Buffalo Patents, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

• Docket Number: 22-cv-04540
• Decision Date: 11 September 2023
• Parties: BUFFALO PATENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

1

BUFFALO PATENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendant.

No. 22-cv-04540

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

September 11, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARY M. ROWLAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In this action, Plaintiff Buffalo Patents LLC claims that Motorola Mobility LLC infringes two of Buffalo's patents related to speech and handwriting recognition technology. In response, Motorola moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Buffalo's asserted patents are invalid because they are directed to patent ineligible abstract ideas, and also that Buffalo's indirect infringement claim is not sufficiently pled. For the reasons stated herein Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [25] is denied.

I. Background

The following factual allegations taken from the operative complaint (Dkt. 1) are accepted as true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss. See Lax v. Mayorkas, 20 F.4th 1178, 1181 (7th Cir. 2021).

This case involves two patents owned by Buffalo: U.S. Patent Nos 6,904,405 (“the '405 Patent”) and 8,204,737 (“the '737 Patent”). Compl. ¶ 9. The Patents are both entitled “Message Recognition Using Shared Language Model.” Id. ¶ 12. Id. ¶¶ 12, 30. The patented technology is used in connection with virtual keyboards on smartphones and other devices that include speech and handwriting conversion to text data. Id. ¶ 9. The '405 Patent discloses using language models to improve conversion of speech and handwritten data into text data by training one of the language models. Id. The '737 Patent discloses converting speech and handwritten data into text data, where one of the language models is adjusted. Id. Buffalo alleges that Motorola sells products that include virtual keyboard technology that directly infringe at least Claim 7 of the '405 Patent. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. And Buffalo alleges that Motorola sells products that have virtual keyboard technology that directly infringe at least Claims 1 and 13 of the '737 Patent. Id. ¶ 33. Buffalo also alleges that Motorola induced infringement by advising or directing customers, end users, and others to use the accused products in an infringing manner. Id. ¶ 67.

In Count I, Buffalo claims Motorola directly infringed the ‘405 Patent and in Count II, it alleges that Motorola directly infringed the ‘737 Patent. In addition, Buffalo claims that Motorola indirectly infringed the '737 Patent by inducing others to directly infringe that patent. Compl. ¶ 64.

II. Standard

“To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must provide enough factual information to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face and raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Haywood v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 333 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). A court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “construe[s] the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept[s] all well-pleaded facts as true, and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Lax, 20 F.4th at 1181. However, the court need not accept as true “statements of law or unsupported conclusory factual allegations.” Id. (quoting Bilek v. Fed. Ins. Co., 8 F.4th 581, 586 (7th Cir. 2021)). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).

III. Analysis

A. Standard under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent[.]” The Supreme Court limited the application of § 101 however: the “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because every patent is presumed to be issued properly, see 35 U.S.C. § 282(a), a party challenging patent eligibility must point to clear and convincing evidence that the patent covers a patent-ineligible subject matter, see Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011).

Patent eligibility under § 101 “is a question of law that may involve underlying questions of fact.” MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019).

It “may be resolved at the Rule 12 stage only if there are no plausible factual disputes after drawing all reasonable inferences from the intrinsic and Rule 12 record in favor of the non-movant.” Coop. Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 130 (Fed. Cir. 2022). In Alice, the Supreme Court set forth a two-step framework for distinguishing patents that claim abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. See 573 U.S. at 217. That framework asks “(1) whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” and if so, “(2) whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

In its motion Motorola argues that Buffalo's asserted claims fail under both Alice Step One and Step Two. The Court finds that Buffalo sufficiently pleads a patent-eligible concept and dismissal at this pleadings stage is not warranted.

B. Step one of the Alice framework

Motorola contends that the claims from the ‘405 and ‘737 Patents are directed to subject matter that is not patent-eligible-the abstract idea of recognizing a message (speech and handwriting) and converting that data to text data. [25-1]. Motorola asserts that the Patents' claims reflect functions “that humans have performed for centuries.” Id. at 10. It argues that the claims recite only the desired result without describing how to perform message recognition or how the “training” or “adjusting” of the language model is achieved. In short, according to Motorola, the claims are merely “a ‘pen and paper' activity”. Id. at 14. The patents use “basic, conventional hardware and software with no focus on improving the processing techniques.” Id. Buffalo in response asserts that the claims “are directed to improving conventional message recognition technology.” [34 at 8]. Specifically, they improve the system's ability to learn from a user's correction of misrecognition errors and adjusting or training the language model to make the system more accurate. Id.

Under step one of Alice, courts consider “what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art.” Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). The claim language “defines the breadth of each claim” although the specification may also “help illuminate the true focus of a claim.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Where the “focus of the claimed advance over the prior art” shows that “the claim's character as a whole is directed to” steps that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” the claim is for a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). At the same time, “an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. “[A]n improvement to computer functionality,” for example, is not abstract. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting there is not one determinative test for deciding what constitutes an abstract idea).

Here, taking the factual allegations in the complaint as true, together with all reasonable inferences, shows that the claims in the Patents are directed to a technical improvement in conventional message recognition technology, not an abstract idea.

As Buffalo points out [34], the background of the ‘737 Patent describes at length deficiencies in prior art computer systems for message recognition. ‘737 Patent at 1:15-4:67. The patent explains that the “need remains for message recognition with high accuracy,” that “manual operation limits the portability of models in a conventional speech recognition system,” and “models based on purely the N-gram paradigm can utilize only limited information about the context of words to enhance recognition accuracy.” Id. 3:47-4:35. So there was a need “for a multisource message recognizer that can apply user correction to appropriately perform training for multiple types of recognition, by applying the correction of a message misrecognition only to those models employed in the type of message recognition to which the training is directly relevant.” Id. 4:11-17. The description goes on to explain how the ‘737 Patent improves on the technology. Id. 5:61-7:33; see also Compl. ¶ 9. For example, “by permitting alternating speech and pen input using stylus, text processing system provides speech recognition with improved accuracy and editing convenience.” ‘737 Patent at 7:58-60. The system improves the accuracy of speech and handwriting recognizers by adapting a model and then operating in accordance with the adapted model. Id. 23:10-16. And instead of being tied to a specific computer system, the technology uses message models that save digital indicia in local memory. Id. 3:50-60; 22:26-30.

In sum because these patents are directed to a specific improvement to message recognition technology, they are not...