Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 31
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2

THE ’160 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT INELIGIBLE ............................... 2

A. The ’160 Patent ....................................................................................................... 2

B. The ’160 Patent’s Asserted Claims ......................................................................... 3

C. Argument ................................................................................................................ 4

1. The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea. .......................... 4

2. The Asserted Claims Lack An Inventive Concept. ..................................... 9

THE ’902 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT INELIGIBLE ............................. 11

A. The ’902 Patent ..................................................................................................... 11

B. The ’902 Patent’s Asserted Claims ....................................................................... 12

C. Argument .............................................................................................................. 13

1. The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea. ........................ 13

2. The Asserted Claims Lack An Inventive Concept. ................................... 16

THE ’702 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT INELIGIBLE ............................. 17

A. The ’702 Patent ..................................................................................................... 17

B. The ’702 Patent’s Asserted Claims ....................................................................... 18

C. Argument .............................................................................................................. 19

1. The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea. ........................ 19

2. The Asserted Claims Lack An Inventive Concept. ................................... 24

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25

 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 31
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 

838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................20 

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 

573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim

Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 

842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................7, 15, 21 

In re Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 

991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021)........................................................................................ passim

Braemar Mfrs., LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 

816 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................21 

BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 

899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................9, 25

Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................4, 7, 10, 15 

Enco Sys., Inc. v. DaVincia, LLC, 

845 F. App’x 953 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................4, 13, 19 

FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 

839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................7, 15, 22 

In re Gale, 

856 F. App’x 887 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................7

iLife Techs., Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 

839 F. App’x 534 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................9, 16, 24 

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capitol One Bank (USA), 

792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................11 

Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Financial Corp., 

850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15 

Parker v. Flook, 

437 U.S. 584 (1978) ...................................................................................................6, 8, 11, 15 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 31
iii 

PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 

8 F.4th 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................6, 7, 8, 14

SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 

898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................ passim

TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc. v. AKM Enters., Inc., 

657 F. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................................21 

In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 

823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................11, 16, 21, 25 

Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 

10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................ passim

WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., 

854 F. App’x 367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................20 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 31
Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 5 of 31
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,366,160 (the “’160 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 

8,274,902 (the “’902 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,106,702 (the “’702 Patent”) are directed to 

unpatentable subject matter. In the ’160 Patent and ’902 Patent, the asserted claims are directed 

to nothing more than data collection and manipulation through the application of math. Namely, 

the ’160 Patent claims using a mathematically-determined “trend” to predict future values, while 

the ’902 Patent uses collected data to “estimate” data losses in a network. 

Beyond the application of abstract mathematical concepts to collected data, the asserted 

claims require no more than generic computing functions or components, additional 

mathematical formulae, or post-solution applications of these mathematical formulae. For 

example, in the ’160 Patent, the sole independent claim describes generically “selecting,” 

“measuring,” or “determining” data (such as parameters), values, or “trends.” And the 

independent claims in the ’902 Patent recite limitations that require no more than “collecting” 

and “estimating” information on data losses (which the patent admits was known in the prior art). 

The asserted claims in the ’702 Patent are directed to improving network reliability using 

redundancy—specifically, by activating a back-up server if an active server fails. The central 

concept is nothing more than providing redundancy to ensure that critical functionality can 

continue to be offered if the function-providing component becomes unavailable. The notion 

that redundant capacity is desirable for essential function is the epitome of an abstract idea. 

Indeed, it is implemented in decades-old contexts—mothballed power generating plants that can 

be brought on-line or back-up generators for homes, businesses, or hospitals. Neither the claims 

nor the written description adds anything to this common-sense, abstract concept. 

And while the ’702 claims limit application of this back-up capacity concept to particular 

functions—Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)—in a particular technological 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 6 of 31
2 

setting—wireless communications networks—abstract concepts do not become patent-eligible 

merely because a patent claims their use only in certain defined areas. Here, the ’702 Patent 

does not describe or claim any new hardware or software and makes clear that the claimed 

methods can be carried out using conventional equipment in a conventional way. 

This Court should therefore enter judgment for Microsoft because the asserted claims of 

the ’160 Patent, ’902 Patent, and ’702 Patent fail the two-step Alice test. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Patent Act provides protection for a broad range of inventions, but it “contains an 

important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not 

patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted). 

As this Court knows, the Supreme Court in Alice established a two-part test to determine whether 

this exception applies: first, is a patent claim directed to ineligible subject matter, such as an 

abstract idea; and, second, if so, does the claim contain an “inventive concept” that makes it 

something other than a claim to the ineligible matter itself. Id. at 217-18. 

THE ’160 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT INELIGIBLE 

A. The ’160 Patent 

The ’160 Patent, titled “Method of Determining Service Trends,” describes and claims 

just that—a method of mathematically determining a “trend.” (’160 Patent, Title.) The claimed 

method requires a user to perform the steps of measuring data about a network service, 

determining the value of an “indicator” based on that data, calculating a “trend” of the 

“indicator,” and using the “trend” to determine a time of the “indicator” crossing a threshold. 

(Id., Claim 1.) The patent states, by using the claimed method, a user can “forecast[] accurately” 

when a network service will fail. (Id., 1:24-32.) However, the ’160 Patent’s claims do not 

require the use or application of data obtained from practicing the claimed steps; rather, the 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 7 of 31
3 

claims are limited to analyzing data using mathematics. For example, the claims do not require 

any action even if a user predicts that an indicator will cross a threshold. (See id., Claim 1.) 

During the prosecution of the ’160 Patent, the patentee affirmatively stated that virtually 

all of the steps in Claim 1 (the only independent claim) were conventional. (See Resp. to 1st 

Office Action, 6; Resp. to 2d Office Action, 3.) According to the patentee, the difference 

between the claimed method and prior art was the use of a calculated “trend” to predict when a 

threshold will be crossed. (See Resp. to 2d Office Action, 3-4; Resp. to 1st Office Action, 6-7.) 

Such mathematical calculations, however, have long been used in a variety of fields. Scientists 

and engineers have mathematically determined “trends,” and used them for prediction and data 

analysis, since long before the ’160 Patent was filed. (Coates 160 Invalid. Rept., ¶¶460-61, 464.) 

B. The ’160 Patent’s Asserted Claims 

WSOU has asserted Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 12 of the ’160 Patent. Claim 1, the 

only independent claim, recites: 

1. A method of determining communications network service trends, the method 

comprising the steps of: 

selecting two or more parameters of a network representative of a network service 

and variable in time; 

measuring and/or calculating at two or more times values of the network parameters; 

determining at two or more times the value of a service indicator as a function of said 

measured and/or calculated parameter values; 

determining a trend of the indicator as a function of said determined indicator values, 

and determining as a function of the trend of the indicator a time of the service 

indicator crossing a defined threshold. 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 8 of 31
4 

(’160 Patent, Claim 1.) In its Markman order, the Court held that each of the various disputed 

claim terms should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. (Dkt. 62, at 4-5.)1

C. Argument 

1. The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea. 

“Under the first step of the Alice framework,” courts consider “what the patent asserts to 

be the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.’” Enco Sys., Inc. v. DaVincia, LLC, 845 

F. App’x 953, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 

(Fed. Cir. 2019)). The claims of the ’160 Patent focus on the use of a mathematicallydetermined “trend” for prediction without more. These claims are therefore directed to abstract 

“mathematical calculations,” “mathematical algorithms for performing calculations,” In re Bd. of 

Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 991 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and data 

analysis, Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

The ’160 Patent explains that the problem in the prior art was the absence of “a trend 

calculation”—that is, the patent alleges that the prior art lacked a way to calculate “the variation 

over time of the monitored indicator,” (’160 Patent, 1:16-19 (emphasis added)), and therefore 

did not allow for “forecasting accurately the failure of a network service” (id. at 1:24-25). The 

patent purports to solve this problem by using a mathematically-determined “trend” to predict 

when an indicator will cross a defined threshold. (See id. at 2:15-19 (“Thus the invention 

indicates a trend of the measured indicator . . . . The trend can show when the indicator is likely 

to cross a defined threshold or even determine when it will cross the threshold.”).) 

1

 With respect to one term—“service indicator”—the Court articulated the plain and ordinary 

meaning, holding that it is “an indicator of the quality of a network service.” (Dkt. 62, at 4-5.) 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 9 of 31
5 

With respect to Claim 1, the only independent claim, the only claim limitation that the 

patentee maintained was novel during prosecution was the “step of determining as a function of 

the trend of the indicator a time of the service indicator crossing a defined threshold”2—a 

mathematical operation. The patent confirms that this step reflects a mathematical operation by 

describing the calculation of trends using well-known mathematical tools for determining, for 

example, the slope of a line. (See, e.g., id., 4:60-61 (stating “[a] trend having a high slope may 

be synonymous with imminent failure of the network service”); 4:20-23 (describing the use of 

“linear regression”3 to obtain an indicator plane).) 

The other elements of Claim 1—(1) “selecting two or more parameters,” (2) “measuring 

and/or calculating” the values of the parameters at multiple times, (3) “determining” a “service 

indicator” based on the parameter values, and (4) a “threshold”—are both abstract and 

conventional. Selecting, measuring, and analyzing data is an abstract idea. SAP Am., Inc. v. 

InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). And, as the patentee admitted, these 

elements were well known. (Resp. to 1st Office Action, 6-7; Resp. to 2d Office Action, 3; see 

also Coates 160 Invalid. Rept., ¶¶460-62.) 

A claim directed to a result that is itself an abstract idea—like calculating a trend and 

using it to predict a future value—and uses only generic processes and devices to provide that 

result is an ineligible abstract idea. Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 

1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Using a trend to predict when an indicator value will exceed or fall 

below a threshold simply describes using mathematics to predict when one value will be less 

than, or greater than, another value. A process that starts with data, applies an algorithm to it, 

2

 Resp. to 1st Office Action, 6-7; Resp. to 2d Office Action, 3-4. 

3

 Linear regression is itself a mathematical concept that was well known (a “classical approach”) 

long before the ’160 Patent. (Coates 160 Invalid. Rept., ¶461.) 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 10 of 31
6 

and ends up with a new form of data is “directed to an abstract idea.” PersonalWeb Techs. LLC 

v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 

855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Indeed, WSOU’s technical expert, Dr. Stan McClellan, 

opined that the ’160 Patent was directed at “the use of collected telemetry data (‘network 

parameters’) in determining inferences and trends related to abstract functions of the data 

(‘service indicators’).” (McClellan 160 Inf. Rept., ¶25 (emphasis added).) 

That claims like these asserted claims are patent-ineligible has been settled for decades. 

In Parker v. Flook, the Supreme Court held that a method of updating “alarm limits” for use in a 

catalytic conversion process was abstract. 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978). There, the claimed 

method “consist[ed] of three steps: an initial step which merely measure[d] the present value of 

the process variable (e.g., the temperature); an intermediate step which use[d] an algorithm to 

calculate an updated alarm-limit value; and a final step in which the actual alarm limit [wa]s 

adjusted to the updated value.” Id. at 585. The only difference between conventional methods 

of updating alarm limits and the claimed method was “in the second step—the mathematical 

algorithm or formula.” Id. at 586. The patent did not “purport to explain how to select” 

variables or “contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of 

process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system.” Id. 

Here, the patent also does not provide a method for selecting “parameters” or determining 

“indicator” values, or disclose anything relating to the technological processes for monitoring 

parameters or determining indicator values. The claimed innovation is only the use of a 

mathematically-determined trend for predicting a future value. Indeed, like the claims in Parker, 

the methods of Claim 1 and the dependent claims can be performed by a human using pencil and 

paper, with no need for any physical devices, conventional or otherwise. See Parker, 437 U.S. at 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 11 of 31
7 

586. As Dr. McClellan noted “measuring and calculating is essentially collecting of data.” 

(McClellan Dep., 137:22-138:8.) Collecting data is something that can be implemented with a 

pad of paper (or even solely inside the human mind). 

The Federal Circuit recently explained that it is “a telltale sign of abstraction” that a 

process can be performed with pencil and paper. PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1316. Moreover, 

claiming a feature or function—such as the “selecting,” “measuring,” and “determining” steps of 

the claims—but, as here, no specific way of providing or performing that feature or function is 

an abstract idea. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see 

also SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167-68 (claiming a result and not a concrete way of achieving it is an 

abstract idea). 

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that claims like those in the ’160 Patent are 

abstract. A method that involves “the selection and mathematical analysis of information” is 

directed at an abstract idea. SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168. The asserted claims in the ’160 Patent 

do exactly that. The claims involve the admittedly routine steps of “selecting,” “measuring,” and 

“determining” certain data related to a network service. They then require a “mathematical 

analysis” of that data to determine a trend and make a prediction using the trend. See also Elec. 

Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351 (“[M]ethods for performing real-time performance monitoring of 

an electric power grid by collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and 

displaying the results” were not patentable); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 

1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding claims “directed to collecting and analyzing information to 

detect misuse and notifying a user when misuse is detected” directed to “a combination of [] 

abstract-idea categories”); In re Gale, 856 F. App’x 887, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Mr. Gale’s 

claims are directed to the abstract idea of (1) collecting information (here, receiving messages 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 12 of 31
8 

and reading their metadata), (2) analyzing the information (here, calculating a usage pattern and 

determining its compliance with a predetermined usage pattern), and (3) reporting the results.”). 

The remaining, dependent, claims are similarly abstract. Claim 2 merely limits the 

method to particular network services. (’160 Patent, Claim 2.) But limiting “a process of 

collecting and analyzing information . . . to particular content or a particular source . . . does not 

make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Claims 4 and 5 layer on additional mathematical operations related to comparing 

“parameter values” or a “parameter trend” to a threshold. (Id., Claims 4-5.) Claims that “only 

further define the mathematical calculations recited” in the independent claim do not “transform 

the abstract idea into a patent eligible application.” In re Bd. of Trustees, 991 F.3d at 1252. 

Claims 10 and 11 merely provide for conventional post-solution applications of the 

formula—“calculating a mathematical expectation of financial loss” and “determining a 

capacity to provide a network service at a given time.” (Id., Claims 10-11.) The “identification 

of a limited category of useful, though conventional, post-solution applications of [] a formula” 

does not make a method eligible for patent protection. Parker, 437 U.S. at 585. Moreover, these 

post-solution applications are simply additional calculations, which are themselves abstract. 

Adding one abstract idea to another is still abstract. See PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1318 (rejecting 

claims to “a medley of mental processes that, taken together, amount only to a multistep mental 

process”). 

And Claim 12—for a generic “network” or “system using a method according to claim 

1”—is necessarily no less abstract than Claim 1. (’160 Patent, Claim 12.) See Alice Corp., 573 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 13 of 31
9 

U.S. at 226-27 (“system” claims that call for implementing a method using generic components 

are no less abstract than claims to the method). 

Indeed, the results-based claiming in each of the asserted claims preempts swaths of the 

concept of collecting data, analyzing it for a trend, and using the trend for prediction, particularly 

under WSOU’s understanding of the claims. As Dr. McClellan has opined: “[t]he asserted 

claims of the ’160 patent cover the entire concept of collecting data as a means of inferring 

‘indicators’ for a network which provides ‘services.’” (McClellan 160 Inf. Rept., ¶28 (emphasis 

added).) Each of the ’160 patent’s asserted claims is therefore directed to an abstract idea. 

2. The Asserted Claims Lack An Inventive Concept. 

No “inventive concept” salvages the claims. To be saved under step two of Alice, 

additional elements recited in a claim must amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea 

itself. In re Bd. of Trustees, 991 F.3d at 1250. The claim elements must “involve more than 

performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the 

industry.’” iLife Techs., Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 839 F. App’x 534, 537 (Fed. Cir. 

2021); Universal Secure Registry, 10 F.4th, at 1346; BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 

F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

As explained above, every claim in the ’160 Patent is directed to an abstract idea. In 

Claim 1, nothing in the claims describes more than conventional, well-understood (and abstract) 

techniques used in a conventional way, as the patentee effectively admitted during the 

prosecution of the patent. (Resp. to 1st Office Action, 6-7; Resp. to 2d Office Action, 3-4; 

Coates 160 Invalid. Rept., ¶¶460-62.) The only distinction the patentee identified between the 

claimed invention and the prior art was the use of a mathematically-determined trend to predict a 

future value. But the ’160 Patent does not describe any specific, technological processes for 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 14 of 31
10 

determining a trend or making a prediction; it simply employs well-known mathematical 

concepts to perform calculations. (Id., ¶¶ 460-62.) 

The patent admits that the prior art determined trends, and that same prior art confirms 

that those trends were used to predict when a threshold would be crossed. (See ’160 Patent, 

1:10-13 (“BMC Software’s ‘Patrol Dashboard’ product uses a network monitoring method which 

measures the bandwidth of a network at different times and determines a bandwidth trend as a 

function of the measurements.”); 

 “There is, in short, nothing 

‘inventive’ about any claim details, individually or in combination, that are not themselves in the 

realm of abstract ideas.” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1170. The claims “do not even require a new 

source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 

at 1355. “As a result, they do not require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, 

such as measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data.” Id.

Limiting the application of mathematical principles to a “particular field of information,” 

as Claim 2 does, can no more “move the claims out of the realm of abstract ideas” at Alice step 

two than it can at step one. SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169. And features like those in Claims 4 and 

5 “simply provide further narrowing of what are still mathematical operations,” “add nothing 

outside the abstract realm,” and cannot provide an “inventive concept.” Id. 

The additional calculations required in Claims 10 and 11—themselves abstract ideas as 

explained above—cannot provide an “inventive concept.” Nor does Claim 12’s rote recital of a 

“network and/or service management system” using Claim 1’s method add any inventive concept 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 15 of 31
11 

to the claims. It recites no novel (or any) hardware or software making up the “network” or 

“system” and does nothing more than add a generic context or setting for the abstract idea, which 

is not sufficient. The collection of data for use in mathematical processes in a generic “network” 

or “system” does not create a special-purpose machine. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 226-27 

(claim to “system” for implementing the abstract idea with generic components is likewise 

abstract and unpatentable); see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613-

14 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (recitation of physical components that provide a generic environment in 

which to carry out the abstract idea is not sufficient); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capitol One

Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (limiting invention to a particular 

technological environment, like the Internet, is not sufficient). 

Moreover, while it does not matter whether the mathematics involved are new or 

innovative (Parker, 437 U.S. at 591), it is notable here how basic the claimed concepts are. See 

In re Bd. of Trustees, 991 F.3d at 1252 (noting “[t]he written description further illustrates that 

the mathematical steps performed and the data received are conventional and well understood in 

the prior art”). Calculating a trend from data and using that trend to predict a future value is no 

more than a basic statistics tool. (See Coates 160 Invalid. Rept., ¶¶460-61, 64.) 

The claims of the ’160 patent are directed to an abstract idea and contain no inventive 

concept. They are unpatentable under section 101. 

THE ’902 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT INELIGIBLE 

A. The ’902 Patent 

The ’902 Patent explains that to optimize a network’s performance, a network operator 

benefits from having “information about packet losses on various links of the network.” (’902 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 16 of 31
12 

Patent, 1:12-15.)4 A network operator armed with this information, for example, can identify 

and address an overloaded node on a network. (See id., 1:16-21.) The patent goes on to state 

that the risk of overloaded nodes is especially high on 3G and 4G wireless networks. (Id., 1:22-

23.) And while it would be helpful to monitor most, or all, of the links on such networks for 

packet losses, to do so on such advanced wireless networks “would require a monitoring device 

to be deployed on each of the links that are to be monitored.” (Id., 1:38-40.) According to the 

patent, this is typically not feasible given the large number of links. (Id., 1:40-44.) 

The patent’s proposed solution to this problem is embodied in Claims 1 and 6, the two 

independent claims. The method involves collecting data on packet losses between a single 

collection point and the very end of the network (end-to-end) and using that data to estimate the 

packet loss rate on the increments that make up the end-to-end path. (See id., Claims 1 & 6.) 

B. The ’902 Patent’s Asserted Claims 

WSOU has asserted Claims 1, 2, and 6. Claim 1 is an independent claim and recites: 

1. A method, comprising: 

collecting data on downstream packet losses at a single collection point in a network 

that branches, downstream of the collection point, toward a plurality of end nodes and 

that includes nodes intermediate the collection point and at least some of the end 

nodes, wherein the data describe downstream end-to-end packet loss between the 

collection point and two or more end nodes on different branches of the network; and 

from the collected data, estimating a packet loss rate on at least one path that begins 

or ends on an intermediate node and that includes or begins or ends on an 

intermediate node that is a branch point of the network. 

4

 “Packet losses” describe when data “packets” are lost in transmission due to, for example, 

memory overflows on nodes that route the packets. (See ’902 Patent, 1:15-16, 3:38-42.) 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 17 of 31
13 

(’902 Patent, 8:12-24.) Claim 1 does not require that packet loss data be collected using any 

particular technique or device. Indeed, the claim’s data collection and estimation steps can be 

performed by an individual using pencil and paper. 

 Claim 6 is the patent’s other independent claim, and is Claim 1 in device form. The 

Claim 6 device has two components: a generic “input” that performs the “collecting” step of 

Claim 1, and “a circuit configured to compute” the “estimating a packet loss” step of Claim 1. 

No particular software or other configuration parameters are required by the claim. 

C. Argument 

1. The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea. 

“Under the first step of the Alice framework,” courts consider “what the patent asserts to 

be the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.’” Enco Sys., 845 F. App’x at 957 

(quoting Solutran, 931 F.3d at 1168). 

As explained above, the advance claimed by the ’902 Patent is a solution to the supposed 

prior art problem that, although a network operator would benefit from having packet loss data 

on each link in a network, the operator typically could not install devices to monitor packet 

losses on all of the network’s links. (’902 Patent, 1:40-44.) The patent proposes a solution for 

networks where data flows “downstream”—that is, where data flows from a root node, through 

“intermediate nodes,” to “end nodes.” (See id., 2:24-30; Claims 1 & 6 (requiring “data on 

downstream packet losses”).) The patent teaches using “a single collection point” to collect 

packet loss data from a root node to the “end nodes” (end-to-end), and using that data to 

“estimat[e] a packet loss rate” on a path that is an increment of the end-to-end path. (Id., Claims 

1 & 6.) The patent describes two estimation algorithms (id., 5:28-30)—mathematical 

formulae—but the specification states that these algorithms are merely illustrative (id., 4:67-5:2), 

and the claims do not require the use of either one for any estimation or calculation procedure. 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 18 of 31
14 

The asserted claims of the ’902 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of using an 

algorithm—any algorithm—to estimate packet loss rates. Step one of Claim 1 requires the 

conventional act of “collecting data on downstream packet losses at a single collection point” on 

a conventional network that contains nodes (“intermediate nodes”) between the collection point 

and “end nodes.” (’902 Patent, Claim 1.) The specification confirms this is conventional. It 

identifies “well known” prior art devices that collect end-to-end packet loss data (id., 2:55-59, 

3:45-52), and identifies the types of known networks covered by Claim 1. For example, Figure 1 

(labeled Prior Art) shows a network covered by the claims, with branch points as “intermediate 

nodes” (e.g., SGSN, RNC, BS)5

 between a root node (GGSN) and downstream “end nodes” (the 

mobile devices). The patent explains that a “well known” monitoring device can be installed on 

this type of network. (Id., 2:52-59, 3:52-57, Fig. 2.) 

Step two of Claim 1 requires “estimating a packet loss rate” on a path that is an increment 

of the end-to-end path as long as the path “begins or ends” on an “intermediate node” and 

“includes” an “intermediate node that is a branch point.” As is true of any computational 

technique, the claimed method can be deployed on a general purpose computer running software 

or on a dedicated device that is hard-wired for the method or operating pursuant to firmware; the 

software, firmware, and hardware are referenced in purely generic terms. (’902 Patent, 2:42-48.) 

Indeed, claim 1 does not require that the method be performed using any device at all, 

conventional or otherwise—the data collection and estimation computation can be done using 

pencil and paper. As the Federal Circuit recently explained, it is “a telltale sign of abstraction” 

that a process can be performed with pencil and paper. PersonalWeb, 8 F.4th at 1316. 

5

 These acronyms describe various components in the prior art cellular network of Figure 1. 

(’902 Patent, 2:22-30.) 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 19 of 31
15 

Moreover, although even a novel algorithm or calculation method would be abstract and 

unpatentable, see Parker, 437 U.S. at 590 (explaining “that an algorithm, or mathematical 

formula, is like a law of nature”), the ’902 Patent does not even require a specific algorithm or 

configuration of computing elements to perform its estimation step. Claims that call for a step or 

result but do not describe any particular technical way of performing the step or providing the 

result claim only an abstract idea. See Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d at 1241 (claiming a feature or 

function but not a specific way of providing or performing that feature or function is an abstract 

idea); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167-68 (claiming a result and not a concrete way of achieving it is an 

abstract idea). Furthermore, that Claim 1 does not even require a specific algorithm facially 

implicates the “the preemption concern that undergirds” the Supreme Court’s section 101 

jurisprudence. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. As WSOU’s technical expert confirmed, Claim 1 covers 

any algorithm for estimating a packet loss rate. (McClellan Dep., 196:11-197:5.) 

Beyond that, Claim 1’s two steps, “collecting” packet loss data and “estimating” a packet 

loss rate from that collected data, describe nothing more than collecting data using any method 

whatsoever, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting the results. Collecting, 

displaying, and manipulating data is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One

Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). These types of claims have consistently 

been found directed to abstract, unpatentable idea. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Elec. 

Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354; FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1093-94. Claim 1 requires nothing 

more than this and so claims only an abstract, unpatentable idea. 

The remaining asserted claims, Claims 2 and 6, impose generic device limitations on the 

method of Claim 1. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and describes collecting “packet loss” data 

using a “dedicated hardware monitoring device,” as was known in the prior art. (See ’902 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 20 of 31
16 

Patent, 3:45-52 (describing a prior art Alcatel Lucent device that collects packet loss data).) 

Claim 6 is an independent claim that implements the method of Claim 1 on a device. It claims a 

generic “monitoring device comprising” an “input” for collecting the data required by Claim 1 

and “a circuit configured to” make the computation required by Claim 1. Neither Claim 2 nor 

Claim 6 describes any programming or design that will enable the device to produce the 

“estimation.” Implementing an abstract idea on conventional computer components does not 

make the idea patent eligible. The claim must involve more than performing well-understood, 

routine, conventional activities previously known in the field. TLI, 823 F.3d at 613; see also

Universal Secure Registry, 10 F.4th at 1357 (claim to multi-factor authentication was directed to 

an abstract idea because it “merely combine[d] conventional techniques . . . to achieve an 

expected cumulative higher degree of authentication integrity.”). The ’902 Patent’s asserted 

claims involve nothing more. The claims are thus directed to the abstract idea of using a 

mathematical algorithm for estimation. 

2. The Asserted Claims Lack An Inventive Concept. 

No “inventive concept” salvages the claims. To be saved under step two of Alice, 

additional elements recited in a claim must amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea 

itself. In re Bd. of Trustees, 991 F.3d at 1250. The claim elements must “involve more than 

performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the 

industry.’” iLife, 839 F. App’x at 537; Universal Secure Registry, 10 F.4th at 1346. 

As explained above, devices for collecting packet loss data were known in the art, and the 

networks covered by Claim 1 likewise were known in the art. These limitations thus recite 

conventional components and techniques organized and used in a conventional manner—

namely, using known devices for collecting packet loss data on a conventional network where 

there may be packet losses. The advancement of the prior art in Claim 1 is that the claim recites 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 21 of 31
17 

obtaining “estimated” packet loss rates on links that are not directly monitored. However, Claim 

1 does not describe how to perform this estimation or any configuration of components or 

devices for performing this estimation, and the patent makes clear that “the precise process steps 

are subject to numerous variations” and that the two algorithms described in the specification are 

“merely illustrative.” (’902 Patent, 4:15-18, 4:67-5:2.) Techniques for estimating packet losses 

were known in the prior art, as WSOU’s expert explained (McClellan Dep., 190:7-13), and 

nothing in the claims adds any non-abstract component to those known techniques. 

Claims 2 and 6 add nothing inventive to the method of Claim 1. Each recites known, 

generic hardware components such as a “dedicated hardware monitoring device,” an “input,” or 

a “circuit” configured to perform calculation. As the patent admits, “[m]onitoring devices that 

can gather information from diverted packets and have the necessary computational power to 

support implementation of our method are well known and need not be described here in detail.” 

(’902 Patent, 2:55-59 (emphasis added).) 

The asserted claims of the ’902 Patent do not require anything other than achieving a 

result (an estimate of packet losses), on a conventional network, using any mathematical 

algorithm and generic computing components configured in an unspecified way to produce the 

result. The claims are directed to nothing more than an abstract idea and are not patent eligible. 

THE ’702 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT INELIGIBLE 

A. The ’702 Patent 

The ’702 Patent’s claims are directed to the abstract idea of activating a back-up system 

to perform AAA functions in a wireless network. The ’702 Patent explains that devices that 

performed AAA functions in wireless networks were known in the prior art. (’702 Patent, 1:17-

21.) AAA functions themselves are straightforward and were well-known: authentication 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 22 of 31
18 

verifies a user’s identity; authorization determines whether a user can access a network resource; 

and accounting collects user data. (DeKok Op. Rept., ¶93; McClellan 702 Inf. Rept., ¶27.) 

The ’702 Patent further admits that using back-up devices on a network was known in the 

prior art, and was known to improve the availability of AAA resources. The patent states that as 

a general matter “it is desirable to have redundancy . . . so that one or more back-ups may take 

over when functions and/or resources are lost due to failure or otherwise.” (’702 Patent, 1:23-

26.) As the patent notes, for AAA functions in particular, it is undesirable to have only one node 

“capable of AAA functionality and/or be the sole location for maintenance of the user database” 

because “the destruction of [the] node or its separation from the network would undesirably 

disrupt the entire network.” (Id. 1:31-35.) The patent notes that a known solution to this 

problem was to “have every node in the network carry out AAA functions and distribute a 

duplicate copy of the user database to every node” but suggests that this results in inefficiencies 

because all of the nodes will need to stay synchronized with each other. (Id. 1:40-50.) To avoid 

this inefficiency, the patent proposes selecting only some AAA nodes to be active and then 

activating a back-up AAA node if one of the active nodes is disconnected from the network. (Id.

1:51-2:2.) As explained below, this approach is nothing more than the application of an abstract 

idea in the context of a wireless communications network. 

B. The ’702 Patent’s Asserted Claims 

WSOU has asserted Claims 1, 3, 8, 10-12, and 16-17 of the ’702 Patent. Claim 1 and 

Claim 11 are the only independent claims. Claim 1 recites: 

1. A method of maintaining authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) 

functionality for a wireless communications network having a plurality of nodes 

which are AAA function capable, said method comprising: 

(a) selecting two of the plurality of nodes to be active nodes; 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 23 of 31
19 

(b) activating the AAA functions of the active nodes; 

(c) monitoring the active nodes to determine if one of the active nodes gets 

disconnected from the network; 

(d) if one of the active nodes gets disconnected from the network; selecting another of 

the plurality of nodes to become an active node; 

(e) activating the AAA functions of the node selected in step (d); and, 

(f) informing the plurality of nodes that the node selected in step (d) has its AAA 

functions activated. 

(’702 Patent, Claim 1.) 

Claim 11 recites: 

11. A wireless communication network comprising: 

a plurality of nodes, each node being initially provisioned with a user database and 

equipped to carry out authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA) functions 

for the network by employing their respective user database, said plurality of nodes 

including: 

a subset thereof which are active nodes that in fact carry out the AAA functions for 

the network by employing their respective user databases, said active nodes 

monitoring one another to detect if an active node becomes disconnected from the 

network, wherein when one is determined to be disconnected from the network 

another of the plurality of nodes is selected to be an active node and the network 

informed thereof. 

(’702 Patent, Claim 11.) 

C. Argument 

1. The Asserted Claims Are Directed To An Abstract Idea. 

“Under the first step of the Alice framework,” courts consider “what the patent asserts to 

be the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.’” Enco Sys., 845 F. App’x at 957 

(quoting Solutran, 931 F.3d at 1168). The ’702 Patent alleges that its advance over the prior art 

is selecting only some nodes to be active rather than all nodes, monitoring those active nodes, 

and then activating a back-up node should one of the active nodes be disconnected. (’702 Patent, 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 24 of 31
20 

1:51-2:2.) This purported advance is nothing more than a conventional and routine practice. 

Humans have long employed back-up systems that, for the sake of efficiency, are activated only 

when needed; indeed, it is routine when using back-ups (generators, sump-pumps, players on the 

bench) to monitor the active systems and not to activate back-ups until a failure occurs. 

Neither the claims nor the written description adds anything to the common-sense, 

abstract idea of employing a back-up mechanism for important functions when needed. The 

claims are limited to AAA functions in wireless communications networks, but abstract concepts 

do not become patent-eligible merely because a patent claims their use only in certain contexts. 

See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Although WSOU’s expert asserts the ’702 Patent provides “a specific solution to a technological 

problem” that “does not have an analog in the context of economic or human activity,” he offers 

nothing more than ipse dixit that this is the case, and fails to point to anything suggesting that 

using back-ups to ensure system availability is somehow different or special in the wireless 

network or AAA context. (See, e.g., McClellan 702 Valid. Rept., ¶¶244-254.) To the contrary, 

providing back-up capability in the information technology context is an entirely conventional, 

abstract concept. See, e.g., WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., 854 F. App’x 367, 372 (Fed. Cir. 

2021) (maintaining back-up data records is an abstract idea). 

The ’702 Patent also does not describe or claim any new hardware or software, and 

makes clear that the claimed methods can be carried out using conventional equipment in a 

conventional way. To the extent the patent references specific physical components at all, in 

claim 12, it acknowledges that those components—mobile switching centers, visitor location 

registers, etc.—“may be of any appropriate kind known in the art.” (’702 Patent, 3:2-7.) The 

patent does not suggest that any of these conventional components is used in an unconventional 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 25 of 31
21 

way or produces any unconventional result. The mere recitation of tangible components is not 

sufficient to make an abstract idea patentable; the components must involve more than 

performance of well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the field. 

TLI, 823 F.3d at 611-12; see also Universal Secure Registry, 10 F.4th at 1357 (claim to multifactor authentication was directed to an abstract idea because it “merely combine[d] conventional 

techniques . . . to achieve an expected cumulative higher degree of authentication integrity”). 

The components identified in the ’702 Patent’s claims involve nothing more. 

Analysis of the individual claims confirms that the purported invention is nothing more 

than the application of the abstract idea of activating a back-up in a particular technological 

setting and thus not patent-eligible. Independent Claim 1 sets out the basic, six-step method for 

maintaining AAA functionality in a wireless network. Step one is to select two network nodes to 

be AAA-active. The Background of the Invention recites that it was known to have networks 

with a plurality of nodes performing AAA functions, i.e., active nodes. (’702 Patent, 1:40-50.) 

Selecting a subset of such nodes, without specifying any mechanism or technique for making the 

selection, is an abstract idea. See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241 (claiming a feature or function but 

not a specific way of providing or performing that feature or function is an abstract idea). Step 

two calls for activating the AAA functionality in the selected nodes. Activating nodes selected 

to be active is purely abstract. Again, the acknowledged prior art provided for AAA-active 

nodes, and the patent does not recite any mechanism for achieving activation; it claims only the 

result, and that is an abstract idea. See id. Step three is to monitor the active nodes to determine 

if one gets disconnected. To “monitor” is an abstract concept, see TDE Petroleum Data Sols., 

Inc. v. AKM Enters., Inc., 657 F. App’x 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (monitoring to collect 

information is an abstract idea); Braemar Mfrs., LLC v. ScottCare Corp., 816 F. App’x 465, 469-

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 26 of 31
22 

70 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (same), and the patent claims no particular mechanism or technique for 

accomplishing the claimed monitoring. Steps four and five require that if an active node is 

disconnected, another node is selected to become an active node and its AAA functionality is 

activated. As with steps one and two, selection and activation are abstract concepts, and the 

patent claims only the results, not any mechanism or technique for achieving them. Finally, step 

six calls for informing the other nodes that the newly-selected node is AAA-active. 

Communicating information is an abstract concept, see, e.g., SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; 

FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1093, and the patent specifies no mechanism for performing this 

function. Claim 1’s combination of abstract concepts and results-based claiming implicates “the 

preemption concern that undergirds” the Supreme Court’s section 101 jurisprudence, resulting in 

broad claims that would preempt the implementation of the abstract concepts in the context of 

AAA systems. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. As Dr. McClellan opined, “[t]he asserted claims of the 

’702 patent cover the entire concept of monitoring and synchronizing a distributed AAA 

capability in a communication network.” (McClellan 702 Inf. Rept., ¶31 (emphasis added).) 

Claims that depend on claim 1 add nothing concrete or innovative. Claim 3 provides that 

each active node monitors the status of the other—again, no particular mechanism or structure 

for accomplishing the monitoring is required, and the ’702 Patent makes clear that in prior art 

networks all active nodes could communicate with all others. (’702 Patent, 1:40-43.) Claim 8

provides that each node should include a copy of the user database used to carry out AAA 

functions. As the patent explains in the Background of the Invention, “a user database is 

typically employed” to carry out AAA functions, so this is merely conventional and expected 

functionality for AAA systems. (Id., 1:17-22.) The Background of the Invention likewise 

explains that where multiple nodes provide AAA functionality, changes to user databases of 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 27 of 31
23 

AAA-active nodes must be communicated to user databases of other active nodes to maintain 

synchronization (id., 1:45-49; see also id., 3:50-54), so Claim 10 adds nothing inventive. 

Claim 11 is an independent claim to a network having two components: (1) a plurality of 

nodes provisioned with user databases and equipped to carry out AAA functions with those 

databases, with (2) a subset of the nodes being active nodes that carry out AAA functions 

pursuant to the method of claim 1. As noted above, the patent recites that it was known to have a 

network with a plurality of nodes capable of carrying out AAA functions and using their user 

databases to do so. (Id., 1:16-19, 1:40-43.) The rest of the claim requires only that generic 

components be configured in some unspecified way to perform the method of claim 1. Claiming 

generic components configured to carry out steps that are themselves abstract is not a patenteligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. 208 at 226-27 (“system” claims that call for 

implementing a method using generic components are no less abstract than the method itself). 

Dependent Claim 12 claims the claim 11 network with additional conventional components, all 

of which “may be of any appropriate kind known in the art.” (’702 Patent, 3:1-6.) Framing the 

invention as a claim to a generic network that performs an abstract method of maintaining AAA 

functions for a network, rather than as the abstract method itself, adds nothing of patentable 

significance. Dependent Claim 16 limits the number of active nodes in the claim 11 network to 

two. That limitation adds nothing patentable: the patent acknowledges that it was known to have 

only one active node and to have all nodes active (id., 1:40-43) and selecting a number within 

that range is an abstract idea; moreover, no technique or method for making the selection is 

identified or claimed. Claim 17 provides that all nodes in the claim 11 network can 

communicate with all others. The patent recites that in a network where all nodes carry out AAA 

functions, the nodes all communicate with each other. (Id., 1:40-50.) The patent does not 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 28 of 31
24 

identify any mechanism or technique for accomplishing the communication, so it adds nothing to 

the known, abstract concept of communication. Each of the ’702 Patent’s claims is therefore 

directed to an abstract idea. 

2. The Asserted Claims Lack An Inventive Concept. 

No “inventive concept” salvages the claims. To be saved under step two of Alice, 

additional elements recited in a claim must amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea 

itself. In re Bd. of Trustees, 991 F.3d at 1250. The claim elements must “involve more than 

performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the 

industry.’” iLife, 839 F. App’x at 537; Universal Secure Registry, 10 F.4th at 1346. 

As explained above, the act of “selecting” two active nodes (independent Claim 1) or 

deploying “a plurality of nodes . . . a subset thereof which are active nodes” (independent Claim 

11) is a common-sense and routine implementation of the abstract idea of activating a back-up 

system when an active system goes offline. This idea is the only difference between the 

admitted prior art system where all AAA nodes are active and the claimed system where only 

some AAA nodes are active. (’702 Patent, 1:40-50.) Nothing else in the claims adds anything 

other than conventional components and techniques organized in a conventional manner. 

Indeed, the “activating,” “monitoring,” “selecting,” and “informing” steps in Claims 1 or 11 are 

entirely generic—no particular methods or mechanisms for performing those steps are claimed or 

described. The patent notes that AAA-functional nodes with user databases existed in the prior 

art (id., 1:16-22), and describes performing each of the “activating,” “monitoring,” “selecting,” 

and “informing” steps in a generic way. (See, e.g., id., 3:53-55 (stating simply that the “nodes 

also monitor one another”), 4:40-46 (stating simply that “the new node is identified”).) 

There is no indication anywhere in the specification that these are not routine computing 

functions, consistent with the opinion of Microsoft’s technical expert, Mr. Alan DeKok. (DeKok 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 29 of 31
25 

Op. Rept., ¶¶664, 672.) And, indeed, WSOU’s expert agrees the concept of bringing a back-up 

server on-line was well-known: he explains a number of prior art references “teach the standard 

use of a primary server and a back-up server such that if the primary server is unavailable, the 

client uses the back-up server.” (McClellan 702 Valid. Rept., ¶73.) 

As explained above, the claims that depend on Claim 1 add nothing inventive, reciting 

only conventional components and techniques or simply claiming the result of performing the 

abstract step or achieving the abstract result. A claimed invention’s use of the abstract idea to 

which it is directed does not supply the inventive concept required by step two of Alice. See

BSG Tech., 899 F.3d at 1290. Likewise, the “wireless communication network” claims based on 

Claim 11 merely recite known components and techniques or abstract concepts with no specific 

method of implementing them, as explained above. A recitation of tangible components is not 

sufficient to make a claim directed to an abstract idea patent-eligible. TLI, 823 F.3d at 611-12. 

Thus, the claims of the ’702 Patent are directed to the abstract, conventional concept of 

providing back-up capability for important functions. They apply that concept in a particular 

setting—AAA functionality in wireless communication networks—which does not make the 

concept patent-eligible, and they include no inventive concept, instead simply describing generic, 

conventional techniques and components deployed in a generic, conventional way. They are 

unpatentable under section 101. 

CONCLUSION

Because the asserted claims in the ’160 Patent, ’702 Patent, and ’902 Patent are directed 

to patent-ineligible subject matter, this Court should enter judgment for Microsoft. 

DATED: April 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 

/s/ Richard A. Cederoth (by permission) 

Melissa R. Smith, Bar No. 24001351 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 30 of 31
26 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

James “Travis” Underwood, Bar No. 

24102587 

travis@gillamsmithlaw.com

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Tel: (903) 934-8450 

Fax: (903) 934-9257 

Michael J. Bettinger

mbettinger@sidley.com 

Irene Yang 

irene.yang@sidley.com 

Brooke S. Boll 

brooke.boll@sidley.com 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 California Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: (415) 772-1200 

Fax: (415) 772-7400 

Richard A. Cederoth 

rcederoth@sidley.com 

John W. McBride 

jwmcbride@sidley.com 

Richard M. Chen 

rchen@sidley.com 

Kevin Robert Oliver

kevin.oliver@sidley.com 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

1 South Dearborn St. 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Tel: (312) 853-7000 

Fax: (312) 853-7036 

ATTORNEYS FOR MICROSOFT 

CORPORATION 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 139 Filed 04/19/22 Page 31 of 31