Geoscope Techs. Pte. v. Google LLC

• Docket Number: 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA
• Decision Date: 18 September 2023
• Parties: GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

1

GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

September 18, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Hon Michael S. Nachmanoff United States District Judge

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) is the owner of six patents relating to the geolocation of mobile devices. (Dkt. No. 1) (“Compl” ¶¶ 12-30).^[1]Location-based services utilize geographic data to provide information to a user or to perform another function based on the user's location. Id. ¶ 36. For mobile devices, location-based services “generally rely on the mobile devices being able to determine their [own] location,” also referred to as “geolocation.” Id. ¶ 39. There are various methods by which a mobile device can geolocate itself, each with its own drawbacks. Id. ¶¶ 39-46. Geoscope alleges that the Asserted Patents “claim novel inventions that address [these] challenges and improve the accuracy, speed, and efficiency of geolocation of mobile devices.” Id. ¶ 47.

On November 22, 2022, Geoscope filed a Complaint against Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) alleging infringement of the Asserted Patents.^[2] On July 6, 2023, the Court held a claim construction hearing on ten disputed claim terms (Dkt. No. 99), and entered its order on claim construction on July 19, 2023 (Dkt. No. 105).

On June 27, 2023, Google filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 92) (“Motion”) on grounds that each of the Asserted Patents is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Dkt. Nos. 92, 93 (“Def. Mem.”)). Geoscope filed an opposition to the Motion (Dkt. No. 102 (“Opp.”)), and Google filed a reply brief (Dkt. No. 108). The Court heard argument on the Motion on August 11, 2023. (Dkt. No. 112).

Following the hearing and based on the Court's construction of the disputed claim terms, the parties filed a stipulation of (1) judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the '264 Patent, and (2) judgment of invalidity of claim 11 of the '784 Patent and claim 52 of the '358 Patent. (Dkt. No. 117). On September 18, 2023 the Court entered partial judgment of noninfringement and invalidity pursuant to the parties' stipulation. (Dkt. No. 118). Accordingly, the Court only addresses the Motion as it relates to the remaining asserted claims in this action: claims 1 and 2 of the '104 Patent; claims 15 and 18 of the '358 Patent; claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 of the '494 Patent; and claims 1 and 32 of the '753 Patent.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). A Rule 12(c) motion is reviewed under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014). “Therefore, a motion for judgment on the pleadings ‘should only be granted if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.'” Id. (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)).

In the context of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, courts resolve questions of eligibility at the Rule 12 stage when, after drawing all reasonable inferences from the intrinsic record and the Rule 12 record in favor of the non-movant, there is no plausible factual dispute. Cooperative Ent., Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 130 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (patent eligibility may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “where the undisputed facts, considered under the standards required by that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the substantive standards of law”). “[C]onclusory statements regarding eligibility” in a complaint-without supporting factual allegations-need not be accepted and “d[o] not preclude dismissal.” Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, 813 Fed.Appx. 495, 498-99 (Fed. Cir. 2020). And “a court need not accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit, such as the claims and the patent specification.” Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).

B. PATENT ELIGIBILITY

Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter: A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The provision, however, “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). Allowing patent claims for such purported inventions would “impede innovation more than it would promote it.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012). Courts must, however, “tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Because “all inventions”-at some level-“embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” “applications of such concepts to a new and useful end . . . remain eligible for patent protection.” Id. (cleaned up).

To assess whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, courts employ a two-step approach. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 218, 221. Under the first step of the inquiry, a court must determine whether a claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. At this stage, “[t]he claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Internet Pats. Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit has approached this inquiry “by asking what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art. In conducting that inquiry, [courts] must focus on the language of the [a]sserted [c]laims themselves, considered in light of the specification.” TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). As the Federal Circuit has explained, the Supreme Court “has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an ‘abstract idea' sufficient to satisfy the [inquiry's] first step”; it is “sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

If the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, the inquiry proceeds to the second step. At this step, the court “examine[s] the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an ‘inventive concept' to ‘transform' the claimed abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). “The ‘inventive concept' may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations.” Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the court must assess whether the limitations “do more than simply recite a ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity.'” Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). Claims using “generic functional language” to achieve their purported solutions without reciting “how the desired result is achieved” generally cannot survive step two of the inquiry. Two-Way Medical Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Circ. 2017) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).

III. ANALYSIS

A. THE '104 PATENT FAMILY

The '104 Patent Family-the '104 Patent, '358 Patent, and '494 Patent-share the same specification. See generally Exs. A-C to Compl. (Dkt. Nos. 1-1-1-3). The patents of the '104 Patent Family generally relate to determining the location of a mobile device by comparing previously-gathered calibration data with observed data that has been modified. Compl. ¶¶ 48, 51. Geoscope's alleged advancement involves the modification of the observed data to account for inconsistencies between sets of data caused by environmental or other factors. Id. ¶¶ 44-51.

1. Asserted Claims & Representativeness

Geoscope alleges that Google infringes claims 1 and 2 of the '104 Patent; claims 15 and 18 of the '358 Patent; and claims 1, 4, 25, 26, and 35 of the '494 Patent. These claims are recited or described below.

Claim 1 of the '104 Patent states:

1. A method for determining a location of a mobile station comprising:

providing a database of previously-gathered calibration data for a predetermined region in a wireless network, wherein said network includes a first transmitter and a second transmitter;

collecting observed network measurement data including a first signal characteristic from said first transmitter and a second signal characteristic from said second transmitter;

determining which of said first and second signal characteristics has a greater magnitude;

modifying said observed network measurement data using the greater magnitude signal characteristic; and

comparing said modified network measurement data with said database of calibration data to thereby

...