THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., 

Defendant.

 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)

MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 441
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. DISPOSITION OF THIS ISSUE AT THE PLEADING STAGE IS INAPPROPRIATE.....1

II. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101..................3

A. Alice Step One – The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea ................................6

B. Alice Step Two – The Patent Claims Include an Inventive Concept ...............................9

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION...................................................................................................10

IV. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................12

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 442
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 

882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................2

Accenture Global Servs., GMbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 

728 F.3d 1336, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................9

Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)............................................................................. passim

Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 

841 F.3d 1288, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .........................................................................................5

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)..................................................................................12

Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),

687 F.3d 1266, 1273–74 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................1, 9

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)...........................................................12

Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................1, 3, 5

Bilski, 561 U.S. 593, 604–605, 611 .................................................................................................8

BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...........................................9

Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019).........................................3

Free Stream Media v. Alphonso, 996 F.3d 1355, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ...................................6

GreatGigz Solutions, LLC v. East Texas Border Health Clinic d/b/a Genesis 

Primecare, Case No 2:21-cv-00370-JRG, Dkt. No. 29 (June 28, 2022 E.D. Tex.) ..................11

In re TLI Commc’ns., 2015 WL 627858, at *8................................................................................8

Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 

565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................2

M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., 

890 F.3d 995, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................2

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 

564 U.S. 91, 97 (2011).................................................................................................................2

Milliman, Inc. et al. v. Gradient A.I. Corp., et al., 

1:21-cv-10865, Dkt. No. 43 (D. Mass. March 11, 2022).............................................................3

MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 

934 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................1

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 443
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS iv

Northwestern University v. Universal Robots A/S et al., 

No. 1:21-cv-00149, Dkt. No. 34 (D. Del. March 28, 2022) ........................................................3

PPS Data LLC v. Jack Henry & Assoc., Inc., 

404 F.Supp.3d 1021, 1039 (E.D. Tex. 2019)...............................................................................5

Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte-Visual Conception Ltd., 

2020 WL 278481 at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2020) .....................................................................4

SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,

930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................5

Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Nortonlifelock, Inc., 

3:13-cv-00808, Dkt. No. 718 (E.D. Va. February 2, 2022).........................................................3

Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, 

772 F.3d 709, 715 ........................................................................................................................8

Voxer, Inc. and Voxer IP LLC v. Facebook, Inc. and Instagram LLC, 

1:20-cv-00655, Dkt. No. 236 (W.D. Tex. February 15, 2022)....................................................3

Westwood One, LLC v. Local Radio Networks, LLC, 

1:21-cv-00088, Dkt. No. 45 (N.D. Ind. January 21, 2022)..........................................................3

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 444
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 1

Plaintiff Display Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “DT”) respectfully submits this Brief 

in Opposition to Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 20] 

(“Defendant’s Motion”). As will be shown in greater detail herein below, Defendant’s Motion 

lacks merit and should be summarily denied.

I. DISPOSITION OF THIS ISSUE AT THE PLEADING STAGE IS 

INAPPROPRIATE

First and foremost is the obvious fact that this issue is presented to the Court at the pleading 

stage. As such, the Court is left with zero developed record from which it could possibly assess 

what was, and what was not, well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art as of December 

7, 2007, not to mention a lack of familiarity with the disclosures and an absence of claim 

construction. The Asserted Claims here cannot and should not be summarily invalidated when 

there are factual disputes relating to the non-abstract nature of the Asserted Claims and the 

existence of an inventive concept. For example, Defendant fails to meet its burden to deny the 

factual basis in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 18] (“Amended Complaint”) as to 

“whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional 

to a skilled artisan in the relevant field,” which is a question of fact that must be “proven by clear 

and convincing evidence.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

Recent Federal Circuit jurisprudence has hampered courts’ authority to issue ineligibility 

determinations at a case’s earliest stages. For example, the Federal Circuit has recognized that 

resolution of section 101 motions is inappropriate until after claim construction. See, e.g., MyMail, 

Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life 

Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273–74 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit has

also recognized that deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions invoking section 101 requires factual 

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 445
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 2

presumptions favoring non-movants.

At the pleading stage, the Court is required by law not only to accept all factual allegations 

in the operative complaint as true, but also to draw all reasonable inferences in the patentee’s favor.

For example, In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., the Federal Circuit 

acknowledged how factual issues undergird both Alice steps. 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

(citing Alice v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). Because a court considering a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion must accept a complaint’s factual allegations as true, a complaint or counterclaim can recite 

concrete allegations regarding Alice’s underlying factual issues to guard its asserted patents from 

an early ineligibility determination. See id. at 1128; see also Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 

F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (describing presumptions favoring non-movants in this Circuit); MI Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda., 890 F.3d 995, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“In the 

procedural posture of a motion to dismiss, a district court must accept the uncontroverted 

allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and resolve any factual conflicts in the affidavits

in the plaintiff’s favor.”).

When the complaint contains concrete allegations regarding the “claimed

combination’s improvement to the functioning of the computer,” the asserted patents can survive 

a Rule 12(b)(6) motion at Alice step one. Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128. When the complaint contains 

concrete allegations that “individual elements and the claimed combination are not wellunderstood, routine, or conventional activity,” the asserted patent can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion at Alice step two. Id.

Thus, accused infringers invoking section 101 in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion face an uphill 

battle. It is now well established that patents are presumed valid. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. 

P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 97 (2011). Overcoming that presumption demands clear and convincing 

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 446
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 3

evidence, even in the eligibility context. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1319 

(Fed. Cir. 2019). Indeed, any fact “pertinent to the invalidity conclusion must be proven by clear 

and convincing evidence.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Plaintiff

has not overcome these procedural obstacles.

Indeed, courts across the country have denied Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) motions based 

on § 101 at the pleading stage. See, e.g., Northwestern University v. Universal Robots A/S et al., 

No. 1:21-cv-00149, Dkt. No. 34 (D. Del. March 28, 2022); Milliman, Inc. et al. v. Gradient A.I. 

Corp., et al., 1:21-cv-10865, Dkt. No. 43 (D. Mass. March 11, 2022); Voxer, Inc. and Voxer IP 

LLC v. Facebook, Inc. and Instagram LLC, 1:20-cv-00655, Dkt. No. 236 (W.D. Tex. February 15, 

2022); Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Nortonlifelock, Inc., 3:13-cv00808, Dkt. No. 718 (E.D. Va. February 2, 2022); Westwood One, LLC v. Local Radio Networks, 

LLC, 1:21-cv-00088, Dkt. No. 45 (N.D. Ind. January 21, 2022).

II. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE PATENT ELIGIBLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101

Defendant’s Motion raises the now customary boilerplate argument that all claims in the 

two Asserted Patents (“Patent Claims”) are invalid because they allegedly fail to recite patenteligible subject matter. Defendant’s Motion is premised on a gross oversimplification of the Patent

Claims and the underlying premise that virtually no invention remotely relating to transferring 

digital media files can be patent eligible. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion fails on the merits and 

should be denied.

As the Court is well aware, the Patent Claims are presumptively novel and non-obvious, 

presumptively drawn to patent-eligible subject matter, and presumptively properly examined and 

allowed by the Examiner(s) at the United States Patent Office. See, e.g., Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, 

Inc., et al., 927 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Further, at the pleading stage, the Court is 

required by law not only to accept all factual allegations in the operative Complaint as true, but 

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 447
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 4

also to draw all reasonable inferences in the patentee’s favor. Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte-Visual 

Conception Ltd., 2020 WL 278481 at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2020). Here, just as in the Cellspin 

case, the Complaint contains a multitude of specific and plausible statements of fact establishing 

the non-abstract nature of the Patent Claims.

The Amended Complaint alleges that, as of the Date of Invention in December 2007:

The deficiencies in the state of the art as of the Date of Invention 

were problematic. A vast majority of portable devices are equipped 

with memory devices, such as hard drives and/or removable flash or 

memory cards, which are capable of holding or storing large 

amounts of data and or digital media files including digital 

photographs, videos, audio/music files, etc. With the advent of such 

devices having these capabilities, individuals or users are more 

inclined to carry around their media files, such as, for example, 

digital photo albums, family videos, and/or favorite music tracks. 

However, many of the portable devices include relatively small 

display screens, some of which display poor quality photos and/or 

videos. In addition, the speakers associated with the corresponding 

portable device(s) are typically rather small and produce minimal or 

poor sound therefrom. In addition, the individuals or users of the 

media devices may desire to share the digital media files and/or 

transfer, display, or play the files on a computer or other media 

device equipped with a larger or better quality screen, or having 

higher quality speakers than that disposed on the portable device(s). 

In addition, some media devices may have better editing software, 

or have access to the World Wide Web to further distribute the 

digital media files.

See Dkt. No. 18 at pages 3-4, ¶ 13 (emphasis added).

The claims of the Display Tech Patents overcome deficiencies 

existing in the art as of the date of invention, and comprise nonconventional approaches that transform the inventions as claimed 

into substantially more than mere abstract ideas. For example, the 

claims of the Display Tech Patents require a communication link 

that is structured to bypass one or more security measures, such as a 

password and/or firewall, employed by the interactive computer 

network, the corresponding networking devices, and/or the 

particular media devices themselves. This facilitates the transfer or 

transmission of digital media files between two or more media 

devices, and is an unconventional technological improvement over 

the prior art.

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 448
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 5

See Dkt. No. 18 at pages 4-5, ¶ 14 (emphasis added).

The claims of the Display Tech Patents are not drawn to laws of 

nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. The specific 

combinations of elements, as recited in the claims, was not 

conventional or routine at the time of the invention.

See Dkt. No. 18 at page 5, ¶ 15 (emphasis added).

Further, the claims of the Display Tech Patents contain inventive 

concepts which transform the underlying non-abstract aspects of the 

claims into patent-eligible subject matter.

See Dkt. No. 18 at page 5, ¶ 16.

The facts as plead are plainly relevant to the presence of inventive concepts captured in the 

Patent Claims. These specific factual allegations in the Amended Complaint define the state of the 

art as of the Date of Invention and provide a basis in fact to conclude that the Patents Claims are 

indeed patent-eligible. These specific factual allegations, as well as the common written 

specification of the Asserted Patents, define benefits and technological improvements captured in 

the Patent Claims over the prevailing art as of December 2007. Thus, the Patent Claims are patenteligible. See PPS Data LLC v. Jack Henry & Assoc., Inc., 404 F.Supp.3d 1021, 1039 (E.D. Tex. 

2019) (“when the claimed technology overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events 

in order to provide a technological benefit, it is eligible at Alice Step Two”) (citing SRI Int’l, Inc. 

v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Stated differently, claims such as these 

include an inventive concept when they provide a technological solution to a technological 

problem. Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

In Berkheimer, the Court of Appeals fully credited the specification’s disclosure of the 

state of the art, as well as its recitation of improvements over the art, as sufficient to create fact 

issues precluding summary judgment, as long as such were captured in the claims. Berkheimer v. 

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 449
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 6

HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also PPS Data, 404 F.Supp.3d at 1040-41 

(“The Federal Circuit routinely relies on factual assertions in patent specifications not only as some

evidence, but conclusive evidence of inventiveness”) (emphasis added). Of course, the benefits of 

the inventions, as noted in the Amended Complaint, are conferred due to the inventive concepts as 

claimed, as opposed to the mere practice of the “abstract idea” suggested by Defendant of

“transferring a media file.” Plaintiff’s Motion at 17.

Again, the specific factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, which must be taken as 

true, define benefits and technological improvements captured in the Patent Claims over the 

prevailing art as of December 2007. These factual assertions are drawn directly from the intrinsic 

record of the written specification, and explain how the Patent Claims capture unconventional 

technological improvements over the art. As such, they can be considered as conclusive evidence 

of the facts as stated. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369; PPS Data, 404 F.Supp.3d at 1040-41.

Plaintiff’s Motion cannot overcome the factual assertions in the Amended Complaint and 

the factual assertions derived directly from the written specification, and therefore should be 

denied.

A. Alice Step One – The Claims are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea

Defendant argues that “the Federal Circuit found claims to be ‘abstract’ where they were 

directed to ‘bypassing’ a client’s device’s sandbox security features because ‘the asserted claims 

do not describe how the result is achieved.’” Defendant’s Motion at 18 (emphasis in original) 

(quoting Free Stream Media v. Alphonso, 996 F.3d 1355, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Defendant 

further argues that “the Asserted Claims fail to include any limitation ‘relating to overcoming the 

supposed communication barriers between’ the mobile devices during the file transfer.” Id.

(emphasis in original) (quoting Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1363-64). This is patently false.

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 450
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 7

As an initial matter, the specifications of both the ’723 Patent and the ’195 Patent describe 

in detail how the communication is “structured to bypass at least one media terminal security 

measure,” as recited in the Asserted Claims. For example, the specification of the ‘’723 Patent 

recites:

Referring again to FIG. 1, in the embodiment wherein the interactive 

computer network 40 and the wireless range 50 are at least partially 

defined by networking device(s) 42, such as a router, access point, 

or switch, once established, the communication link 70 is 

structured to be disposed between the media terminal 20 and the 

media node 30, and through the corresponding networking 

device(s) 42. Particularly, in at least one implementation of the 

present system 10, because the media terminal 20 is disposed in an 

accessible relation to the interactive computer network 40, and 

because the communication link 70 is created and/or initiated by 

the media terminal 20, the communication link 70 can be 

established regardless of whether the corresponding media node 

30 independently has access to the interactive computer network 

40. In addition, the initiation of the communication link 70 by the 

media terminal 20, such as through a request to establish a 

communication link 70, at least partially allows the 

communication link 70 to bypass the firewall or other media 

terminal security measure(s) 21.

See ’723 Patent at 5:26-44 (emphasis added).

Thus, the specification of the Asserted Patents describe the structure required to “bypass at 

least one media terminal security measure.” (hereinafter “the Bypass Function”). Specifically, the 

specification describes the relationship between the physical elements that enable the Bypass 

Function.

The elements in the Asserted Claims mirror this “structure.” For example, independent 

claim 1 of the ’723 Patent recites, inter alia: “a communication link structured to dispose said at 

least one media terminal and said at least one media node in a communicative relation with one 

another via said at least one interactive computer network;” “said communication link being 

initiated by said at least one media terminal and “said communication link is structured to bypass 

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 451
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 8

at least one media terminal security measure.” (emphasis added). Independent claims 1, 17 and 23 

of the ’195 Patent include similar limitations. These limitations describe the relationship between 

the “communication link,” the “media terminal” and the “media node” that enables the Bypass 

Function, as described and supported by the specification of the Asserted Patents.

The Bypass Function is the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art in this case. 

This is clearly a technological solution a problem and an improvement in computer functionality 

by facilitating the transfer or transmission of digital media files between two or more media 

devices. 

Further, an idea is abstract if it has “no particular concrete or tangible form.” Ultramercial, 

Inc. v. Hulu, 772 F.3d 709, 715; see also In re TLI Commc’ns., 2015 WL 627858, at *8 (An idea 

is abstract if it “describes a scheme or concept not tied to a particular concrete application”). 

Although the “precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category” were not delimited in Alice, the 

Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have provided some important principles. Namely, the 

Supreme Court has instructed that mathematical algorithms and fundamental economic and 

conventional business practices are abstract ideas. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com LP, 773 

F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 93 S.Ct. 253 (finding 

mathematical algorithms patent ineligible); Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 (finding the “fundamental 

economic practice” of hedging to be patent ineligible); Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356 (same for 

intermediated settlement)).

In addition, claims that “simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of 

intermediated settlement on a generic computer” are also abstract. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 

1256 (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359); see also Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715-16 (finding claims 

using advertising as a currency as applied to the particular technological environment of the 

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 452
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 9

Internet merely recited an abstract idea); BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014) (finding claims patent ineligible that did nothing more than implement the abstract idea 

of creating a “transaction performance guaranty” over a network); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH 

v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding claims patent 

ineligible that merely recited “generalized software components arranged to implement an abstract 

concept on a computer”); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 

1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding claims patent ineligible that recited the use of a computer to 

implement the abstract idea of managing a stable-value protected life insurance policy)

(collectively “DDR Holdings Cases”).

At issue in the DDR Holdings cases, is that the asserted claims “were recited too broadly 

and generically to be considered sufficiently specific and meaningful applications of their 

underlying abstract ideas ... [and] in substance were directed to nothing more than the performance 

of an abstract business practice on the Internet or using a conventional computer.” DDR Holdings, 

773 F.3d at 1256. These types of claims are not patent-eligible. Id.

Here, the Patent Claims do not fall within the contours of the DDR holdings cases. They 

have physical, tangible and specialized components that are directed to more than performance of 

an abstract idea. The Patent Claims have a clear, concrete and tangible form in that they are 

directed to providing a media system that allows for the transfer or transmission of digital media 

files between two or more media devices using a communication link that is “structured to bypass 

at least one media terminal security measure,” with tangible and concrete hardware that has been 

adapted for that purpose.

B. Alice Step Two – The Patent Claims Include an Inventive Concept

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 453
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10

As discussed above, the Patent Claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Further, even 

assuming, arguendo, that the Patent Claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Patent Claims 

nonetheless include an inventive concept.

Almost all inventions consist of new combinations of old elements. See DDR, 773 F.3d at 

1257 n.5 (“[o]n a fundamental level, the creation of new compositions and products based on 

combining elements from different sources has long been a basis for patentable inventions”). Thus, 

a claim element is not conventional for purposes of a Section 101 analysis just because it appears 

in the prior art.

As the Amended Complaint states, “the claims of the Display Tech Patents require a 

communication link that is structured to bypass one or more security measures, such as a password 

and/or firewall, employed by the interactive computer network, the corresponding networking 

devices, and/or the particular media devices themselves. This facilitates the transfer or 

transmission of digital media files between two or more media devices, and is an unconventional 

technological improvement over the prior art.” See Dkt. No. 18 at pages 4-5, ¶ 14 (emphasis 

added). This is accomplished by a specific claimed architecture in which relationships between 

physical elements are defined that enable the Bypass Function. These elements and architecture 

that enable the Bypass Function are found in the Asserted Claims and described in the written 

specification.

III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Plaintiff asserts that at least the following term requires construction prior to the Court 

ruling on Defendant’s Motion: “a communication link . . . structured to bypass at least one media 

terminal security measure.”

For example, Defendant argues that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of 

“transferring a digital media file.” See Defendant’s Motion at 17. However, the communication 

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 454
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 11

link used for transferring the digital media file must be properly structured such that the 

transference can occur regardless of regardless of whether the media node has independent access 

to the interactive computer network. This proper structure includes the ability to bypass at least 

one security measure.

A proper construction of the phrase “a communication link . . . structured to bypass at least 

one media terminal security measure” is directly relevant to the issue of whether the “patent simply 

applies an abstract idea in a routine and conventional way.” See Defendant’s Motion at 25. A 

proper construction of this phrase is also required to properly evaluate Defendant’s “abstract 

concept” arguments. Indeed, because Defendant’s motion is presented to the Court at the pleading 

stage, the Court is left with zero developed record from which it could possibly assess what was, 

and what was not, well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art as of December 2007, not 

to mention a lack of familiarity with the disclosures and the prosecution histories of the Asserted 

Patents.

Further, this Court has previously denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss prior to claim 

construction, even when the defendant offered to adopt plaintiff’s proposed claim constructions. 

See GreatGigz Solutions, LLC v. East Texas Border Health Clinic d/b/a Genesis Primecare, Case 

No 2:21-cv-00370-JRG, Dkt. No. 29 (June 28, 2022 E.D. Tex.) (“the briefing demonstrates that 

much of the record is left undeveloped, and it is clear that numerous disagreements between the 

parties concerning the Alice analysis impinge on the construction of the disputed terms” . . . 

“further inquiry into issues such as the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art as to the 

disputed terms may be resolved at claim construction” . . . “the Court is not inclined to 

hypothetically adopt either party’s purported claim constructions to push the case to an earlier 

resolution while such disputes remain”).

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 455
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 12

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is premature and should not be taken up until after claim 

construction has occurred in this case and the factual record as to the state of the prior art 

developed.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff has plead enough facts “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 547 (2007)). Defendant’s Motion cannot overcome the factual assertions in the Amended 

Complaint and the factual assertions derived directly from the written specification of the Asserted 

Patents. Further, claim construction is required in order to properly evaluate Defendant’s “abstract 

concept” and “no inventive concept” arguments.

/ / / / /

Dated: April 17, 2024 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall T. Garteiser

Randall Garteiser 

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 456
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to

electronic service are being served on April 17, 2024 with a copy of this document via the

Court's CM/ECF system.

/s/ Randall T. Garteiser .

 Randall T. Garteiser

Case 2:23-cv-00591-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 04/17/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 457