Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Trulia Zillow Suit

Trulia Zillow Suit

Ratings: (0)|Views: 16,404|Likes:
Published by John Cook

More info:

Published by: John Cook on Jan 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

01/28/2013

pdf

text

original

 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627
DEFENDANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORTOF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINTCase No. 2:12-cv-01549-JLR
W
ILSON
S
ONSINI
G
OODRICH
&R
OSATI
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
The Honorable James L. RobartUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT SEATTLEZILLOW, INC.,Plaintiff,vs.TRULIA, INC.,Defendant.Case No. 2:12-cv-01549-JLR
TRULIA, INC.’S REPLY BRIEFIN SUPPORT OF MOTION TODISMISS COMPLAINT FORPATENT INFRINGEMENT
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:January 25, 2013ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 24 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 16
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627
DEFENDANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORTOF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – Page iCase No. 2:12-cv-01549-JLR
W
ILSON
S
ONSINI
G
OODRICH
&R
OSATI
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1II. THE ’674 PATENT CLAIMS AN UNPATENTABLE ABSTRACTIDEA...................................................................................................................................1A. The Federal Circuit Has Held Claim Construction Is Not aNecessary Prerequisite for Determining Section 101 PatentEligibility. ...............................................................................................................1B. Consideration of the ’674 Patent as a Whole Confirms it Claimsan Unpatentable Abstract Idea................................................................................3C. Both the Machine-or-Transformation and Preemption TestsDemonstrate the ’674 Patent is Invalid Under Section 101....................................51. The ’674 patent would preempt any property valuationsthat consider homeowner input...................................................................52. The ’674 patent fails the machine-or-transformation test...........................6III. ZILLOW’S SUGGESTION TO DEFER RESOLUTION OF THISMOTION AND CONTINUE THE LITIGATION IS INEFFICIENTAND WOULD WASTE JUDICIAL AND PARTY RESOURCES..................................8IV. ZILLOW’S INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS MUST BEDISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET RULE 8’S PLEADINGREQUIREMENTS..............................................................................................................8A. Zillow Concedes No Allegations of Knowledge or Intent......................................8B. There Are No Allegations of Direct Infringement by a Third Party.....................10C. Substantial Noninfringing Use Cannot Be Inferred..............................................10V. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................11
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 24 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of 16
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627
DEFENDANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORTOF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT – Page iiCase No. 2:12-cv-01549-JLR
W
ILSON
S
ONSINI
G
OODRICH
&R
OSATI
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100Seattle, Washington 98104-7036Tel: (206) 883-2500 / Fax: (206) 883-2699
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
 Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.)
,687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 1, 2, 5
 Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
771 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (E.D. Mo. 2011)....................................................................................... 2
 Bilski v. Kappos
,130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)................................................................................................................ 5
Cal. Inst. of Computer Assisted Surgery, Inc. v. Med-Surgical Servs., Inc.
,No. C 10-05067 CW, 2011 WL 672709 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2011) ........................................... 9
CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.,
685 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 6
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
,654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 7
 Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber 
,674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 3, 7
 In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................. 9, 10
 In re Meyer 
,688 F.2d 789 (Fed. Cir. 1982)..................................................................................................... 5
 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp.
,398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................... 8
 Mallinckrodt Inc. v. E-Z-EM Inc.
,670 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Del. 2009)............................................................................................ 9
 Medtrica Solutions, LTD v. Cygnus Med., LLC 
,No. C12-538RSL, 2012 WL 5726799 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 15, 2012)................................... 9, 10
 MySpace, Inc. v. Graphon Corp.
,672 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 1, 3, 4
OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.
,No. C-12-1233 EMC, 2012 WL 3985118 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012)................................ 2, 6, 7
Parker v. Flook 
,437 U.S. 584 (1978)................................................................................................................... 5
Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC 
,657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 2
Case 2:12-cv-01549-JLR Document 24 Filed 01/25/13 Page 3 of 16

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->