Park Assist, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 26, 2019
• Docket: 3:18-cv-02068
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 ten □□□ [FILED]

.

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || PARK ASSIST, LLC, Case No.: 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD Plamntlls,| ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS? 13 |j V- MOTIONS TO DISMISS 14 || SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL [Docs. 25, 26] 15 AIRPORT AUTHORITY; ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Pending before the Court are the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants San Diego 19 {]County Regional Airport Authority and Ace Parking Management, Inc. [Docs. 24, 25.] 20 || For the following reasons, the motions are DENIED. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 This is a patent infringement action. Plaintiff Park Assist develops and sells a 23 |\camera-based parking guidance system for which it was issued Patent No. 9,594,956 (“the 24 ||‘956 Patent”) on March 17, 2017. Park Assist alleges that Defendants San Diego County 25 |}Regional Airport Authority (“the Airport Authority”) and Ace Parking Management, Inc. 26 ||have infringed and continue to infringe Park Assist’s ‘956 Patent by operating a 27 |jcompetitor’s parking guidance system at the Terminal 2 Parking Plaza. 28 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD

I The ‘956 Patent is entitled “Method and System for Managing a Parking Lot Based 2 Intelligent Imaging.” The ‘956 Patent specification provides context, acknowledging, 3 ||“The use of different sensor technologies [in a parking lot], such as ultrasonics or image 4 || processing is known.” Doc. 23-1 at 1:14-16. The specification goes on to provide that 5 ||known image processing “may determine occupancy of slots and provide the driver with 6 || guidance to available spaces either upon entry to the parking lot or by displays strategically 7 ||located within the lot.” /d. at 1:16-23. 8 The ‘956 Patent’s specification identifies various problems from which the prior 9 || known parking guidance systems suffer, including “not allow[ing] . . . the opportunity to 10 || preferentially charge the customer according to their parking location,” not “recogniz[ing] 11 |}unique aspects of the vehicle, such as... license plate,” and not “enabl[ing] remote viewing 12 ||of individual parking spaces, enabling human intervention to correct mistakes, □ □ . or 13 || provid[ing] real-time feedback to improve system accuracy.” ‘956 Patent, 1:24-27, 34-35, 14 ||38-41. The ‘956 Patent’s abstract provides that it is directed to solving these problems 15 |} with an improved method and system for managing a parking lot based on intelligent 16 |jimaging. fd. 17 The ‘956 Patent has two claims: independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. 18 || Independent claim | requires: 19 1. A method of managing a plurality of parking spaces, 20 comprising: (a) monitoring a parking space with an imaging device of an 21 imaging unit; 9 (b) detecting, by said imaging unit, occupancy of said parking space; . 23 (c) assigning said parking space, in which said occupancy was 74 detected, an occupied status, wherein said occupied status 1s indicated by illuminating a first color of a multicolor indicator 25 collocated with said imaging device, said first color predefined %6 to determine said occupied status; (d) obtaining, as a result of said parking space having said 27 occupied status, a single high resolution image of a vehicle 28 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDL

1 occupying said parking space, said high resolution image obtained by said imaging device; (e) storing at least part of said high resolution image on a storage 3 device; 4 (f} displaying a thumbnail image of said parking space on a graphic user interface (GUI), said thumbnail image digitally 5 processed from an image electronically communicated to said 6 GUI from said imaging unit; (g) deciding whether said occupied status is incorrect, based on 7 a visual review of said thumbnail image on said GUI; g (h) correcting said occupied status, by inputting computer- readable instructions to a computer terminal of said GUI, if said 9 parking space shown in said thumbnail image is vacant and said 10 computer terminal electronically communicating a command to toggle said multicolor indicator to illuminate a second color, said 11 second color predefined to indicate a vacant status; 2 (i) extracting from said high resolution image, by digital image processing, a permit identifier for said vehicle and comparing 13 said permit identifier with at least one parking permit 14 identification stored on said storage to determine a permit status of said parked vehicle; and 15 (j) initiating an infringement process for said vehicle having said 16 permit identifier that fails to coincide with at least one of said [sic?] at least one parking permit identification. i Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and narrows it by requiring the use of a self-modifying 18 . classification algorithm: 19 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said detecting includes 20 providing machine-readable code of a self-modifying 21 classification algorithm for assigning said respective statuses, the method further comprising: 22 (e) said system executing said machine-readable code to modify 73 said classification algorithm in response to said correcting. aA Il. DISCUSSION 25 Defendants move to dismiss this lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 12(b)(6), arguing the ‘956 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because its claims are 27 |i directed to unpatentable abstract ideas. At this early stage of the case, the Court disagrees. 28 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD

A. Legal Standards 2 Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new 3 useful process ... or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent 4 {|therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The 5 “process” “includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, 6 composition of matter, or material.” 35 U.S.C. § 100(b). Patent protection, however, does 7 ||not extend to patent ineligible concepts of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract 8 ||ideas, which are “building blocks of human ingenuity.” Alice Corp. Party Ltd. v. CLS 9 || Bank, Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). Accordingly, the Court must “distinguish between 10 patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the 11 |/building blocks into something more, thereby transforming them into a patent-eligible 12 |l/invention.” Jd. at 217 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To do so, the 13 |}Supreme Court has outlined a two-step process. See id. First, the Court must determine 14 || whether the claims at issue are “directed to” a patent ineligible concept. /d. Ifso, the Court 15 ||must next determine whether additional elements of the claim, both individually and as an 16 || ordered combination, produce an “inventive concept” by “transform[ing] the nature of the 17 ||claim into patent-eligible application.” Jd. If, however, the Court finds during the first 18 ||step that the claims are directed to a patent-eligible concept, the claims satisfy § 101, and 19 Court need not proceed to the second step. Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 20 || F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed, Cir. 2017). 21 The Court may resolve patent eligibility under § 101 on a motion to dismiss where 22 ||“there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question 23 ||as a matter of law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 24 |}1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[P]lausible factual allegations may preclude dismissing a case 25 |junder § 101 where, for example nothing on the record refutes those allegations as a matter 26 || of law or justifies dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).” Jd. (internal quotation marks omitted). 27 28 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD

] B. Alice Step One 2 In the first Alice step, the Court determines “whether the claims at issue are directed 3 a patent-ineligible concept,” e.g., an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 218. In doing so, 4 ||the Court “must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims because ‘[a]t some level, 5 inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural 6 || phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” TLI Communs. LLC v. AV Auto., LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 611 7 (Fed. Cir, 2016) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 217)). Thus, “[t]he inquiry often is whether 8 ||the claims are directed to ‘a specific means or method’ for improving technology or 9 || whether they are simply directed to an abstract end-result.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo 10 ||Co., Lid., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In other words, the Court looks to the 11 |)“focus” of the claims and their “character as a whole.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC vy. Alstom 12 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 13 Defendants contend the ‘956 Patent’s claims fail at step one because they are 14 ‘directed to the abstract concept of processing information, namely information derived 15 || from images of parking spaces.” Doc. 25-1 at 16. In support, Defendants argue that Claim 16 || 1 merely covers the gathering of information (“detecting, by said imaging unit,” “obtaining 17 ||... asingle high-resolution image,” and “extracting from said high resolution image... a 18 || permit identifier”); analyzing of information (“assigning . .. an occupied status,” “deciding 19 || whether said occupied status is incorrect,” and “comparing said permit identifier”); and 20 ||displaying, or transmitting, of the results (“illuminating a first color of a multicolor 21 |/indicator,” “displaying a thumbnail image,” and “initiating infringement process”). ‘956 22 Patent at 22:30-23:4. 23 From a bird’s-eye view, Defendants are correct that the ‘956 Patent’s claims involve 24 ||the unpatentable idea of gathering and processing information. Importantly, however, the 25 || fact that claims involve an abstract idea does not mean they are directed to an abstract idea. 26 || Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]t is 27 enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must 28 || determine whether the patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is ‘directed to.’”). The

3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDL

1 |;Court declines to evaluate the ‘956 Patent claims in the general manner proposed by 2 Defendants. See, e.g., Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 3 ||2017) (“We must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed 4 with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful.”). Instead, the 5 ||Court considers whether the claims and their “character as a whole,” considered in light of 6 ||the specification, are “drawn to the concept of” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 7 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 8 As Park Assist correctly argues, the ‘956 Patent’s claims are not abstract because 9 ||they are directed to specific improvements to known parking guidance systems.' First, the 10 || specification discloses several problems with prior art parking guidance systems, including 11 they only “provide the driver with guidance to available spaces either upon entry to 12 parking lot or by displays strategically located within the lot,” that they do “not allow 13 ||the parking lot proprietor the opportunity to preferentially charge the customer according 14 their parking location within the parking lot,” and that they do “not enable remote 15 || viewing of individual parking spaces, enabling human intervention to correct mistakes... 16 || or provide real-time feedback to improve system accuracy.” ‘956 Patent at 1:13-44. The 17 ||claims, read in light of the specification, purport to solve these problems by providing 18 || technical improvements through an improved “parking lot management system that relies 19 || on intelligent processing of images.” ‘956 Patent at 1:8-21. 20 21 ' For purposes of the § 101 analysis, neither party contends that claim construction 22 Jlis necessary to understand the improvements identified by Park Assist—the GUI, 23 ||correcting algorithm, and collocated imaging/indicator structure. See Doc. 36 at 3:23-24; Doc. 25-1 at 16:25-28; see also, e.g., Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of 24 |! Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273-73 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[C]laim construction is not an 25 |\inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.”). Because the Court agrees and finds claim construction would not assist the Court in resolving the § 101 challenge, it 26 proceeds to Alice step one. See also, e.g, CMG Financial Servs., Inc. v. Pacific Trust 27 || Bank, F.S.B., 50 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 1313 (C.D. Cal. 2014), aff'd, 616 F. App’x 420 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding the “[p]atent’s eleven Claims [we]re sufficiently straightforward that 28 || claim construction [wa]s not necessary to understand their content”). 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD

l For example, the claims and specification disclose technological improvements to 2 ||the graphic user interface (“GUI”), which improve the accuracy of the cameras detecting 3 determining whether a parking space is occupied: (1) an improved GUI providing thumbnail images and occupancy status 5 indicators of individual spaces for identification and correction of occupancy detection errors (id. at Claim 1(f)-(h); 16:9-17:32) and (2) a self-modifying correction algorithm to improve occupancy detection (id. at Claim 1(g)-(h) and Claim 2; 11:49-12:43; 16:25-17:54).

9 ||Figures 7 and 8, identified by the patent specification, show “web page user interfaces” 10 provide an improved arrangement of thumbnail images and occupancy indications to 11 |/“tun[e]... the automatic detection algorithm.” Jd. at 7:15-16, Figs. 7-8. Claim 1 requires 12 || that the user decide whether the camera’s determination of an occupied status is incorrect, 13 if incorrect, the user then corrects the occupied status. That correction enables the 14 || parking guidance system to adapt and learn from past errors so that the accuracy of the 15 || camera-based system improves. /d. at 6:1-5 (“In response to the corrections by the human 16 \|operator, the classification system modifies the classification algorithm to be more 17 ||accurate.”). In so doing, Claim 1’s improved GUI elements enhance the computer 18 ||technology further disclosed in dependent Claim 2 by adding an improved occupancy 19 || detection algorithm, 20 The specification teaches that the prior art did not enable the remote viewing of 21 |\parking spaces to allow human intervention to then correct mistakes and provide real-time 22 || feedback, thereby improving the system’s accuracy. /d.at 1:37-41. Thus, the specification 23 ||confirms that the claims disclose an improved system by allowing the parking guidance 24 || system to do things it could not do before—adapt and improve camera accuracy by using 25 || past detection error information. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 26 || 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding claims directed to a behavior-based virus scanning method 27 directed to patent eligible subject matter because they “employ[] a new kind of file that 28 |jenables a computer security system to do things it could not do before,” including 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD

1 ||“accumulatfing] and utilizfing] newly available, behavior-based information about 2 || potential threats”). 3 These improvements are similar to those found patentable by the Federal Circuit in 4 ||\Core v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There, much like Park 5 || Assist’s improved GUI, the patent’s claims were “directed to an improved user interface 6 computing devices.” Jd. at 1362. Although acknowledging that “the generic idea of 7 || summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention,” the Federal Circuit held 8 || the claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they “disclose[d] a specific manner 9 displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user 10 ||interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” /d. As a result, the Core 11 |/court held the claims were patentable because they were “directed to a particular manner 12 summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices . . . resulting in an 13 ||improved user interface for electronic devices.” Jd. Likewise, here, Park Assist’s patent 14 || discloses a particular manner of presenting parking occupancy information via its GUI— 15 || through an improved arrangement of thumbnail images and occupancy indications used for 16 ||“tuning ... the automatic detection algorithm.” 17 The ‘956 Patent’s collocated imaging devices and multicolor indicators are another 18 ||example of an improvement to prior art, including by “enabling preferential pricing for 19 jj parking based on location within the parking lot.” Jd. at 2:7-9. The imaging/indicator 20 || structure is claimed as a “multicolor indicator collocated with [an] imaging device.” ‘956 21 ||Patent at 22:37-43. The specification teaches that the structure may be mounted on a 22 parking facility’s ceiling and uses an imaging device to detect occupancy status coupled 23 || with an LED indicator to mark spaces red or green for occupied or unoccupied. Jd. at 7:61- 24 1/8:41, Figs. 2 and 3. Each imaging/indicator structure includes: “high intensity red, green 25 blue LED indicators 48 with diffuser, two high resolution, high sensitivity CMOS 26 |) multi-megapixel digital cameras 50, one or more 400 MHz ARM 9 processor . . . serial 27 |iports .. . [and] optional . . . (License Plate Recognition) software.” Jd. at 8:30-40. The 28 specification further provides that “each camera unit 16 can monitor one or more parking 3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDL.

1 |}spaces 15, either on opposing sides of the camera unit 16 or in side by side parking bays . 2 ||. . [such that] a single system of the present invention can monitor and control up to one 3 million individual parking spaces 15.” Id. at 8:22-26. There is no disclosure or suggestion 4 in the specification indicating that the claimed imaging/indicator structure is conventional, 5 || well-known, or off-the-shelf. 6 The described improvements to prior art parking guidance systems—the improved 7 ||GUI, correcting algorithm, and collocated imaging/indicator structure—adequately 8 || demonstrate that the ‘956 Patent’s claims are patent-eligible under step one of Alice. See 9 also, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding 10 claims reciting a self-referential table for a computer database were not abstract because 11 focused on “an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other 12 tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”); Thales Visionix Inc. v. United 13 || States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding claims reciting an improved method 14 || of using inertial sensors to determine position and orientation of an object on a moving 15 ||platform were not directed to an abstract idea because although the system used 16 ||conventional sensors, the claims specified a particular configuration of the sensors and a 17 particular method of using the raw data that eliminated many complications inherent in 18 || conventional methods). 19 Defendants’ authorities do not require a different conclusion. For example, although 20 || Defendants characterize the ‘956 Patent’s claims as “incredibly similar” to those in Open 21 || Parking, LLC v. ParkMe, Inc., 2016 WL 3547957 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2016), aff'd, 683 F. 22 || App’x 932 (Fed. Cir. 2017), that case is distinguishable. Like Park Assist’s patent, the 23 patents in Open Parking concemed a parking guidance system. In sharp contrast to Park 24 || Assist’s claims, however, the Open Parking claims merely took a parking space’s detected 25 || occupancy condition and broadcast it wirelessly to a commuter’s smartphone. Jd. at *7. 26 ||'Thus, unlike the ‘956 Patent, the Open Parking patents did not teach how the detection of 27 |\the occupancy condition could be improved. Rather, the claims were directed to an abstract 28 || idea because they simply transmitted real time data “about open parking spaces [that] has

3:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD

1 |} long been broadcast to drivers who cannot actually see the open spaces,” e.g., via displays 2 ||on the outside indicating if spots are vacant. Jd, at *8; cf Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338-39 3 || (holding software patent claims satisfy Alice step one when they are “directed to a specific 4 |\jimplementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts,” such as an improvement 5 ||in a computer’s functioning). Had the Open Parking court, instead, upheld the patents’ 6 || validity, the general process of using the internet to send parking-related information to a 7 || wireless device likely would have been preempted. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 8 611-12 (2010) (“[U]pholding the patent would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, 9 |; and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea.”). 10 Although Defendants are correct that the 956 Patent’s claims concern the underlying 11 \)abstract concept of information processing, that argument overgeneralizes the claims, 12 rather than considering their “character as a whole.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 13 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, considering the claims’ character as a whole, 14 light of the specification, the claims are directed to improving known parking guidance 15 ||technology through an improved parking guidance system, comprised of components 16 including a novel GUI, a self-modifying classification algorithm that allows the parking 17 system to adapt and learn from past errors to improve detection accuracy, and a collocated 18 || imaging/indicator structure. Accordingly, because the ‘956 Patent’s claims are directed to 19 ||“a specific means or method” for improving parking guidance system technology, rather 20 simply directed to an abstract end-result, the claims pass muster under step one of 21 || Alice. The Court “need not proceed to step two” of the Alice test, as it finds the ‘956 22 ||Patent’s claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Thales Visionix, 850 F.3d at 1349. 23 || Thus, the motions to dismiss are DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 fo 2. 26 || Date: August Je 2019 lh “We 27 / So G □□ hee ' United States District Judge 28 10 4:18-cv-02068-BEN-MDD