:23-63:4, 64:2-8. Here, Plaintiffs have a divided infringement problem. 

1. The Asserted Independent Apparatus Claims 

Plaintiff is asserting one independent apparatus claim and one independent method claim 

from each of the ‘832 and ‘552 patents. Claim 1 in each patent are the apparatus claims, and they 

are nearly identical. Claim 1 of both patents require: (1) a “first portable device configured to be 

carried by ... a spotter of the golf tournament” for inputting data about golf shots; (2) a “second 

portable device” carried by a patron of the sporting event (‘823 patent claim language) or by a user 

viewing the golf tournament (‘552 patent claim language); and (3) a “production module” that 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 16 of 42
13 

62236959;16 

receives input data from a plurality of spotters and distributes the input data to second portable 

devices in response to data requests from the second portable devices. See Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 

claim 1; Ex. 2, ’552 patent at claim 1. 

Plaintiff alleges that various components of PGA TOUR’s ShotLink data collection system 

used by ShotLink personnel meet the “first portable device” limitation, and that various back-end 

components of PGA TOUR’s ShotLink system meet the “production module” limitation. Ex. 3, 

Valerdi Infringement Report at 59 and ¶¶ 27, 75; Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 72:13-73:3, 109:5-111:13. 

However, the “second portable device configured to be carried” by a patron of the sporting event 

(or a user viewing the golf tournament) is something owned and operated by a member of the 

public, namely a smartphone, laptop, or other portable device used by the patron/user to access 

PGA TOUR’s website or to run PGA’s mobile app to view data that originated from ShotLink. 

E.g., Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. at 61:23-63:4 (examples of the “second portable device” include a 

user’s/patron’s Apple iPhone or laptop computer, such as Plaintiff’s expert’s own iPhone). Thus, 

two of the limitations are components used by PGA TOUR, but the “second portable device” 

component is used by members of the public. 

For there to be infringement of an apparatus claim by use, there needs to be a single party 

using all elements of the claimed system. Centillion Data Systems LLC v. Qwest Communications 

International Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Acceleration Bay LLC v. 2K 

Sports, Inc., 15 F.4th 1069, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (upholding the district court’s finding that 

“making a system under § 271(a) requires a single entity to combine all the claim elements and 

that, if a customer, rather than an accused infringer, performs the final step to assemble the system, 

then the accused infringer has not infringed.”). For purposes of infringement, use of the system 

requires a party to “control the system as a whole and obtain benefit from it.” Id.. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 17 of 42
14 

62236959;16 

In Centillion, the patent disclosed a “system for collecting, processing, and delivering 

information from a services provider ... to a customer.” Id. at 1281. Three of the four claim 

elements concerned the “back-end” system maintained by the service provider (Qwest), but the 

last claim limitation was directed to the front-end personal computer used by the user (Qwest’s 

customer). Id. Even though Qwest operated the back-end system meeting the first three claim 

limitations, and even though Qwest provided the software that customers used on their personal 

computers in connection with the final limitation, the Federal Circuit held there was no 

infringement because it was the customer, not Qwest, that put the personal computer required by 

the fourth claim limitation into use. Id. at 1286-87. “Supplying the software for the customer to 

use is not the same as using the system.” Id. at 1286. 

The apparatus claims here are analogous to the claim in Centillion. Even assuming 

arguendo that PGA TOUR operates components that meet the “first (spotter’s) portable device” 

and the “production module” limitations as alleged by Plaintiff, PGA TOUR does not put into use 

the patron’s/user’s smartphone or other portable device that constitutes the “second portable 

device.” Under Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, PGA TOUR controls the first portable device, 

but members of the public control the second portable device. See Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 64:2-8. Just 

as in Centillion, that is so even if the patron/user runs the PGA TOUR mobile app software or 

accesses the PGA TOUR website on his or her second portable device. It is still the member of the 

public that is putting his or her portable device into use, not PGA TOUR. See also Acceleration 

Bay, 15 F.4th at 1078 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (rejecting patent owner’s argument that although the video 

game manufacturer defendant did not make the hardware that customers used to play the accused 

video games, there was direct infringement because the defendant’s accused software caused the 

processors in the customer’s consoles to act in a way that satisfies the elements of the asserted 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 18 of 42
15 

62236959;16 

claim; holding “The customer, not [the software-supplying defendant], completes the system by 

providing the [hardware component] and installing the client software.”) 

Consequently, PGA TOUR is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement on the 

asserted apparatus claims. 

2. The Asserted Independent Method Claims 

The remaining asserted independent claims, claim 5 in the ‘832 patent and claim 13 in the 

‘552 patent, are similar method claims. Both recite some steps that Plaintiff alleges are performed 

by PGA TOUR personnel, such as “providing a first portable device to be carried by a ... 

spotter...” and “inputting data by the spotter to the first portable device regarding status of a 

player’s golf ball ...” Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 16:17-34; Ex. 2, ’552 patent at 16:52-67; Ex. 3, Valerdi 

Infringement Report ¶¶ 68, 72, 75. However, at least the last limitation of these claims require a 

step that is performed by the patron’s/user’s second portable device and the patron/user operating 

it. Specifically, the second portable device must selectively display graphical representations of 

certain information according to inquiries of the patron/user. For example, claim 13 in the ‘552 

patent recites: 

13. A method ... comprising ... 

... 

inputting data by the spotter to the first portable device regarding status of a player’s 

golf ball ... [a step to be performed by PGA Tour personnel operating PGA 

TOUR’s alleged first portable device] 

.... and 

selectively displaying graphical representations of the transmitted data and 

endorsement information on the second portable device according to inquiries of 

the user. [a step to be performed by a member of the public’s operation of his/her 

second portable device]. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 19 of 42
16 

62236959;16 

Ex. 2, ’522 patent at 16:49-28. Claim 5 from the ‘832 patent is similar, but omits the phrase “and 

endorsement information.” 

For there to be infringement, all the steps of a method claim must be attributed to a single 

actor. See Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Where more than 

one actor is involved in practicing the steps, a court must determine whether the acts of one are 

attributable to the other such that a single entity is responsible for the infringement.” Akamai 

Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). 

Plaintiff must have evidence sufficient for a jury to find “either (1) one party exercises the requisite 

‘direction and control’ over the other’s performance or (2) the actors form a joint enterprise such 

that performance of every step is attributable to the controlling party.” Gabriel de la Vega v. 

Microsoft Corp., Case No. W-19-CV-0612-ADA, slip op. at 6 (W.D. Tex. Feb 7, 2020) (Albright, 

J.) (attached as Ex. 7). 

Plaintiff’s expert on infringement opines that some steps in these method claims are 

performed by PGA TOUR’s personnel, such as an authorized tablet operator performing the step 

of “inputting data by the spotter to the first portable device regarding status of a player’ golf ball 

during the golf tournament in real time ...” See Ex. 3, Valerdi Infringement Report at 76, 187. But 

the expert acknowledges that at least the last step of “selectively displaying graphic representations 

... on the second portable device according to inquiries of the user” is performed by the second 

portable device, owned and operated by the patron/user that is a member of the public. See id. at 

209 (“My inspection of the ShotLink source code confirms that the second portable device 

displays endorsements of the respective participants of the golf tournament.”); see also id. at 95 

(relying on screenshot from patron’s second portable device in support of meeting the limitation 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 20 of 42
17 

62236959;16 

“selectively displaying graphic representations of the transmitted data on the second portable 

device according to inquiries of the patron” in claim 5 of the ‘832 patent). 

Thus, the steps required by the asserted method claims are performed by multiple actors – 

the PGA TOUR personnel operating the alleged first portable devices, and the patrons/users 

operating the alleged second portable devices. Yet Plaintiff’s expert provides no analysis or 

evidence that would support a jury finding that PGA TOUR exercises the ‘direction and control’ 

over the patron’s/user’s actions that is necessary to attribute the patron’s/user’s actions to PGA 

TOUR. The expert merely conclusory states, “Defendant owns, controls, and makes beneficial 

use of each element of the system claims and performs or causes to be performed through 

contractual relationships each step of the method claims” – an unsupported recitation of the legal 

standard. Id. at 78. Plaintiff’s infringement expert fails to disclose the basis for this bare opinion, 

and in fact, there is no evidence supporting it. Id. 

Because Plaintiff does not have evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict of infringement 

of the asserted method claims in light of the claims requiring different steps to be performed by 

different actors, PGA TOUR is entitled to summary judgment on them. 

C. PGA TOUR Does Not Infringe Because Its ShotLink System Does Not Include 

The Input Of The “Condition Of The Ball” 

All of the asserted claims require a spotter to input several items of data that include the 

“condition of the ball” – construed by the Court to mean “physical state of the ball” – into a first 

portable device. Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 15:37-38, 16:32-33, 17:29; Ex. 2, ’552 at 15:38, 16:66, 18:8. 

PGA TOUR simply does not input the condition/physical state of the ball into its accused ShotLink 

system. Lovell Dec. ¶¶ 8-9. Because the accused system does not include input of the condition of 

the ball, PGA TOUR cannot be found to infringe any of the asserted claims. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 21 of 42
18 

62236959;16 

Plaintiff’s infringement expert Dr. Valerdi, who is a technology expert but not a golf expert, 

(Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 12:20-13:1), opines that the inclusion of information about the location of the 

ball, and the alleged inclusion of information about the lie of the ball, meets the separate claim 

requirement for information about the “condition of the ball.” Ex. 3, Valerdi Infringement Report 

at 45-46, 81, 192-193. In reaching that conclusion, Dr. Valerdi relies upon a conversation he had 

with a third party named Jay Goble about the scope of the phrases “condition of the ball” and 

“physical state of the ball.” See id. at 8, 45-46, 48, 81, 147, 192-93. Mr. Goble is apparently a golf 

coach who was introduced to Dr. Valerdi by Plaintiff’s counsel. Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 69:7-10. Dr. 

Valerdi relies on Mr. Goble’s alleged but unexplained views that “the condition of the ball 

includes the lie, for instance, whether the ball is in a bunker, whether the ball is in a divot, or 

whether the ball is in the water.” Ex. 3, Valerdi Infringement Report at 45-46 (emphasis added). 

Dr. Valerdi also relies on Mr. Goble’s remarkable further views that the phrases “on tee”, “landing 

area,” and “around the green,” which he admits “are locations where the golf ball could be on the 

golf course,” are descriptions of the physical state of the ball. See Ex. 3, Valerdi Infringement 

Report at 45-46 (emphasis added). 

In the contemporaneously-filed Daubert motion regarding Dr. Valerdi, PGA TOUR is 

moving to have Dr. Valerdi’s opinion about “condition of the ball” stricken for improper reliance 

on Mr. Goble’s hearsay statements. For the reasons set forth in the Daubert motion, Dr. Valerdi’s 

reliance on Mr. Goble’s hearsay violates Rule 703 and lacks the reliability required in expert 

testimony. Even apart from those issues, however, Dr. Valerdi’s resulting opinion that data about 

the location of the ball or the lie of the ball satisfies the separate “condition of the ball” 

requirement fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact. No reasonable jury could find that the 

“condition of the ball” as construed by the Court refers to the location or lie of the ball. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 22 of 42
19 

62236959;16 

First, Dr. Valerdi’s opinion that the “condition of the ball” is satisfied by data regarding 

the lie or location of the ball contradicts the Court’s constructions. The Court has construed 

“condition of the golf ball” to mean the “physical state of the ball,” and “lie” to mean “the physical 

environment immediately adjacent to the golf ball in its current position.” See Ex. 3, Valerdi 

Infringement Report at 13-14. Moreover, during the Markman hearing, the Court rejected

Plaintiff’s proposed construction that “condition of the ball” may mean “location or physical 

state.” See Ex. 8, Markman Hr’g Tr. at 41:24-42:8, 44:16-19. Dr. Valerdi’s opinion that the 

condition of the ball requirement is satisfied by data on the ball’s location and lie contradicts the 

Court’s Markman rulings. Location and lie of the ball are plainly not the condition of the ball as 

construed. 

Second, the independent claims themselves separately reference location, lie, and condition 

of the ball, reinforcing that they are three different things. See, e.g., Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 15:33-

34 (“the location and distance of the selected player’s ball”), 15:37-38 (“the lie and the condition 

of the golf ball”). 

Third, in describing the alleged invention, the specification itemizes various types of data 

about the ball that a spotter may input into the first portable device. “Condition of the ball” is 

listed separately from location and lie, again leaving no doubt that they are different attributes: 

The information is obtained from personnel (spotters) who have special permitted 

access to the course and players in order to track the location and distance of a 

player’s balls, including special knowledge regarding status of the event, for 

example, club selection, lie of the ball, condition of ball, distance from markers, 

length of putt, order of play, scores, etc., thus enabling the spotters to input 

information using the spotter’s portable device to the network for transmission to 

the patron portable devices .... 

... 

For example, the spotter can input information about the location, condition, and 

‘lie’ of a particular player’s ball, the order of play ... 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 23 of 42
20 

62236959;16 

... 

In some embodiments, the circuitry of the portable device used by the spotter is 

programmed to record and transmit various characteristics, such as but not limited 

to golfers appearance, golfers equipment, golfers ball general location, golfers ball 

GPS location, golfers ball condition, golfers strokes as they occur, golfers penalty 

strokes, the club which Golfers are to use, and time periods of golfers next action. 

Ex. 1 at 6:27-42; 7:51-53, 8:7-14. 

Similarly, Figure 11 in the specification provides an example of a screen from a patron’s 

“second portable device” stating that Player A’s ball is “Clean” and Player B’s ball is “Dirty” – 

attributes of the condition/physical state of the ball, separate from the ball’s location or lie: 

There is still further evidence confirming that Plaintiff’s expert has not raised a genuine 

issue of material fact by claiming that location and lie data are “condition of the ball.” The Rules 

of Golf for 2019 (published jointly by the United States Golf Association and the R&A Rules 

Limited) applies the term “condition” to golf equipment twice: once to a damaged golf club (“Have 

the club repaired by restoring it as nearly as possible to its condition before the damage happened 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 24 of 42
21 

62236959;16 

...”, Ex. 9 at 15); and once to a golf ball (“A player’s ball at rest may be identified ... By finding 

a ball with the same brand, model, number and condition as the player’s ball in an area where the 

player’s ball is expected to be ...”, id. at 41-42). In neither case is condition conflated with location 

or lie; it refers specifically to the physical state of the club or ball itself. This usage is consistent 

with the patent specification, in which “lie”, “location”, and “condition of the golf ball” are 

explicitly differentiated as separate things. See Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 6:36-37, 7:51-52. 

Notably, the phrase “condition of the ball” is explicitly used to refer to such things as being 

muddy or scuffed in the rules of at least one other sport. In cricket, ball tampering is the illegal 

alteration of the “condition of the ball.” Ex. 10, Laws of Cricket, (stating that “[it] is an offence 

for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball. Except in carrying out 

his/her normal duties, a batter is not allowed to willfully damage the ball. A fielder may, however, 

41.3.2.1 polish the ball on his/her clothing provided that no artificial substance is used and that 

such polishing wastes no time. 41.3.2.2 remove mud from the ball under the supervision of an 

umpire. 41.3.2.3 dry a wet ball on a piece of cloth that has been approved by the umpires.”); Ex. 

15, Sydney Morning Herald Article, at PT-0007820 (“A ball may be polished, though not with an 

artificial substance, dried with a towel if it is wet, and wiped clean of mud under supervision. Any 

other action that changes the condition of the ball is against the rules.”) 

Finally, numerous PGA TOUR witnesses have testified, consistent with the Court’s 

construction, that the condition of the ball refers to such things as whether the ball is dirty or 

damaged, but not to the location or lie of the ball. See Ex. 11, Dennis Dep. 64:22-23, 84:11-18 

(stating the condition of the ball refers to the “physical state of the ball” such as whether the ball 

is “scratched or damaged or . . . scuffed.”); id. at 36:17-22, 91:7-11 (“Q. And you’re saying that 

the spot where the ball is resting could never be termed the condition of the ball? A. Yeah, I’ve 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 25 of 42
22 

62236959;16 

never heard anyone use that before”), 91:12-20 (“Q. Have you ever heard anyone use the definition 

of whether the ball is dirty or clean or scuffed as the condition of the ball? A. Yeah -- yes, I have. 

I mean, if someone asked me what the condition of my golf ball was, I would respond by 

describing, you know, physical characteristics of it. So if it was dirty, I would say it was dirty. Or 

if it had a cut on it, I would say it’s cut.”), 98:3-14 (“Q: But you’re not saying, are you, sir, that in 

the context of the ’832 or the ’552 patent, that condition of the golf ball cannot mean the location 

of -- include the location of the ball relative to the GPS survey? A. Yeah, I’m stating in the -- in 

the context of playing golf, of people who would understand terms and, you know, definitions and 

things like that, used in the game, that those -- those statements about condition of the golf ball 

being the location of the ball relative to the GPS survey would not be something that I would 

expect to hear from a golfer.”); Ex. 12, Lovell Dep. 211:8-12-23, 212:6-12 (condition of the ball 

“describes the specifics of the ball itself, the condition of the outside, whether it’s scuffed, broken, 

split, those kinds of things, the ball itself,” not the location of the ball). 

There is one final point to address with respect to condition of the ball. There are three 

dependent claims in the asserted patents that include the limitation, “wherein the condition of the 

ball includes a location of the ball relative to the GPS survey.” That contrived language, however, 

should be ignored. As explained below in connection with invalidity, that claim language was 

added during the prosecution of the ‘832 patent. Ex. 13, Aug. 5, 2013 Response to Office Action, 

at 4 (adding new claim 10). However, the specification does not describe anywhere that the 

condition of the ball includes a location of the ball relative to a GPS survey. By attempting to 

artificially expand during prosecution what constitutes “condition of the ball,” the amendment 

introduced new matter, making claims 9 and 14 of the ’832 patent and claim 18 in the ’552 patent 

invalid under § 112 for lack of written description. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 26 of 42
23 

62236959;16 

D. All The Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 For Claiming The 

Abstract Idea Of Collecting, Processing, And Distributing Data Without A 

Technological Invention 

All the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming the abstract idea of 

collecting, processing, and distributing data in a particular field (golf). See Alice Corp. v. CLS 

Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). The asserted claims here have no patentable difference from those 

found by the Federal Circuit to be directed to ineligible subject matter in Electric Power Group, 

LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As in Electric Power, the claims here 

“do not go beyond requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a 

particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means 

for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional computer and network 

technology.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1351. 

1. Alice Step One: The Asserted Claims Are Directed to an 

Abstract Idea 

Claim 1 of the ‘832 patent is representative of the asserted independent claims. Although 

wordy, it boils down to three well-known and conventional computing devices communicating 

golf-related data over a conventional wireless network to do the conventional tasks of inputting 

data from a particular field, transmitting the data from one device to another over the network, 

requesting the data, and displaying it. 

Indeed, the claim begins by claiming a “system of gathering, processing, and distributing 

information of a golf tournament over a wireless network, comprising.” Ex. 1, at Claim 1. The 

other asserted independent claims (claim 5 of the ‘832 patent and claims 1 and 13 of the ‘552 

patent) have almost identical preambles. This is the abstract idea that is carried throughout the 

claims. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 27 of 42
24 

62236959;16 

The claim then recites three components. The first is a “first portable device” to be carried 

and used by a spotter to input data about a golf tournament and then transmit the data over a 

wireless network. No particular method for determining the needed data (like the lie and condition 

of the ball) is specified. This is the data collection, which is an abstract idea. Electric Power, 830 

F.3d at 1353 (“Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to 

particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of 

abstract ideas.”) (citations omitted). 

The second component is a “second portable device” carried by a patron of the tournament 

(a member of the public) to receive the input data over the wireless network and display the data 

according to the patron’s input. This is the abstract idea of distributing (and displaying) data, 

which is an abstract idea. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. 

Finally, the third component is a “production module” that receives input data over the 

wireless network from the spotters, displays the data, receives data requests over the wireless 

network from the second portable devices, and selectively distributes the data. This is processing 

(i.e., analyzing) data, which is also an abstract idea. Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“In a similar 

vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by 

mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea 

category.”) (citations omitted). 

The patent specification confirms that the claimed invention is an abstract idea: 

“Embodiments of the present general inventive concept provide systems and methods of gathering, 

processing, and broadcasting real-time information of the sporting event to portable devices carried 

by spectators of the sporting event.” Ex. 1 at 1:41-45 (emphasis added); see also id. at 1:10-20 

(“The present general inventive concept relates generally to an information gathering, processing, 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 28 of 42
25 

62236959;16 

and broadcasting system, and more particularly, to a sports information gathering, processing, and 

broadcasting system ...”) 

That the claimed invention is an abstract idea was likewise confirmed by the inventor: 

Q. What idea did you come up with? 

A. The idea that's addressed in my patent. 

Q. How would you articulate what your idea was? 

A. The harvesting, processing, and gathering and -- and distribution of 

information. 

Ex. 16, Long Dep., June 30, 2021, 54:18-22 (emphasis added). 

Still further, Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Valerdi has admitted that just as in Electric Power, the 

claimed invention here is not an improvement to computer technology. In Dr. Valerdi’s words, 

“The technology of the systems and methods of the Asserted Patents are related to sports 

information gathering and broadcasting technologies, not on improving computer technology.” 

Ex. 17, Valerdi Rebuttal Export Report ¶ 38. Indeed, as detailed below in connection with Step 2 

of the Alice analysis, all of the components required by the claims are well-known, conventional 

computer components. See Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 7:43-47 (the first and second portable devices can 

be a conventional Apple iPod Touch), 8:19-27 (the production module is one or more on-site 

generic computer servers, processors, and network interface equipment), Fig. 32 (depicting the 

claimed components as conventional computer devices communicating on a conventional wireless 

network at the golf course). “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a 

patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. 

Claim 1 of the ‘552 patent is nearly identical to claim 1 of the ‘832 patent. The remaining 

two asserted independent claims are method claims that merely re-write claim 1 into method steps. 

All four claims seek to claim the same abstract idea. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 29 of 42
26 

62236959;16 

Thus, the asserted claims are not any different from those found to be directed towards an 

abstract idea in Electric Power. The Federal Circuit determined that the focus of the “lengthy” 

claims there was on the abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain 

results of the collection and analysis.” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353-54. The asserted claims 

here are likewise focused on the analogous abstract idea of collecting, processing, and distributing 

the results of the collection and processing. 

2. Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Do Not Recite An 

Inventive Concept 

“To save a patent at step two [of the § 101 analysis under Alice], an inventive concept must 

be evident in the claims.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 

2017). The inventive concept must provide “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. BSG 

Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1289-90 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Well understood, routine, 

conventional” or “purely functional” claim elements cannot confer patent-eligibility. Alice, 134 

S. Ct. at 2359-60; In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611-12 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Here, again as in Electric Power, the asserted claims merely recite “off-the-shelf, 

conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting 

the desired information,” thereby failing to recite an inventive concept. Electric Power, 830 F.3d 

at 1355; see also USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., 6-20-CV-00555-ADA, slip op. at 12 

(W.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021) (“The asserted claims recite generic and well-known ‘web pages,’ ‘web 

browsers’ and ‘databases’ that were well known in the prior art long before the filing of the ’300 

patent in 2011”). 

The specification explicitly explains that each of the claimed portable devices can be 

“commercially available device[s]” such as “an Apple iPod Touch”, and that the production 

module is generically “one or more on-site, centrally located computer servers, processors, and 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 30 of 42
27 

62236959;16 

interface equipment.” Ex. 1, ’823 patent at 7:43-47, 8:19-20. Indeed, the specification points out 

that “the present general inventive concept is not limited to any particular number or type of 

portable devices, or to any particular type of communications networks.” Id. at 8:24-27. 

Likewise, Plaintiff’s infringement expert testified that the first and second portable devices 

can be “off-the-shelf commercial products,” the alleged invention doesn’t include “any kind of 

special server or new, improved computer,” and the “wireless network is intended to include using 

conventional wireless technologies.” Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 184:2-185:14. In sum, as Plaintiff’s 

expert admitted, the claims only require conventional computer and network equipment: 

Q. Is there any piece of hardware, comp[uter] equipment or network equipment, 

required by the claims to be something other than a conventionally available piece 

of hardware? 

A. No, I don’t believe so. 

Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. 185:15-19; see also Ex. 18, Rule 30(b)(6) Long Dep., November 30, 2021, 

18:10-20:5 (same). 

Furthermore, the asserted claims also do not recite an “ordered combination” that 

“transform[s] the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 

Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claims set forth the basic tasks of collecting data, 

processing it, and distributing it for display in their natural, obvious order dictated by the abstract 

idea of collecting, processing, and distributing the information for display. See USC IP P’ship, 

L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 6-20-CV-00555-ADA, slip op. at 13 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2021) 

(“the claims merely reflect a sequence performed in a logical order dictated by the abstract idea, 

and does not ‘transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application’ ‘as an ordered 

combination.’”)

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 31 of 42
28 

62236959;16 

Likewise, all the steps and functions required by the claims are generic, ordinary computer 

functions, such as a human (spotter) inputting golf tournament data into a portable device, which 

then transmits data over a wireless network; a production module receiving the data and displaying, 

processing, and distributing it in response to queries for the data; and another human being (the 

patron/user) using another portable device to send the queries for the data, which is received and 

displayed. These are all generic computer tasks, and none need to be performed in an 

unconventional way. 

Indeed, the inventor confirmed this. In a letter he wrote to attempt to interest the PGA 

TOUR in his alleged invention, he wrote that his invention operates hardware components “in an 

unconventional manner.” When asked at his deposition what he meant by operating the hardware 

components in an unconventional manner, he responded, “Sounds like puffery.” Ex. 16, Long 

Dep., June 30, 2021, 199:5-17. 

Thus, the asserted independent claims do not recite a “significantly more” inventive 

concept. 

Furthermore, none of the dependent claims change this conclusion. They all either recite 

a type of golf-related data to be collected or displayed, or additional conventional computer 

arrangements, none of which transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. 

For example, claim 2 of the ’832 patent recites that the portable devices are linked together 

via the wireless network – something the specification conclusorily states without further 

explanation. Ex. 1 at 2:1-2. Claim 3 of the ’832 patent and claim 4 of the ’552 patent just recite 

that the portable devices are commercially available handheld devices. Claim 4 of the ’832 patent 

recites that the wireless network is a local MESH network, which was well-known technology 

already in use by PGA TOUR on golf courses before the patents’ priority date. See Ex. 4, Valerdi 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 32 of 42
29 

62236959;16 

Dep. 164:8-24, 166:12-20; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN6QUzFcSW8 at timestamps 

5:04-5:30 (describing the MESH network on the golf course in a video dated Sept. 20, 2009). For 

their part, claim 20 of the ’832 patent and claim 11 of the ’552 patent recite a generic user interface 

for displaying data. Thus, these dependent claims merely recite well-known conventional 

computer devices and arrangements. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. 

Claims 6 and 9 of the ’832 patent and Claims 5 and 14 of the ’552 patent add the acquisition 

and use of global positioning system (GPS) data. However, “[a] GPS device is a well-known 

generic computer element insufficient to make otherwise patent-ineligible subject matter 

patentable.” Rothschild Location Techs. LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc., No. 6:15-cv00682, Op. at 6-7, 

10, 12-13 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2016); Rothschild Location Techs. LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc., No. 6:15-

cv00682 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2016) (adopting report and recommendation). 

Finally, the remaining dependent claims merely recite types of golf data that is input (claim 

11 of the '832 patent) and displayed (claims 19 and 23 of the ’832 patent and claims 9 and 12 of 

the ’552 patent). Specifying additional golf information to be collected, generically “processed,” 

or displayed has no bearing on the patentability of the claims under § 101. See Electric Power 830 

F.3d at 1355. 

Notably, Dr. Valerdi conclusorily asserts that the claimed invention provides improvement 

to sports information and gathering and broadcasting technology by “improving the real-time 

gathering and processing of input data through the simultaneous collection of input data and 

enhancing the real-time distribution of requested data” and “improv[ing] the types, speed of 

transmission, and accuracy of input data”. Ex. 17, Valerdi Rebuttal Expert Report ¶¶ 33-43. There 

are two problems with this assertion. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 33 of 42
30 

62236959;16 

First, the specification does not in fact disclose how to achieve “real-time” gathering and 

processing of input data. All the specification does is conclusory state, repeatedly, that the 

information is collected and provided “in real time,” without any explanation of how other than by 

generic use of the conventional computer technology recited in the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1 at 5:19-

22; 5:30-31; 6:39-40. Thus, this case is again like Electric Power. The asserted claims indicate 

that “it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display [data], including in ‘real time’; but they do not 

include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and 

displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology.” Electric 

Power, 830 F.3d at 1356. 

The same is true regarding the alleged improvement of “simultaneous collection of input 

data.” There is no disclosure of how the invention achieves “simultaneous collection of input data” 

other than by having numerous spotters around the golf course, as PGA TOUR had already been 

doing with its ShotLink system before plaintiff’s priority date. See Ex. 1 at 7:34-38; Ex. 19, 2008 

PGA TOUR Guide at 9-12. The alleged “real time” and “simultaneous” features are nothing more 

than using conventional handheld devices to communicate data over a conventional wireless 

network. See also Ex. 18 at 27:3-29:20.

The second problem with Dr. Valerdi’s assertion regarding the alleged benefits of the 

invention is that he ignores the fact that PGA TOUR’s ShotLink system predates the priority date 

of the patents. Prior art ShotLink was already a real-time golf data gathering, processing, and 

distributing system that used authorized personnel operating portable devices throughout the golf 

course to collect and transmit data about the golf ball over a wireless network on the golf course 

in real time after the ball was hit. See, e.g., Ex. 19 at 8-6, 9-12 (explaining in 2008 “ShotLink is a 

revolutionary platform for collecting and disseminating scoring and statistical data on every shot 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 34 of 42
31 

62236959;16 

by every player in real-time during every tournament round... Current uses of ShotLink data 

include: ... [p]owering mobile.pgatour.com, the PGA TOUR’s wireless application for use on 

PDAs and cell phones ... ShotLink was introduced during the 2001 Buick Classic [tournament]... 

The ShotLink data is collected by volunteers utilizing a combination of handheld devices and 

laser range finders.”) (emphases added); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN6QUzFcSW8 

(describing and showing ShotLink system as of September 2009, including authorized personnel 

called walking scorers using handheld portable devices to collect data about golf shots in real time 

and transmit the data over a wireless MESH network to servers in a trailer at the golf course); Ex. 

20 (describing PGA TOUR’s 2004-2007 version of the TOURCast “application on 

PGATOUR.COM”, winner of a “2005 Emmy Award”: “How is SHOTLink data integrated into 

TOURCast? Once the shot information is collected on the course, it is transmitted wirelessly back 

to the SHOTLink truck onsite. From there, it ... is transmitted back to the Data Center ... and then 

into TOURCast for users to follow all the action on their computers. From collection to its display 

in TOURCast, the entire data transmission process takes just seconds.”) (emphases added) Thus, 

the advantages that Dr. Valerdi ascribes to the asserted patents (filed for in 2011) by using spotters 

with handheld devices collecting and disseminating data in real time was already in the prior art. 

Because the asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, processing, and 

distributing information for display using conventional computer and network technology, and 

because there is no inventive concept added in the claim limitations, the asserted claims are invalid 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

E. The Claims Are Invalid For Failing To Meet The Written Description 

Requirement 

Paragraph 1 of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that “[t]he specification shall contain a written 

description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 35 of 42
32 

62236959;16 

clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or 

with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. “The test 

for the sufficiency of the written description ‘is whether the disclosure of the application relied 

upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed 

subject matter as of the filing date.’” Vasudevan Software v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 

682 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. 

Cir. 2010) (en banc)). “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the 

specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 

682 (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351). Whether the written description adequately supports a patent 

claim is a question of fact. Id. (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1355). “A party must prove invalidity for 

lack of written description by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.

The shared specification of the ’832 and ’552 patents lack any disclosure for several claim 

limitations found in the asserted claims. Thus, the patents fail to convey to those skilled in the art 

that the inventor had possession of that claimed subject matter as of the filing date. See 

Transperfect Glob., Inc. v. Matal, 703 F. App'x 953, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming PTAB 

decision that patent was invalid because the specification provided no description of a browser 

plug-in performing translations of hyperlinked webpages); Realtime Data, LLC v. Morgan Stanley, 

554 F. App’x 923, 937 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming summary judgment of invalidity for lack of 

written description where patent “contain[ed] limited language and no descriptive content and 

hence fail[ed] to show that Realtime invented or had possession of content-based or contentdependent data decompression”); Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1479-80 

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (reversing the district court and holding claims invalid for lack of written 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 36 of 42
33 

62236959;16 

description where the specification did not support claims in which the location of recliner controls 

is other than on a console). 

1. ’832 patent claims 9 and 14, ’552 patent claim 18: “wherein the 

condition of the ball includes a location of the ball relative to the 

GPS survey” 

This claim limitation, found in three dependent claims in the asserted patents, was not part 

of the originally filed claims. Instead, it was added in the middle of prosecution of the ‘832 patent. 

Ex. 13, Response to Office Action, August 5, 2013, at 3. Because there is no support for this 

limitation in the specification (or the originally filed claims), it was new matter when added. These 

claims are invalid for lack of written description. 

Specifically, the specification does not disclose that the “condition of the ball includes a 

location of the ball relative to the GPS survey.” Ex. 14, Knutson Invalidity Report ¶ 55. To the 

contrary, as detailed above in connection with noninfringement regarding “condition of the ball,” 

the specification explicitly differentiates “condition of the ball” and “location of the ball” as 

distinct data items. See Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 7:51-56 (“For example, the spotter can input 

information about the location, condition, and ‘lie’ of a particular player's ball, the order of play 

of various players in the group, ....”); see also, id. at 8:7-14 (“In some embodiments, the circuitry 

of the portable device used by the spotter is programmed to record and transmit various 

characteristics, such as but not limited to golfers appearance, golfers equipment, golfers ball 

general location, golfers ball GPS location, golfers ball condition, golfers strokes as they occur, 

...”); id. at Fig. 11 (separately depicting condition of the ball (“Ball: Dirty” and “Ball: Clean”) and 

ball location via arrows pointing to locations on a map of a golf hole). 

Nowhere does the specification teach the illogical idea that the condition of the ball 

includes a location of the ball, let alone one “relative to the GPS survey.” Notably, column 14, 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 37 of 42
34 

62236959;16 

lines 14-28 discloses using GPS technology to collect and record data from the golf course, but is 

completely silent on any bearing on the attribute of “condition of the ball”: 

Using GPS technology, it is possible to collect and record relevant data 

pertaining to a particular golf course, ahead of time, to generate a coverage 

map of the golf course. This data can then be incorporated into the functions 

of the present gathering and broadcasting system to enable the patron to 

track the location of golfers around the golf course, based on the GPS 

information, using the handheld device. The handheld devices used by the 

spotters and the patrons may or may not be the same device with merely 

different programming. However, if they are the same device, the GPS 

capabilities of spotter's device would be enhanced for greater accuracy in 

locating the position of the ball of a player by incorporating additional 

hardware, which may be connected to the handheld device by wire or 

wirelessly. 

See Ex. 1 at 14:14-28. 

Because the patent’s disclosure does not demonstrate that the inventor was in possession 

of “wherein the condition of the ball includes a location of the ball relative to the GPS survey” as 

part of his invention at the time he filed his patent application, claims 9 and 14 of the ’832 patent 

and claim 18 of the ’552 patent are invalid for lack of written description. 

2. ’832 patent claims 1, 5: “the production module being configured 

to display transmitted input data such that the production module 

selectively distributes a portion of the transmitted input data to an 

external television network based on characteristics of displayed 

input data”; ’552 patent claim 1: “the production module being 

configured to display distributed input data so as to selectively 

distribute at least a portion of the distributed input data to an external 

television network based on characteristics of displayed input data”; 

’552 patent claim 13: “the production module being configured to 

display distributed input data so as to selectively distribute a portion 

of the transmitted input data to an external television network based 

on characteristics of displayed input data” 

The specification of the ’832 and ’552 patents lacks any disclosure that the production 

module is configured to selectively distribute a portion of the transmitted input data to an external 

television network based on characteristics of displayed input data. Rather, the specification 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 38 of 42
35 

62236959;16 

describes that a human being (and not the production module as required by the claims), such as 

a “network engineer and/or a member of the golf event broadcasting crew,” decides “whether 

and/or when to transmit the input data from the input spotter module for instance recall for 

television (TV) production.” See Ex. 1, ’832 patent at 7:12-19. 

Other portions of the specification confirm the lack of disclosure that the production 

module selectively distributes the transmitted input data based on characteristics of displayed input 

data. For example, column 6, lines 52-53, states that the production module “collects, processes, 

organizes, and distributes the information for display,” but does not provide any explanation of 

what the processing or organization consists of. See also Ex. 14, Knutson Invalidity Report ¶ 52. 

Thus, the asserted claims are invalid for lack of sufficient written description. 

3. ’832 patent (claim 1) and ’552 patent (claim 1): “the first portable 

device being configured to present information regarding the 

location and distance of the selected player's ball relative to the map 

of the golf course in real time after the ball has been hit by the 

selected player”; ’832 patent (claims 5, 13): “the first portable 

device being configured to present information regarding the 

location and distance of the player's ball relative to the map of the 

golf course in real time after the ball has been hit by the player” 

If “to present” in these phrases is interpreted to mean “to display,” an interpretation that 

Plaintiff embraces (Ex. 4, Valerdi Dep. at 53:12-17), these claims are not supported by the 

specification of the ’832 and ’552 patents. Specifically, while the specification states that the 

second portable device (i.e., the patron’s device) can receive a map and display information 

regarding location of the ball relative to a map, it does not disclose that the inventor possessed the 

idea of having the first (spotter’s) portable device include the same functionality. See Ex. 1, ’832 

patent at 2:22-31 (“The sporting event can be a golf tournament, and the method can include 

recording geographical and/or topographical information of a golf course of the tournament to 

generate a GPS coverage map of the golf course, transmitting the GPS coverage map to the second 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 39 of 42
36 

62236959;16 

portable device, and selectively displaying graphical representations of golf ball locations relative 

to the golf course after the golf ball has been hit by a player of the golf tournament, based on the 

GPS coverage map and the location of the first portable device transmitted to the second portable 

device.”) (emphases added). 

Without a supporting disclosure, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to 

determine that the Plaintiff was in possession of this limitation. Ex. 14, Knutson Invalidity Report 

¶¶50-51. 

4. ’832 patent claim 9 and ’552 patent claim 5: “the first device is 

configured ... to selectively display a GPS survey of the golf 

course” 

For the same reasons explained immediately above, the specification does not describe 

that the first device can display a GPS survey of the golf course. Id. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant PGA TOUR respectfully requests that the Court grant 

it summary judgment of noninfringement and of invalidity. 

Date: March 11, 2022 

Respectfully submitted, 

AKERMAN LLP 

777 South Flagler Drive, 

Suite 1100 West Tower 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 

Telephone: (561) 653-5000 

Fax: (561) 659-6313 

 By: /s/ David Brafman _

David Brafman (Admitted pro hac vice) 

david.brafman@akerman.com 

Mark Passler (Admitted pro hac vice) 

mark.passler@akerman.com 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 40 of 42
37 

62236959;16 

C. Bryce Benson 

Texas Bar No. 24031736 

bryce.benson@akerman.com 

AKERMAN LLP 

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 720-4300 

Fax: (214) 981-9339 

Attorneys for Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 41 of 42
38 

62236959;16 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on March 11, 2022, I electronically served the foregoing document on 

all the following: 

John H. Barr, Jr. 

Meade Neese & Barr LLP 

2118 Smith Street 

Houston, Tecas 77002 

jbarr@mnbllp.com 

John A. Yates 

B. Todd Patterson 

Patterson + Sheridan LLP

24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 

Houston, Texas 77046 

jyates@pattersonsheridan.com 

tpatterson@pattersonsheridan.com 

kcoleman@pattersosheridan.com 

Abelino Reyna 

Patterson + Sheridan LLP

900 Washington Ave., Suite 503 

Waco, Texas 76701 

areyna@pattersonsheridan.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Information Images, LLC 

By: /s/David Brafman 

David Brafman 

Case 6:20-cv-00268-ADA Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 42 of 42