[PROPOSED] ORDER AND JUDGMENT The Court, having read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this action, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, the applicable law, and the arguments of counsel made at any hearing on the motion

Id. at 3228-229, 3231 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 273(b)(1)). Rather, the Supreme Court confirmed that eligibility of methods for patenting under § 101 could be determined by the definition of “process” contained in 35 U.S.C. § 100(b), together with guidance from the Supreme Court’s prior decisions in Benson, Flook and Diehr. 10

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jennifer H. Doan Jennifer H. Doan Texas Bar No. 08809050 HALTOM & DOAN 6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100 Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 255-1000 Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com Brent D. McCabe Texas Bar No. 24088004 HALTOM & DOAN Preston Park Financial Center West 4975 Preston Park Blvd., Suite 625 West Plano, TX 75093 Telephone: (469) 814-0433 Facsimile: (469) 814-0422 Email: bmccabe@haltomdoan.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GIFTPORTS, INC. Case 2:15-cv-00264-JRG-RSP Document 21 Filed 05/28/15 Page 24 of 25 PageID #: 407 REURGED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 101 – Page 21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail, return receipt requested, on this the 28th day of May, 2015.

27 28 -19- SAMSUNG’S MOT FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED ON 35 U.S.C. § 101; CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00539-EDL V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant Samsung’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings because each claim of the ’797 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patent-eligible subject matter. Date: April 21, 2015 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. /s/ Wasif Qureshi Wasif Qureshi Attorneys for Defendants SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 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 28 -20- SAMSUNG’S MOT FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED ON 35 U.S.C. § 101; CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00539-EDL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed Samsung Defendants’ Notice Of Motion And Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Based On 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Unpatentable Subject Matter) with the clerk of court for the United States District Court, Northern District of California, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to all attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means.

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants’ motion should be denied. DATED: July 24, 2014 Respectfully submitted, MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP By: /s/ Mark S. Raskin Mark S. Raskin John F. Petrsoric Eric P. Berger RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster Irene Y. Lee Attorneys for Plaintiff McRo, Inc., d.b.a. Planet Blue Case 2:12-cv-10322-GW-FFM Document 344 Filed 07/24/14 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:4466 PLANET BLUE’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF UNPATENTABILITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. §101 24 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 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 24, 2014, the foregoing document was filed electronically via the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System (ECF). Notice of the filing is being served upon all counsel of record automatically through Notice of Electronic Filing.

See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1978) (“Very simply, our holding today is that a claim for an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end use, is unpatentable subject matter under § 101.”). In identifying the abstract idea, the defendants are not, as Blackbird argues, disregarding certain claim elements. The defendants are following Federal Circuit precedent that instructs courts to “look at the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art to determine if the claim's character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”

VI. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, 3DLabs respectfully requests that the Court grant 3DLabs’ motion for summary judgment that claims 1, 4, and 5 of the ‘679 patent and claims 1 and 12 of the ‘047 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the alternative, 3DLabs respectfully requests that the Court stay this case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski.

71. The ‘903 patent is invalid under, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101-103, 112. Answer: Denied.

13 11 All of the claims at issue here were issued under the formerly-applicable “useful, concrete and tangible result” test from State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Since then, the test has been expressly overruled by the Federal Circuit in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 959-60 & n.19 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added) (stating “the ‘useful, concrete and tangible result’ inquiry is inadequate . . . [and this] analysis should no longer be relied on.”)), and the Supreme Court agreed, holding that “nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of § 101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past,” specifically citing State Street as an example. Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231. 12 There are no particular machines disclosed in the specification to which the claims could be tethered.

lly submitted, /s/ Andrew M. Howard Andrew M. Howard Jill F. Kopeikin (State Bar No. 160792) jkopeikin@gcalaw.com Valerie M. Wagner (State Bar No. 173146) vwagner@gcalaw.com GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP 2570 W. El Camino Real, Suite 500 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 428-3900 Facsimile: (650) 428-3901 Andrew M. Howard (Texas 24059973)* SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 593-9110 Facsimile: (214) 593-9118 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Plaintiff ROTHSCHILD STORAGE RETRIEVAL INNOVATIONS, LLC PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED ON 35 U.S.C. § 101 16 3:15-cv-00539-EDL 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 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I electronically filed Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Samsung Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 with the clerk of court for the United States District Court, Northern District of California, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to all attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means.