1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case No. 2:12-cv-01549-JLR WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, Washington 98104-7036 Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699 The Honorable James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ZILLOW, INC., Plaintiff, vs. TRULIA, INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:12-cv-01549-JLR TRULIA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: January 11, 2013 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 21
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINTFOR PATENT INFRINGEMENTCase No. 2:12-cv-01549-JLR
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
The Honorable James L. Robart
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND............................................................................................. 2
III. ZILLOW’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT SHOULD BEDISMISSED. ...................................................................................................................... 5
A. Legal Standards....................................................................................................... 5
B. Because the ’674 Patent Claims Do Not Satisfy the EligibilityRequirements of Section 101, Zillow’s Complaint Should be Dismissed.............. 6
1. The ’674 Patent Claims Unpatentable Abstract Ideas. ............................... 8
2. The Claimed Routine and Conventional Steps Do Not Render theAbstract Ideas and Mental Processes Patentable. ....................................... 9
3. The ’674 Patent Claims Fail the Machine-or-Transformation Test.......... 10
a. The ’674 Patent Claims Fail the Machine Prong. ......................... 10
b. The ’674 Patent Claims Fail the Transformation Prong. .............. 12
C. Alternatively, Trulia Requests a Stay Pending the Federal Circuit’sEn Banc Ruling in CLS Bank................................................................................ 12
D. The Indirect Infringement Claims Must Be Dismissed for Failure to Meetthe Pleading Requirements of Rule 8.................................................................... 13
IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 16
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 2 of 21
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 15
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 5, 14
Bancorp Servs. L.L.C., v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.),687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................... 5, 8, 10, 11
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 554 (2007) .................................................................................................................... 5
Bilski v. Kappos,130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ...................................................................................................... 6, 7, 10
CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.,685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 12, 13
Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 15
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................... 5, 8, 9, 12
Diamond v. Diehr,450 U.S. 175 (1981) .................................................................................................................... 7
Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,No. C 11-01079 SBA, slip op., 2012 WL 5940782 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) ................. 14, 15
Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC,671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 8
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 14
Glory Licensing LLC v. Toys “R” Us, Inc.,No. 09-4252 (FSH), 2011 WL 1870591 (D.N.J. May 16, 2011) ................................................ 6
Gottschalk v. Benson,409 U.S. 63 (1972) .............................................................................................................. 6, 7, 8
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 3 of 21
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
Halton Co. v. Streivor, Inc.,No. C 10-00655 WHA, 2010 WL 2077203 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2010) .................................... 15
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.,687 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 8
In re Bilski (Bilski I),545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................... 10, 11, 12
In re Grams,888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................... 9
Le Roy v. Tatham,55 U.S. 156 (1852) ...................................................................................................................... 1
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 14
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ........................................................................................................ 6, 7, 9
Nazomi Commc’n, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,No. 10-CV-4686, 2011 WL 2837401 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2011) .............................................. 14
OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,No. C-12-1233 EMC, 2012 WL 3985118 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012).................................. 5, 11
Pac. Biosci. Labs., Inc. v. Nutra Luxe MD, LLC,No. C10-0230 JLR (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2011 Order) .............................................................. 13
Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington,51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................... 5
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
Trulia further moves the Court to dismiss the complaint’s allegations of indirect
infringement as to the ’674 patent for falling far short of the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, upon which the Supreme Court elaborated in the seminal
cases of Iqbal and Twombly. Zillow’s complaint fails to make even insufficient “threadbare
recitations” of any of the elements necessary to state a claim for contributory or induced
infringement.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2012, Trulia commenced the process to become a public company. Dkt.
No. 1 at 5. On September 7, 2012, Trulia commenced the “roadshow” for its initial public
offering to begin marketing its stock to investors, and, on September 12, Zillow filed the subject
complaint against Trulia. See Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Zillow’s complaint against Trulia alleges
infringement of the ’674 patent, entitled “Automatically Determining a Current Value for a Real
Estate Property, Such as a Home, that is Tailored to Input from a Human User, Such as its
Owner.” Dkt. No. 1 at 3; Dkt. No. 1-1 (the ’674 patent). The ’674 patent was filed on February
3, 2006, and issued over five years later on June 28, 2011. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. It purports to claim
a “new approach to valuing homes that [is] responsive to owner input, as well as having a high
level of accuracy, and being inexpensive and convenient.” ’674 patent at 1:53-56. The accused
Trulia Estimates feature launched over a year prior to Zillow’s complaint. Dkt. No. 1 at 3.
The ’674 patent recites 40 claims. Claims 1, 2, and 15 are the only independent claims.
This motion concerns each independent claim and their respective dependent claims.
Claim 15 recites:
15. A method in a computing system for refining an automatic valuation of adistinguished home based upon input from a user knowledgeable about thedistinguished home, comprising:(a) obtaining user input adjusting at least one aspect of information about the
distinguished home used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished home;(b) automatically determining a refined valuation of the distinguished home that
is based on the adjustment of the obtained user input; and(c) presenting the refined valuation of the distinguished home.
’674 patent at 21:49-59.
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 6 of 21
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
Although including a “computer readable medium,” claim 2 essentially recites the same
underlying method as claim 15:
2. A computer readable medium for storing contents that causes a computingsystem to perform a method for procuring information about a distinguishedproperty from its owner that is usable to refine an automatic valuation of thedistinguished property, the method comprising:(a) displaying at least a portion of information about the distinguished property
used in the automatic valuation of the distinguished property;(b) obtaining user input from the owner adjusting at least one aspect of
information about the distinguished property used in the automatic valuationof the distinguished property; and
(c) displaying to the owner a refined valuation of the distinguished property thatis based on the adjustment of the obtained user input.
’674 patent at 20:18-32.
Finally, although claim 1 is much longer than claims 2 and 15, it adds no patentable
subject matter. Indeed, it merely repeats slight variations of the unpatentable steps of claim 15
over and over again.
1. A method in a computing system for automatically determining a valuation fora subject home in response to input from an owner of the home, comprising:(a) presenting a display that includes an indication of a first valuation determined
for the subject home and indications of attributes of the subject home used inthe determination, the indicated valuation being determined by applying tothe indicated attributes a geographically-specific home valuation model isbased upon a plurality of homes near the subject home recently sold;
(b) presenting a display that solicits input from the owner that updates one ormore of the indicated attributes;
(c) receiving first input from the owner that updates one or more of the indicatedattributes;
(d) applying the geographically-specific home valuation model to attributes ofthe subject home as updated by the first input to determine and display asecond valuation for the subject home;
(e) presenting a display that solicits input from the owner that identifies the type,cost, and timing of one or more home improvements performed on thesubject home;
(f) receiving second input from the owner that identifies the type, cost, andtiming of one or more home improvements performed on the subject home;
(g) using the second input to determine and display (a) a present value of theidentified home improvements and (b) a third valuation that takes intoaccount the present value of the identified home improvements;
(h) presenting a display that solicits input from the owner that identifies otherassets or liabilities of the subject home and the value attributed to them by theowner;
(i) receiving third input from the owner that identifies other aspects of thesubject home affecting its value and the value attributed to them by theowner;
(j) determining a valuation adjustment corresponding to the identified aspects;
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 7 of 21
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
(k) displaying a fourth valuation that takes into account the determined valuationadjustment corresponding to the identified aspects;
(l) presenting a display that solicits input from the owner that identifies homesnear the subject home that the owner regards as similar to the subject home;
(m) receiving fourth input from the owner that identifies homes near the subjecthome recently sold that the owner regards as similar to the subject home;
(n) using the fourth input to generate a tailored geographically-specific homevaluation model that (1) is based upon a plurality of homes near the subjecthome recently sold that is a superset of the homes identified by the fourth
input, but (2) places special emphasis on the homes identified by the fourthinput;
(o) applying by a computer the tailored valuation model to the updated attributesof the subject home to obtain a fifth valuation of the subject home; and
(p) displaying the fifth valuation based on the application of the tailoredvaluation model.
’674 patent at 19:29-67.
In the specification, the ’674 patent acknowledges that “[a] variety of conventional
approaches exist for valuing homes,” such as relying upon recent selling prices and professional
appraisals. ’674 patent at 1:24-51. It also recognizes that it is possible to design systems that
automatically value houses, but notes that such automatic valuations “would generally be
performed based upon the contents of a public database, and without input from each home’s
owner or other information not in the public database.” Id. at 1:45-49. Such systems, according
to the ’674 patent, fail to consider owner input and as a result, may be inaccurate. Thus, the
invention claimed in the ’674 patent is the idea of allowing a homeowner to input information
about a house that is considered in the valuation of the property. Id. at 1:45-56. This owner-
provided information is then considered in a refined valuation of the home. Id. at 3:18-22.
Zillow’s complaint purports to allege both direct and indirect infringement by Trulia.
However, the allegations of indirect infringement fail to include the necessary factual elements.
Indeed, the entirety of Zillow’s indirect infringement claims allege:
Trulia has infringed and continues to infringe the ’674 patent by its use of, forexample, the Trulia Estimate feature, and by Trulia’s contributing to the use of,and inducement of others to use, infringing features and services. Under 35U.S.C. § 271, Trulia is liable for its infringement of the ’674 patent.
Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 19.
Based on the legal insufficiencies of the complaint, Trulia now moves for dismissal.
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 8 of 21
1 As recently confirmed by the Federal Circuit, claim construction is not a prerequisite to adetermination of subject matter eligibility under § 101. See Bancorp Servs. L.L.C., v. Sun LifeAssurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (recognizing that theCourt “has never set forth a bright line rule requiring district courts to construe claims beforedetermining subject matter”).
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 9 of 21
designed to enable property owners to buy and sell properties without incurring tax liabilities not
eligible under § 101); Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 687 F.3d 1300 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (Mayer, J., dissenting-in-part) (noting that if Bilski had been decided prior to the trial,
the district court have resolved the case under § 101 and finding system in which a user enters
2 Although reciting a “computer readable medium,” independent claim 2 (and its dependentclaims) should be subject to the same scrutiny for purposes of determining eligibility under§ 101. “[A] claim directed to a ‘computer readable medium,’ despite its format, should betreated no differently from the comparable process claims held to be patent ineligible under§ 101.” Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1276.
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 12 of 21
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
(claims cover computer-implemented steps of exchanging obligations maintained at an exchange
institution by creating electronically maintained shadow credit and shadow debit records).
Nonetheless, the questions presented in CLS Bank are:
a. What test should the court adopt to determine whether a computer-implementedinvention is a patent ineligible “abstract idea”; and when, if ever, does thepresence of a computer in a claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea?
b. In assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of a computer-implemented invention, should it matter whether the invention is claimed as amethod, system, or storage medium; and should such claims at times beconsidered equivalent for § 101 purposes?
Trulia recognizes that the Court may believe that the rehearing en banc will impact its
determination of the present motion or provide guidance useful to the present motion. Should
the Court so believe, Trulia requests that the Court defer resolution of the present motion and
stay the case pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling. See e.g., Pac. Biosci. Labs., Inc. v. Nutra Luxe
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036
Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
nothing related to a lack of noninfringing use. Lacking each and every required element,
Zillow’s indirect infringement claims should be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Trulia respectfully requests that the Court grant its
motion to dismiss.
Dated: December 19, 2012
Stefani E. Shanberg, Pro Hac ViceJennifer J. Schmidt, Pro Hac ViceWILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional CorporationOne Market PlazaSpear Street Tower, Suite 3300San Francisco, California 94105Telephone: (415) 947-2000Facsimile: (415) 947-2099Email: [email protected]
Barry M. Kaplan, WSBA #8661WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036Telephone: (206) 883-2500Facsimile: (206) 883-2699Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for DefendantTRULIA, INC.
/s/ Stefani E. Shanberg
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 19 Filed 12/19/12 Page 20 of 21