1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BROADCOM CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-04677-JD

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

v. 9

10 NETFLIX INC, Defendant. 11

12 13 In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs Broadcom Corp. and Avago Technologies 14 (Broadcom) sued defendant Netflix, Inc. (Netflix) for infringement of twelve patents related to 15 video streaming, including infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,365,183 (the ’183 patent). Dkt. No. 16 208 (third amended complaint (TAC)); Dkt. No. 208-12 (’183 patent). The Court granted 17 Netflix’s Rule 12(c) motion, and dismissed Broadcom’s twelfth claim in the second amended 18 complaint, Dkt. No. 172, on the grounds that the ’183 patent was directed to patent-ineligible 19 subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Dkt. No. 205. Broadcom was given leave to file the 20 TAC, and Netflix asks again to dismiss the twelfth claim again for patent-ineligible subject matter. 21 Dkt. No. 215. The parties’ familiarity with the record, and the Court’s prior order in particular, is 22 assumed. Dismissal is granted. 23 DISCUSSION 24 The Court’s prior order stated the governing law for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and patent 25 eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the facts of this dispute. Dkt. No. 205. It is incorporated 26 here. In summary, the Federal Circuit has determined that “it is possible and proper to determine 27 patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial 1 Section 101 in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). First, the 2 Court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept” such as 3 an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. Id. at 218. If a patent is directed to a 4 patent-ineligible concept, the second step in Alice is to look for an “‘inventive concept’ -- i.e., an 5 element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts 6 to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. at 217-18. 7 The parties agree that Claim 1 is representative. Dkt. No. 215 at 5. The Court will 8 consequently treat Claim 1 as representative. 9 I. THE ’183 PATENT IS DIRECTED TO AN ABSTRACT IDEA 10 The Court determined that Claim 1 was directed to “the abstract idea of allocating tasks 11 across a system of servers.” Dkt. No. 205 at 6. Nothing has changed in the TAC on that score. 12 The TAC says that the ’183 patent teaches using rule statements and user-defined parameters to 13 identify the best computer devices in a system to perform the job and to make decisions about how 14 to distribute resources for different jobs. Dkt. No. 208 ¶¶ 363-64. Claim 1 recites this method of 15 allocating resources and tasks across a system, and is a quintessential abstract idea. See 16 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 17 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219). 18 Broadcom’s main point against dismissal is that Claim 1 in the ’183 patent is directed to 19 an improvement to computer functionality, akin to the claims sustained in Data Engine 20 Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Dkt. No. 224 at 4. In Data 21 Engine, the claims were directed to improvements in computer spreadsheets, which were 22 complicated and required users to use complex and arbitrary operations to execute simple tasks. 23 Data Engine, 906, F.3d at 1008. The patent at issue provided an improved, user-friendly and 24 highly intuitive interface that allowed users to navigate spreadsheets with relative ease. Id. The 25 Federal Circuit found that these claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they recited 26 “a specific structure within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a specific function.” Id. 27 at 1010-11 (cleaned up). 1 The same cannot be said of the ’183 patent. Although the specification teaches that the 2 system can improve operational efficiency, Dkt. No. 208-12 at 1:20-23, the patent is still directed 3 to the abstract idea of allocating tasks across the system. Broadcom did not identify any specific 4 structures of the claimed system that perform and improve the operational efficiency of the system 5 itself. Instead, Broadcom merely makes highly general references to the process of using criteria 6 to determine what devices are suitable for a new job and then allocating the work to the devices 7 based on availability. Dkt. No. 224 at 5. While the Court has concluded in other circumstances 8 that “efficient computer processing” can be “indicative of patent-eligible subject matter,” Hybrid 9 Audio, LLC v. Asus Comput. Int’l, No. 17-cv-5947-JD, 2019 WL 3037540, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 10 11, 2019), the ’183 patent is not directed to a specific improvement to computer processing. 11 Rather, the efficiency that is gained from using the method of the ’183 patent comes from the fact 12 that task management and allocation make tasks more efficient. The ’183 patent does not teach an 13 improvement to computer processing but a general task management and allocation system that is 14 implemented on computer systems. Consequently, Claim 1 of the ’183 patent is directed to an 15 abstract idea. 16 II. THE ’183 PATENT LACKS AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT 17 The Court’s previous order determined that Claim 1 lacked an inventive concept because 18 “Claim 1 simply recites ordinary steps, performed in a conventional order, on conventional 19 computer technology.” Dkt. No. 205 at 8. That remains true. 20 Broadcom points only to its allegations that the ’183 patent teaches a “funnel approach” 21 which solves the problems of “poor system performance and system failures in a distributed 22 computing system” as the inventive concept of the ’183 patent. Dkt. No. 224 at 8-9. The “funnel 23 approach” is the sequential process of determining which computer devices in a distributed 24 network system are available, suitable, and underutilized for a particular job. Dkt. No. 208 ¶ 369- 25 70. Broadcom’s allegations state that the “funnel approach” was “an unconventional and novel 26 method for provisioning job[s] in a large network of computer devices.” Id. ¶ 371. But these 27 allegations are entirely conclusory and do not explain what is unconventional about the funnel 1 Techs., Inc. v. Tile, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Broadcom does not point 2 || to any other non-conclusory allegations in the TAC or to portions of the ’183 patent that establish 3 an inventive concept in Claim 1. 4 CONCLUSION 5 The twelfth claim of the TAC is dismissed. Because Broadcom has now had more than 6 || one opportunity to amend, and the guidance provided by the Court’s prior order, the dismissal is 7 with prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: August 8, 2022 10 11

JAMES JPONATO

12 United Jtates District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28