Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`Vvs.
`APPLE INC,,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00324
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`APPLE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`I1I.
`
`IV.
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 2 of 16
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CARBYNE ASSERTS AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD ......cccccceviiiiiiiiiine.
`
`APPLE DID NOT ARGUE REPRESENTATIVENESS ......cooiiiiiiieeeeeee
`
`THE FRAUD PATENTS DO NOT CLAIM ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER ...............
`A. Alice Step 1: The Fraud Patents Are Directed to an Abstract Idea...........c.............
`
`B. Alice Step 2: Fraud Patents Contain No Inventive Concept.........coceevevvenieenennnne
`
`AUTHENTICATION CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE.........cccccceieiiiiinne,
`A. Alice Step 1: The Authentication Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea...........
`
`B. Alice Step 2: The Authentication Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept ................
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Affinity Labs v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016).....iiieiieieieeieeiieie ettt 2,4
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`
`S5T3 ULS. 208 (2014) .ottt ettt e e e e s tae e st e e e naaeentaeeennaeenaeas passim
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..c.uiiieiieieeieeieeiieee ettt ettt es 6,7
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.
`
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...ttt ettt s 3,6
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)...cuuiiieiieieeiieieee sttt sbe e eeeenees 1
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`
`No. 17-cv-05934-YGR, 2021 WL 1421612 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) cceeceevreeeieeeieeeenens 5
`ClearDoc, Inc. v. RiversideFM, Inc.,
`
`No. 21-cv-1422, 2022 WL 3355960 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2022).c..cciieiiiieieeieieeieseee e 4
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v L.G. Elecs.,
`
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..ccuieiieiieiieieeeeee ettt nse e ees 3
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 20160)..ccuuiiieiieieeiieeeee sttt ettt sae e e 3
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH,
`
`942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...ttt 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.,
`
`RO O T B (7 0 O 1 TSRS 1
`Rothschild Dig. Confir’'nv. Skedulo Hldgs Inc.,
`
`No. 3:19-cv-02659-JD, 2020 WL 1307016 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020) .....ccceocvevreeerieieeiennens 1
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`
`930 F.3d 1295 (2019). .ottt ettt ettt et 3,6,7
`Trading Techs. Int’l v. CQG, Inc.,
`
`675 F. App’X 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) eoiiiieieeieeeee ettt sttt 3
`
`il
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 4 of 16
`
`WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`854 F. App’X 367 (Fed. Cir. 2021) c.uoiiiiiiiieiieeie ettt ettt ettt e
`
`Yuv. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) oottt sttt
`
`il
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319
`
`Filed 11/27/24 Page 5 of 16
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Term Definition
`Apple Defendant Apple Inc.
`Carbyne Plaintiff Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
`’105 U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105
`138 U.S. Patent No. 11,514,138
`’010 U.S. Patent No. 9,972,010
`’656 U.S. Patent No. 10,713,656
`"886 U.S. Patent No. 11,526,886
`Fraud Patents The ’010, 656, and *886 patents
`
`Fraud Claims
`
`Claims 1, 6, and 9 of the 010 Patent;
`claims 1 and 8 of the *656 Patent, and
`claims 1, 12 and 14 of the ’886 Patent
`
`Authentication Patents
`
`The *105 and 138 patents
`
`Authentication Claims
`
`Claims 1, 7-8 and 25 of the *138 Patent
`and claims 1, 9, 14 and 35 of the 105
`Patent
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`The °105, 138, 010, *656, and 886
`patents
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`The Fraud Claims and Authentication
`Claims
`
`Brief
`
`Corrected Principal And Response Brief
`For Defendant/Cross-Appellant T-Mobile
`USA, Inc. at 58-59, Prism Technologies
`LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Nos. 16-2031,
`16-2049 (Fed. Cir.) (filed Sept. 22, 2016)
`
`Motion / Mot.
`
`Dkt. No. 183 - Defendant’s Motion For
`Summary Judgment Of Invalidity For
`Lack Of Subject Matter Eligibility Under
`35U.S.C. § 101
`
`Opposition / Opp.
`
`Dkt. No. 257 - Plaintiff Carbyne
`Biometrics, LLC’s Response To
`Defendant’s Motion For Summary
`Judgment Of Invalidity For Lack Of
`Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 6 of 16
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Exhibit Document
`
`Ex. A Deposition Transcript of Markus Jakobsson, Volume 1 (July 9, 2024)
`
`Ex. B U.S. Patent No. 11,475,105 (attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint)
`
`Ex. C U.S. Patent No. 11,514,138 (attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint)
`
`Ex. D U.S. Patent No. 9,972,010 (attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint)
`
`Ex. E U.S. Patent No. 10,713,656 (attached as Exhibit E to the Complaint)
`
`Ex. F U.S. Patent No. 11,526,886 (attached as Exhibit F to the Complaint)
`
`Ex. G Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,972,010, retrieved
`from the website of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Ex. H Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 11,526,886, retrieved
`from the website of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Ex. 1 Corrected Principal And Response Brief For Defendant/Cross-Appellant
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. at 58-59, Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA,
`Inc., Nos. 16-2031, 16-2049 (Fed. Cir.) (filed Sept. 22, 2016)
`
`Ex.J Opening Expert Report of Dr. Edward Dunstone on Invalidity
`
`Ex. K Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Eric Cole on Validity
`
`Ex. L Exhibit G to Carbyne’s Final Infringement Contentions
`
`Ex. M Deposition Transcript of Dr. Mark Jones, Volume 1 (Oct. 1, 2024)
`
`Ex. N Appendix A to Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Mark Jones on Validity
`
`Ex. O Opening Expert Report of Dr. Seth Nielson on Invalidity
`
`Ex. P Appendix H to Opening Expert Report of Dr. Mark Jones on Infringement
`
`Ex. Q Opening Expert Report of Dr. Mark Jones on Infringement
`
`Ex. R Carbyne’s Proposed Jury Instructions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 7 of 16
`
`Carbyne’s Opposition misstates the legal standards on patent eligibility, ignores binding
`precedent, mischaracterizes the claims when it comes to Alice Step 1, and fails to address Apple’s
`Step 2 arguments. As a matter of law and based on the undisputed facts, the claims are ineligible.
`
`L CARBYNE ASSERTS AN INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Contrary to Carbyne’s arguments, Step 1 in this case is a question of law not subject to the
`“clear and convincing” standard. See Rothschild Dig. Confir’n v. Skedulo Hldgs Inc., No. 3:19-
`cv-02659-JD, 2020 WL 1307016, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020); Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd., 564
`U.S.91, 114-115 (2011) (Breyer, J. concurring); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018) (only fact questions subject to clear and convincing standard). And at Step 2, courts
`
`113
`
`look for “additional features” beyond the abstract idea that “‘transform the nature of the claim’
`into a patent-eligible application”; the abstract idea cannot itself supply the inventive concept.
`Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 221 (2014). Although the “well-understood,
`routine, and conventional” test is one way to show the absence of an inventive concept, Opp. at 3,
`
`that is not the only way. Id. at 221-24 (summarizing inventive concept jurisprudence).
`
`II. APPLE DID NOT ARGUE REPRESENTATIVENESS
`
`Carbyne’s arguments are irrelevant. Apple does not argue that any claim is representative,
`and it addressed all Asserted Claims. Apple described all limitations of the Asserted Claims in
`the background sections, Mot. at 2-3, 9-10, then applied them at Steps 1 and 2. Mot. at 3-15.
`
`III. THE FRAUD PATENTS DO NOT CLAIM ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
`A. Alice Step 1: The Fraud Patents Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`Carbyne implicitly agrees Alice Step 1 is a question of law for which there are no disputed
`facts—because Carbyne cites no facts. Opp. at 6-10. Under the operative case law, including
`Carbyne’s cases, the Fraud Claims are directed to an abstract idea, whether that identified by
`
`Apple, Mot. at 3-7, or Carbyne, Ex. R at 3 (Carbyne’s proposed jury instructions stating the Fraud
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 8 of 16
`
`Patents “generally describe reducing fraud through the use of a user interface and collection and
`analysis of a user’s biometric information and, sometimes, the collection of location data.”).
`
`Carbyne fails to distinguish most of Apple’s cited cases. Compare Mot. at 4-7 (citing Elec.
`Power; Yu; Intell. Ventures; Blue Spike; NEXRF'; Front Row Techs.; GeoComply; DropBox;
`Berkheimer), with Opp. at 6-10. Apple explained that, just as in Cybersource, the claims here can
`be performed mentally, Mot. at 6, and Carbyne’s cursory treatment of Cybersource does not
`address Apple’s argument. Opp. at 9 (characterizing Cybersource claims as failing to provide a
`technological solution rather than addressing mental processes). Carbyne attempts to distinguish
`USR and FairWarning by arguing the claims “include a technological improvement”—but the
`claims here do not support Carbyne’s arguments. For example, Carbyne contends the claims
`“recite a specific technological improvement to the biometric analysis itself,” Opp. at 8-9 (first
`emphasis added), but the claims recite no such technological improvement and do not explain how
`to perform such a determination at all. *010, Cls. 1 (“determin[ing], based at least in part on the
`captured biometric information, that the user is alive), 9; °656 CI. 1; ’886 CI. 1. This is not merely
`an issue of enablement—the patents neither claim nor disclose any technical improvement for
`determining whether a user is alive. Similarly, Carbyne contends the claims recite a “customized
`graphical user interface,” Opp. 9 (discussing USR) but the Fraud Claims do not improve how users
`graphically interact with the device—they just require display of a likeness. Affinity Labs v.
`Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“customized user interface” based on
`“information known about the user” “is an abstract idea ... as old as providing different newspaper
`inserts for different neighborhoods”).
`
`Carbyne’s cases cited in connection with the Fraud Patents, Opp. 7, are also readily
`
`distinguishable. Unlike the Fraud Claims, the claims in those cases “focus[ed] ... on specific
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 9 of 16
`
`improvements” to the way that users graphically interacted with a device. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For example, in Core Wireless, the claims
`required “a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed,” “restrain[ed] the
`type of data that can be displayed in the summary window” for user selection, and “require[d] that
`the device applications exist in a particular state”—all driving at improving the usability of the
`interface. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v L.G. Elecs., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir.
`2018). And in Trading Techs., the claims improved the “speed, accuracy and usability” of “prior
`graphical user interface devices” with “no ‘pre-electronic trading analog.”” Trading Techs. Int’l
`v. COG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001, 1004-05 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Fraud Claims offer no
`improvement to the graphical interface, making these cases inapplicable.
`
`The claims at issue in Ancora Techs. and SRI International likewise concerned specific
`improvements to computer functionality that the claims here lack. Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC
`Am., Inc. 908 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims recited “a structure containing a license
`record ... stored in a particular [memory location], and the structure [there] is used for verification
`by interacting with the distinct computer memory that contains the program to be verified” to
`decrease vulnerability to hacking); SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (2019)
`(claims recited “using network monitors to detect suspicious network activity based on analysis of
`network traffic data, generating reports of that suspicious activity, and integrating those reports
`using hierarchical monitors” to “provid[e] a network defense system ... to automatically detect
`large-scale attacks™). There is no equivalent here: as discussed above the claims do not recite a
`specific improvement to any technology, and even Carbyne concedes the claims are directed to
`“address[ing] both fraud deterrent factors” (factors that existed prior to computers) in the context
`
`of electronic transactions. Opp. at 6, 9. That is an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 214, 221 (claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 10 of 16
`
`reciting computer performing intermediated settlement directed to abstract idea).
`
`B. Alice Step 2: Fraud Patents Contain No Inventive Concept
`
`Carbyne fails to apply the correct legal standard, so its analysis is at best irrelevant. First,
`Carbyne fails to search for “additional features” beyond the abstract idea of collecting, receiving,
`and analyzing user information to enable a transaction. At best, Carbyne points to an “improved
`graphical user interface,” but the claims recite no technological improvement to a graphical user
`interface, and the mere concept of a customized user interface is itself abstract, not inventive.
`Affinity, 838 F.3d at 1271 (finding “customized user interface” “is an abstract idea”). Adding one
`abstract idea (the claimed graphical user interface) to another (the claimed fraud detection) does
`not yield an inventive concept. See ClearDoc, Inc. v. RiversideFM, Inc., No. 21-cv-1422, 2022
`WL 3355960, at *3 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2022) (combining abstract ideas not inventive). Aside from
`this combination of abstract ideas, Carbyne does not dispute that no claim element is inventive.
`Mot. at 7; Opp. at 10-11; Ex. J 49 950-964; Ex. K 99 692-699; Ex. A at 218:23-24.
`
`Second, because the inventive concept cannot be the abstract idea itself, and Carbyne
`identifies only abstract ideas in response, the Court does not need to reach the “well-understood,
`routine and conventional” test—Apple has shown the absence of an inventive concept as a matter
`of law. For example, Carbyne offers no new argument to rebut Apple’s showing that the claims
`do not “provide a technological solution...address[ing] a problem specifically arising in the realm
`of computers.” Mot. at 8; Opp. at 10-11 (“fail[s] for the same reasons”).
`
`IV. AUTHENTICATION CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE
`
`Carbyne asserts eight Authentication Claims, and Apple explained that each is patent
`ineligible. Mot. passim. Carbyne does not dispute that three of the challenged claims are patent
`ineligible, compare Opp., passim (not addressing *138 cl. 25 or *105 cls. 14, 35), with Mot 10 n.10,
`
`and instead addresses six unasserted claims. Opp at 5, 11-12 (discussing 105 cls. 10-11 and *138
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 11 of 16
`
`cls. 11-12, 23-24).
`A. Alice Step 1: The Authentication Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea
`
`Carbyne’s attempts to manufacture a nonabstract idea are untethered from the asserted
`claims and rely on arguments contrary to law. Under the operative case law, including that cited
`by Carbyne, the Authentication Claims are directed to an abstract idea. Mot. at 3-7.
`
`Carbyne primarily argues that the claims “implement[] unique hardware configurations.
`But Carbyne does not even identify any “unique hardware configuration.” Carbyne instead points
`to cryptographic keys! (Opp. at 11), which are generic, noninventive technology that is not itself
`patentable (nor is it hardware). See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., No. 17-cv-05934-YGR, 2021
`WL 1421612, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) (finding cryptographic authentication conventional
`and non-inventive). Storing and wiping client data is not a special hardware design, it “is a
`fundamental business practice that ‘existed well before the advent of computers,” and facilitating
`such acts “over the Internet” or upon display (i.e., remotely or automatically) does not render these
`concepts non-abstract. Mot. at 12; WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., 854 F. App’x 367, 371-72
`(Fed. Cir. 2021). The Authentication Claims do not recite an improvement to restricted interfaces
`to secure storage, and to the extent Carbyne now argues to the contrary (it is unclear, see Opp. 12),
`any such argument is belied by Carbyne’s other arguments, e.g., Carbyne’s expert relies on the
`well-known nature of this functionality to opine the claims are entitled to their priority date. Ex. P
`at 9 5 (a POSITA would understand the vault secure because access limited by a restricted
`interface), 6 (a POSITA would understand the well-known “restricted API” “to disclose a
`
`restricted interface”). Carbyne mischaracterizes the *105’s same brand backup limitation; the *105
`
`! Carbyne’s argument that the steps cannot be performed on pen and paper is premised on the
`wrong question. That is, rather than ask how long it would take to calculate “output” based on a
`known cryptographic key as claimed, Carbyne asks how long it would take to try all permutations
`of cryptographic key. Opp. at 13. As that is not claimed, it is irrelevant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 12 of 16
`
`claims do not claim a second device, let alone “continuity between [devices] handling a user’s
`authentication information.” Compare Opp. at 13, with Ex. B, Cls. 1, 9, 14, 35. Nor does reciting
`a generic processor or storage (Opp. at 14) render a claim nonabstract. Mot. at4; Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021). One claim recites no hardware. Ex. B, CI. 35.
`
`Tellingly, Carbyne attempts to distinguish only three of the fourteen cases Apple relies on
`at Step 1. Mot. 10-13. And Carbyne addresses with a single, conclusory sentence Prism and
`USR——cases that Apple showed control the outcome here. Opp. at 13; Mot at 10-12. Those cases
`involved generalized, functional limitations strikingly similar to the asserted claims here, but
`Carbyne does not attempt to distinguish the claim language itself. Opp. at 13; Mot. at 3-5, 10-13.
`Carbyne does not even map its purported hardware configurations to the limitations at issue in the
`cases it cites (Amdocs and SRI), presumably because the claims at issue in those cases actually
`recited a technological improvement to a computer problem, unlike the claims here. As for
`biometric authentications, Carbyne does not distinguish Blue Spike. See Mot. at 5-6, 12-13.
`
`Carbyne later appears to concede that the claims “do not purport to improve upon
`techniques for backing up, storing, and wiping” and “use generic components,” but incorrectly
`maintains that the claims are not abstract so long as they “improve[] the security of the computer
`system.” Opp. at 14. “[[Jmproving security ... can be a non-abstract computer-functionality
`improvement” (i.e., is not necessarily non-abstract) “if done by a specific technique that departs
`from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem. Ancora, 908 F.3d at 1348 (emphasis
`added). But the claims here recite no such “specific technique,” and Carbyne’s arguments to the
`contrary rely on abstract ideas or mischaracterizations of the claims as addressed above. Carbyne’s
`other cases are inapposite because the claims do not recite a specific means of improving the
`
`relevant hardware configurations or preventing the normal, expected operation of conventional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 13 of 16
`
`components. See SRI Int’l, 930 F.3d at 1304 (distinguishing claims from the abstract idea because
`the claims “prevent the normal, expected operation of a conventional computer network™); Amdocs
`(Israel) Ltd. v Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (not involving security
`of computer or computer network); Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143,
`1151 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (assessing whether the claims focused on a specific means that improved
`the relevant technology or were instead directed to a result that itself was the abstract idea). In
`other words, Carbyne has not identified any “significant technical aspects” overlooked by the
`abstract idea identified by Apple. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`B. Alice Step 2: The Authentication Patents Lack Any Inventive Concept
`
`2 ¢
`
`Apple’s Motion showed that the claims’ “additional features” are not inventive because
`they do not claim an improvement to computer functionality; recite generic and conventional
`hardware and routine functions; and are not rooted in computer technology to address a problem
`specifically arising from computer networks. Mot. at 13-15. Carbyne offers nothing new to rebut
`that showing. See Opp. at 15 (“fails for the same reasons”). Because the inventive concept cannot
`be the abstract idea itself (supra § I11.B), and Carbyne identifies only abstract ideas in response
`(supra § IV.A), the Court need not reach the “well-understood, routine and conventional test” or
`leave it for the jury—Apple has shown the absence of an inventive concept as a matter of law.
`Because the claims as a matter of law provide no improvements to computer functionality, Apple
`has shown no inventive concept exists. Mot. 8-9.
`
`Separately, there is no factual dispute that, when the abstract idea is removed from the
`claims, the remaining subject matter is “routine and conventional,” and Carbyne’s allegations to
`
`the contrary mischaracterize the record. Dr. Jones identifies no inventive concept. Mot. 14.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should find all Asserted Claims invalid under § 101.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 14 of 16
`
`Dated: November 20, 2024
`
`/s/ Andrew Radsch
`
`Brian C. Nash
`
`Regan J. Rundio
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`300 Colorado St., Suite 1800
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Tel: (512) 617-0650
`
`Fax: (737) 910-0730
`
`Email: BNash@mofo.com
`
`Email: Rrundio@mofo.com
`
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
`Andrew Radsch
`
`James Mack
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`1900 University Avenue
`
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`
`Email: James.Batchelder@ropesgray.com
`Email: Andrew.Radsch@ropesgray.com
`Email: James.Mack@ropesgay.com
`
`Cassandra Roth (pro hac vice)
`
`Rachael Bacha (pro hac vice)
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`
`Tel: (212) 596-9000
`
`Fax: (212) 596-9090
`
`Email: Cassandra.Roth@ropesgray.com
`Email: Rachael.Bacha@ropesgray.com
`
`Allen S. Cross (pro hac vice)
`
`Nicole S. L. Pobre (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Tel: (202) 508-4600
`
`Fax: (202) 508-4650
`
`Email: Allen.Cross@ropesgray.com
`Email: Nicole.Pobre@ropesgray.com
`
`S. Lara Ameri (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Tower
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 15 of 16
`
`800 Boylston Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`Tel: (617) 951-7000
`Fax: (617) 951-7050
`Email: Lara. Ameri(@ropesgray.com
`
`Jeffrey T. Quilici
`
`TX State Bar No. 24083696
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`200 W. 6th Street, Suite 2250
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Tel: (512) 582-6950
`
`Fax: (512) 582-6949
`
`Email: jquilici@orrick.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 319 Filed 11/27/24 Page 16 of 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing
`
`document via electronic mail on November 20, 2024
`
`/s/ Andrew Radsch
`Andrew Radsch
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`