[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Our final case for argument today is 22-2272, Mira Advanced Technology Systems versus Goodall.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Mr. Ma, please proceed when you're ready.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
May I please the court?

[00:00:12] Speaker 00:
My name is JD Ma.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
I'm on behalf of the Mira Advanced Technology Systems.

[00:00:18] Speaker 00:
This case has only one issue right now, basically, is the patent eligibility issue.

[00:00:28] Speaker 00:
And it involves a technology that actually would not come until after the internet and the mobile devices.

[00:00:37] Speaker 00:
So it's not a case of doing something that has been around for many, many years before internet age or network age.

[00:00:46] Speaker 00:
And the technology is something like this.

[00:00:49] Speaker 00:
A reminder is that with regard to location, and when the user brings their mobile device,

[00:00:57] Speaker 00:
which matches the GPS coordinates, a reminder will pop up.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
And conceptually, it's a very quick concept.

[00:01:07] Speaker 00:
However, there's one element that can have millions, or merits of implementations, which is the GPS setting.

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
The reason why this element... When you say there's one element, the GPS setting, the problem is you've defined the GPS setting

[00:01:23] Speaker 04:
as including, you said in your brief, everything in italics.

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
And that was like so much of a claim.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
And this is a very long claim.

[00:01:31] Speaker 04:
What exactly is the element within claim one which maps to the GPS setting?

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
How can I understand?

[00:01:39] Speaker 00:
You can only understand by functions in a nutshell.

[00:01:45] Speaker 00:
Basically, the purpose is that a user

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
can set, for example, a GPS coordinate for a location.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
Like an example of a location, GPS information is 77.12345.

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
When you say, I can only understand it by, you're not actually focusing on the claim language, which I was kind of hoping you would do, but when you say that I can only understand it by functions,

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
Suggesting first off that seems to be the mission which I think is correct that there is no special technology here GPS setting element is not some special new piece of hardware for example with you know something specialized about it right.

[00:02:28] Speaker 00:
Well, the GPS capturing does have a device called a GPS chip.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
So in other words, an onboard GPS will... You didn't invent that.

[00:02:37] Speaker 00:
No, no, no, no.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
Absolutely not.

[00:02:38] Speaker 00:
That's in the cell phone, right?

[00:02:39] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
That's in the cell phone.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
Exactly, but... Are you just talking about basically... I mean, there may be other things, but if you want to set a reminder to get milk at the Safeway, you look up the Safeway's address, you put it in, and when you bring the phone to the Safeway, a reminder will pop up and say, get milk.

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
Well, that's the end result, but the process is not that simple.

[00:03:01] Speaker 00:
For example, there's this element, GPS setting element, the reason why it's indispensable is because you have to preset it.

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
Because if you don't preset it, then there's no reminder will pop up.

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
But the problem is presetting is not that straightforward.

[00:03:16] Speaker 02:
For example, an easiest way of doing... What do you mean the user presets the GPS setting?

[00:03:24] Speaker 00:
Yeah, the use presets, the GPS coordinates.

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
Yeah, by using the functionality, let's just talk about using a cell phone.

[00:03:32] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
Using the functionality that's already in a cell phone, right?

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
Right, the cell phone knows if you enter an address, you can assign a GPS coordinate.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
Well, the problem is, I don't mean to interrupt, the problem is the cell phone doesn't have that functionality.

[00:03:48] Speaker 00:
The only functionality at the time the cell phone has is

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
you know, it can capture the GPS coordinates when you walk to that location.

[00:03:58] Speaker 00:
And then the software will say, hey, now are you in this location?

[00:04:02] Speaker 00:
Yes, I am.

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
Okay, now I'm going to get the data from the GPS onboard.

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
And then that will avoid the user from typing 77.12345 or 72.1285 because that's a lot of burden, you know.

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
This is in the prior.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
The reason why this is so irrelevant or so relevant to them.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
Are you saying this patent invented the idea of inputting GPS coordinates into a phone in advance of being at those GPS coordinates?

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
I beg your pardon?

[00:04:39] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to figure out what you said you invented and you're talking about pre-setting.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
But what is pre-setting?

[00:04:45] Speaker 02:
Isn't it just entering an address in the phone and then the phone talks to some kind of database?

[00:04:51] Speaker 02:
You didn't invent that database, right?

[00:04:53] Speaker 00:
Well, no, no, absolutely not.

[00:04:55] Speaker 00:
You see, that precisely tells us.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
No, no, no.

[00:04:59] Speaker 02:
Let me finish.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
Did you invent the idea of the phone talking to that database in advance of going to the store?

[00:05:05] Speaker 00:
No, absolutely not.

[00:05:07] Speaker 00:
Absolutely not.

[00:05:08] Speaker 00:
What did you invent then?

[00:05:10] Speaker 00:
What's invented is that the user doesn't really have to walk to that location using the GPS coordinates to capture the location so that the software can set the... Well, that's what I just asked.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
Look, if I use the search engine and look up an address on my phone.

[00:05:28] Speaker 00:
You can do that.

[00:05:28] Speaker 00:
Then you will take five steps.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
This is what you do.

[00:05:31] Speaker 00:
You're going to say, hey, let's type something that uniquely identifies this address or this location.

[00:05:37] Speaker 00:
Oh, then the Google will come up and say, hey, it is 72.134.

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
Then you've got to launch it using the interface that you type.

[00:05:45] Speaker 00:
The latitude is 72.1234, the longitude is 73.1234.

[00:05:49] Speaker 00:
But that's burdensome.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
That is burdensome.

[00:05:52] Speaker 00:
That is why the Pryor think of everything they can do so that the user does not have to type there.

[00:05:59] Speaker 00:
The way they came up with is that the user can only walk to that location beforehand before they can complete that GPS setting.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
No, you don't.

[00:06:13] Speaker 00:
You don't.

[00:06:13] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
You don't.

[00:06:16] Speaker 03:
You don't.

[00:06:20] Speaker 00:
Because it's something that is something that in the prior.

[00:06:25] Speaker 00:
Well, it may sound simple after the fact, but just like Judge Moore mentioned in another case before, you know, it may sound simple after the fact.

[00:06:34] Speaker 00:
But here the issue is that, you know,

[00:06:39] Speaker 00:
you know that system, that functionality has been around for five years and nobody really came up with something like that.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
But how is it anything other than just automating what people did in a manual world before the kind of thing that we've said is not eligible for patent?

[00:06:59] Speaker 00:
Because it's something that after the fact, people know it, but before the fact, people don't know it.

[00:07:05] Speaker 00:
And the best evidence is the prior, because that's what we focus on.

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
The prior doesn't have that feature, although they have every single opportunity to come up with it.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
That sounds like an obviousness.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
argument.

[00:07:16] Speaker 03:
How does that help you at step one or step two?

[00:07:19] Speaker 00:
What helps us is because that shows it's not something that has been around for many years before the internet.

[00:07:26] Speaker 00:
For example, like in the Bielski case, hedging has been around for thousands of years, right?

[00:07:30] Speaker 00:
So this is something that's after the internet age, there's already an established field.

[00:07:36] Speaker 00:
It's an existing field.

[00:07:37] Speaker 00:
So we made the improvement in that field.

[00:07:41] Speaker 00:
And English jurisprudence is our side.

[00:07:45] Speaker 00:
because an improvement put in fish is a very good indicator if not the absolute indicator to show that it's pattern eligible because we're not talking about our business here.

[00:07:59] Speaker 00:
We're not talking about how easy this function is.

[00:08:02] Speaker 00:
We're talking about eligibility.

[00:08:03] Speaker 02:
I'm so confused about what you said you've invented.

[00:08:06] Speaker 02:
Let me take one more stab at it.

[00:08:07] Speaker 02:
So we're talking about this, your invention is you can

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
preset the GPS coordinates without being there.

[00:08:16] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
How does it do that?

[00:08:18] Speaker 00:
Basically, the way to do that is through user interfaces, specifically Taylor, so that they can leverage the Geocode database, which has been around for many years.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
So here's the thing.

[00:08:33] Speaker 02:
That sounds like jargony stuff that doesn't mean anything to me.

[00:08:36] Speaker 02:
What do you mean using?

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
Because the database has been around.

[00:08:39] Speaker 02:
You didn't invent the GPS database.

[00:08:42] Speaker 00:
But the use of the GPS?

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
No, no, no.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
And you didn't invent the idea of setting a reminder to buy something when you go someplace.

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
I mean, I do that with a piece of paper, or now I do it on my iPhone with the notes section.

[00:08:57] Speaker 02:
But you didn't invent that.

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
So what you invented is instead of looking up the GPS coordinates, you do some other thing and it translates it to the GPS coordinates?

[00:09:09] Speaker 00:
What we invented is an easy way to utilize what's already around so that the user can... That sounds like an idea.

[00:09:16] Speaker 02:
an abstract idea.

[00:09:18] Speaker 00:
That's not because we're in an existing field.

[00:09:20] Speaker 00:
That's an improvement in an existing field.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
I said I was going to give it one more try.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
Say specifically

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
without jargony interfaces or things, what you invented?

[00:09:33] Speaker 00:
What we invented is a way that the user doesn't have to travel to the location and can comfortably use their mobile device to somehow leverage something existing already and then have the data stored in that entry.

[00:09:49] Speaker 02:
Somehow, someway leverage something

[00:09:52] Speaker 02:
I mean, you can't even define what you invented with any specificity.

[00:09:57] Speaker 02:
It's the abstract idea of using pre-existing technology to identify a location in advance.

[00:10:05] Speaker 00:
Well, the... You didn't actually... How specifically?

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
It's very broad.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
To the extent you've said anything, you've said very broad functional ideas without explaining it.

[00:10:16] Speaker 02:
And whenever we see very broad functional language to do it on pre-existing computer equipment, it's ineligible, isn't it?

[00:10:24] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honour.

[00:10:26] Speaker 00:
Actually, it's very specific in the claim language.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
So that's why the devil is in all the details.

[00:10:32] Speaker 00:
Here's the thing if there's no Claim language rather you can say what you said if but but but here's the thing is that?

[00:10:40] Speaker 00:
Just you have this geocode database is not enough you have to contact you have to present a user interface so to guide the user so the user eventually will come to a screen where they know that's exactly the

[00:10:53] Speaker 00:
uniquely identify the location and then once they hit that submit button then they will get whatever the number stored in that entry.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
If we disagree with you at step one and say it is an abstract idea, do you have any evidence, any allegation, any argument at step two that could save this?

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
Yes, we do, but our key strength is step one.

[00:11:18] Speaker 00:
For step two, yes I understand, for step two

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
uh... basically our argument is that it's that we would have a piece of evidence which is prior blasts that showed that uh... well that we showed that uh... what we did is that something that's well-understood into the convention and i think that he's a advises more and more than enough to show uh... is especially in the book i'm a was h p it's just the prior yes yes it is because that part of the exact same thing

[00:11:49] Speaker 00:
except the GPS setting element to the pattern that we apply.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:11:55] Speaker 04:
Okay, should we save the rest of your time for a bottle?

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
Okay Mr. Chask.

[00:12:09] Speaker 01:
Good morning and may it please the court.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
Andrew Trask for Google.

[00:12:13] Speaker 01:
Google explained in its briefing why the district court correctly determined that the claims of Myra's patent are ineligible under Section 101.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
And we also explained why the arguments Myra raised on appeal are also unavailing.

[00:12:25] Speaker 01:
I didn't hear anything today that required separate argument by Google.

[00:12:30] Speaker 01:
Of course, if the court has any questions at all about this case, I'd be happy to address them.

[00:12:34] Speaker 01:
Otherwise,

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
I have a few questions.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
So today I heard that the invention is maybe the user does not have to enter the GPS coordinates.

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
That may have been a new argument, but assuming you could tell me if it's not in the record, but assuming that argument is before us, why does that not help them at step one and maybe at step two?

[00:12:58] Speaker 01:
So I don't think that that argument has been raised previously, but I don't think it changes the analysis.

[00:13:04] Speaker 01:
the uh... what what i heard myres council say which is that been their position all along is that the only advance uh... technology here the only claimed advance over the prior art which is the proper analysis under step one is removing the need for uh... someone to travel to the location in order to obtain gps coordinates and as it's been explained all along in this case

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
Prior technology involved physically traveling to a location of interest and then obtaining the GPS coordinates using standard smartphone GPS technology.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
What Myra now claims is that its advance over the prior art is removing the need to travel to that location and simply obtaining the GPS coordinates through a remote database, which is something that Myra also didn't invent.

[00:13:53] Speaker 04:
It's the same act of acquiring the GPS coordinates, whether you... Just out of curiosity, I mean, is it basically like this GPS database I book up Safeway?

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
I mean, the average person, me, I don't know GPS coordinates for the Safeway, so I don't know them in terms of longitude and latitude.

[00:14:09] Speaker 04:
So out of curiosity, how does it work?

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
I understand, you know, cell phone, you get there and it recognizes you're there, but what is this

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
geodatabase, and how exactly under this patent do they, does it allow the user to access those codes in advance through the preset process?

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:14:28] Speaker 01:
So the geocode database is a listing of addresses or store names along with accompanying GPS data.

[00:14:41] Speaker 01:
This is something that existed in the prior art.

[00:14:43] Speaker 01:
It was known to be used remotely with a smartphone.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
And so a user could, for example, enter Safeway, a particular Safeway, and then retrieve the GPS coordinates that are corresponding to that Safeway from the geocode database.

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
This is technology that was known and conventional in the prior art.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
So you just type in the address, and the cell phone knows to contact the database and get the GPS coordinates.

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
Exactly, exactly.

[00:15:11] Speaker 01:
It's a remote database with location information for addresses and corresponding GPS coordinates.

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
So the claim to advance over the prior art here is instead of going to the location and having your phone detect the GPS coordinates of the Safeway.

[00:15:26] Speaker 02:
But they didn't invent the database.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
Did they invent the idea of getting the GPS coordinates in advance of going to?

[00:15:37] Speaker 02:
And if they did, is that just an abstract idea, or is that a tangible improvement?

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
So I don't think Judge Hughes that they even invented the idea of obtaining the GPS coordinates from a remote database.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
And the patent itself, which can be considered an emotion to dismiss, acknowledges this.

[00:15:55] Speaker 01:
So it's appendix 127, column 3, approximately line 20.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
The patent says,

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
in communication devices without I think it's a typo here it should say GPS receiver GPS coordinates corresponding to physical address contained in contact list can be obtained from one of existing providers via a web server so the patent itself is acknowledging that there are existing providers at the time they could allow you to query the database and return GPS coordinates this is not something that's alleged in the

[00:16:31] Speaker 01:
in the complaint or in the patent to be something that's new or in advance over the prior art.

[00:16:38] Speaker 01:
The only alleged advance here is not obtaining GPS coordinates but rather removing the need to physically travel to the location.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
And frankly, this is something

[00:16:47] Speaker 01:
that happens all the time without computers at all.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
If I'm leaving the house with my son to run errands and I say, hey, as we're leaving the house, remind me to pick up milk when we get to Safeway.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
I have set a location-based reminder without traveling to the Safeway to obtain that location.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
So this is fundamentally an abstract idea.

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
There's no

[00:17:07] Speaker 01:
There's no plausible advance in computer technology under step one or under step two, Judge Starr.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
What is your understanding of this step two argument based on the Blass prior art reference?

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
I think the argument under step two is that the technology embodied by the claims is somehow not well understood routine and conventional because it's not in the prior art.

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
That is not the test that this court applies.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
The question is whether there is any

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
advanced in computer technology embodied by the claims that amounts to an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself.

[00:17:47] Speaker 01:
And the components here, of course, are admittedly disclosed in the prior art.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
The database is obviously kind of the crux to what Myra is arguing here.

[00:17:58] Speaker 01:
This court's cases say repeatedly, the Intellectual Ventures versus Erie case says, sending and receiving information to execute a database search is a routine computer function and no more than the performance of well-understood routine and conventional activities.

[00:18:12] Speaker 01:
The patent at issue in that Intellectual Ventures case had a 1999 priority date.

[00:18:17] Speaker 01:
The patent here has a 2008 priority date, almost a decade later.

[00:18:21] Speaker 01:
So this court has repeatedly held that basic functionality like databases is insufficient to supply

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
well-understood non-routine technology under step two.

[00:18:34] Speaker 01:
And even cases like the OIP versus Amazon case said relying on a computer to perform a routine task more quickly or more accurately is insufficient under step two.

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
And that's exactly what's happening here.

[00:18:46] Speaker 03:
One thing I thought was curious about the district court's opinion was it seemed to rely pretty heavily on district court decisions and even referred to them as authority in this circuit.

[00:18:58] Speaker 03:
Is that how Google argued in the district court?

[00:19:01] Speaker 03:
That is, relying on district court decisions as opposed to our many, many federal circuit decisions at this point under Allison Mayo?

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor.

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
We cited a number of federal circuit cases, many of the same cases that we cited in the briefing,

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
to this court, demonstrating why claims that are similar to Myra's are abstract under Section 101.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
We did also cite to one district court case, the Cal Amp case from the Eastern District of Virginia, which is where this case originated before it was transferred to the Southern District of New York.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
We cited that case not because it was binding on the district court.

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
It's certainly not binding on this court.

[00:19:36] Speaker 01:
But the claims are very similar from a technological standpoint to the claims at issue here.

[00:19:41] Speaker 01:
They involve monitoring the location

[00:19:44] Speaker 01:
of a smart device, detecting when it enters a location of interest, and then retrieving information from a remote database.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
So quite similar to what's at issue here, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia invalidated those claims under Section 101.

[00:19:58] Speaker 01:
The case settled before it got up on appeal to this court.

[00:20:01] Speaker 01:
But we cited that case not because it was somehow binding on the Southern District of New York,

[00:20:05] Speaker 01:
but simply because it was what we viewed as a highly analogous case.

[00:20:08] Speaker 01:
But the district court's reliance on other district court cases in its opinion, we don't view as problematic.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
This court often looks to technology in other cases that is kind of similar to determine whether it may be valid under Section 101.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
And I think that's what

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
the district court did here.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
It certainly was also citing Federal Circuit cases.

[00:20:27] Speaker 01:
And many of the citations to district court cases were instances where the district court was quoting Federal Circuit case law as well.

[00:20:39] Speaker 01:
Nothing further.

[00:20:40] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor, for your time.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I'll make it really quick.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
First, let me address my colleague's mention about he and his son will routinely go to a supermarket, write down something, and then somehow they're going to be reminded.

[00:21:04] Speaker 00:
That actually only proves our point, because if he was doing that pre-internet, pre-network, then that's not applicable to this case.

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
But if he's doing that post-internet, post-network, that proves our point, because at that time,

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
this field has been established, and there's already prior, which is what he did, what my colleague did, and we just improve that so that the user doesn't have to physically travel to that location or write down something.

[00:21:37] Speaker 00:
They can just directly, from the comfort of their home, and just using what we already got, for example, the Geocode database, the concept of communication through networking,

[00:21:48] Speaker 00:
and also the concept of user interface to provide something, and when that incorporates into the software associated with the reminder entry, and boom, an application was born.

[00:21:58] Speaker 00:
Although it sounds simple, but that should be an issue of obviousness or anticipation, but it shouldn't be an issue of patent eligibility, because Infish made it very clear, and in fact, if this decision is not reversed, it runs contrary to Infish, which is,

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
If in an existing field, networking technology, if an improvement is clearly made without any question, an improvement is made, and that's patent eligible.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
It may not be obvious.

[00:22:29] Speaker 00:
It may not meet the criteria of obviousness, or not obviousness, or anticipation.

[00:22:34] Speaker 00:
But at least for that issue of patent eligibility, it is patent eligible.

[00:22:39] Speaker 00:
So we urge this court follow the Infish and other jurisprudence

[00:22:45] Speaker 00:
and reverse the district court's decision on this issue.

[00:22:51] Speaker 04:
Thank you.