Opinion
Case No. 20-cv-01996-JST Case No. 20-cv-02442-JST
2020-11-03
QUAD CITY PATENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ZOOSK, INC., Defendant. Quad City Patent, LLC, Plaintiff, v. EC Services Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Frederic March Douglas, Attorney at Law, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff. Andrew T. Oliver, Michael C. Ting, Amin, Turocy & Watson, LLP, San Jose, CA, for Defendants.
Frederic March Douglas, Attorney at Law, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff.
Andrew T. Oliver, Michael C. Ting, Amin, Turocy & Watson, LLP, San Jose, CA, for Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Re: ECF No. 17
JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court are Defendant Zoosk, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in case number 20-cv-11996, ECF No. 17, and Defendant EC Services Corporation's motion to dismiss in case number 20-cv-2442, ECF No. 17. The Court will grant both motions.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Posture
Plaintiff Quad City Patent LLC ("Quad City") brings two patent infringement cases against Defendants Zoosk, Inc. and EC Services Corporation, respectively, for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,272,575 (the "’575 Patent"). Both Defendants now move to dismiss on the ground of patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendants also move to dismiss on other grounds for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
B. The Asserted Patent
The ’575 patent, "Method and System for Facilitating Service Transactions," is directed to "facilitating service transactions" and "provid[ing] a service marketplace." ’575 Patent at 1:7-12. In particular, the ’575 patent seeks to make services "[as] freely tradeable as goods via a set of standardizing material terms." Id. at 1:12-15.
The ’575 Patent is attached as exhibit A to the complaints filed at ECF No. 16 in case number 20-cv-1996 and ECF No. 1 in case number 20-cv-2442.
The specification explains that in "conventional seller-driven service transaction systems," buyers are "inundated with blank offers from service providers." Id. at 5:54-57. However, in "conventional buyer-driven systems," such as in government procurement, service providers incur costs in collecting and reviewing non-standard specifications from different buyers. Id. at 5:57-62. To solve this problem, the ’575 Patent proposes an "automated retaining system" that "adopts a common set of terms" to match offers and requests for services. Id. at 5:62-67.
First, a retaining engine – which is a type of computer network – registers participants and verifies their credentials. Id. at 7:37-49, 9:25-49. Second, the retaining engine compiles offers and requests for offers using a standardized terminology, such as price and available dates. Id. at 9:51-67. The offers may be collected using computerized techniques or more traditional ones, such as telephone or email. Id. at 10:1-54. Third, the retaining engine matches offers to requests for offers by comparing material terms. Id. at 11:56-12:3. For example, the buyer may receive a list of viable offers sorted by price. Id. at 10:29-39. Past that point, the transaction may be settled in various ways, including by automatically accepting the first matching offer or by holding an auction. See id. at 12:4-19, 12:46-54, 14:25-37.
Because the service marketplace is computerized, the invention allows for various useful data mining operations. See id. at 15:21-19:39. A buyer may use data mining to screen potential service providers. Id. at 15:22-24. At the same time, a service provider may use data mining to target particular customers or build predictive models. Id. at 15:27-39, 16:31-67. The data may be aggregated to provide an integrated business management solution that predicts markets and optimizes business decisions. Id. at 19:41-25:2. Although the retaining engine does not allow participants to know others’ undisclosed prices or flexibility in material terms, to prevent altering negotiating power, id. at 7:67-8:8; 12:59-63, it does contemplate measuring participants’ "speech, language, emotion, intelligence, character, and characteristics" to determine their emotions and social intelligence. Id. at 25:4-28:17. The resulting analysis can be used for such diverse applications as tele-medicine and facilitating a negotiation. Id. at 26:44-46, 26:55-62.
Claim 1, the only independent claim in the ’575 patent, recites:
A computer-implemented method for facilitating a services marketplace between multiple buyers and sellers of services, comprising:
defining a set of service classification and material terms;
registering a plurality of participants of the service marketplace;
compiling offers to sell services and requests to buy services provided by said participants, wherein the offers and the requests are described in said set of service classification and material terms;
automatically evaluating and matching the offers and the requests, without human intervention, based upon the degree of identicalness of said set of service classification and material terms recited in the offers and the requests;
communicating to matched participants of the result generated by the evaluating and matching step;
the offers being unknown to service buyers and requests being unknown to service sellers prior to the communicating step; and
recognizing at least one of speech, language, emotion, social intelligent, character and characteristics of at least one of the participants by analyzing acoustic or imagery signals collated with the at least one of the participants.
Dependent claim 7 further recites:
A computer-implemented method for facilitating a services marketplace according to claim 1, further comprising a step of data-mining the offers and the requests to discover at least one transactional attribute of one, a portion, or all of the participants.
II. JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. While this standard is not a probability requirement, "[w]here a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining whether a plaintiff has met this plausibility standard, the Court must "accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable" to the plaintiff. Knievel v. ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). "Section 101 of the Patent Act defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection" by providing that "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" may be patented. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014) ; 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is well-established that "abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice , 573 U.S. at 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, "an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept." Id. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347. Courts must distinguish between patents that claim abstract ideas, on the one hand, and patents "that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts," on the other hand. Id.
To draw this distinction, courts engage in a two-step analysis. At step one, courts determine whether the claims at issue are "directed to" an abstract idea. Id. Claims that are "directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality" or "to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts" are not directed to an abstract idea. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1338, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). "In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’ " Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc. , 879 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish , 822 F.3d at 1335-36 ). "The purely functional nature of [a] claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. , 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, a claim that could be performed by a human, excising generic computer-implemented steps, is often abstract. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ; see also Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc. , 193 F. Supp. 3d 1069, 1090 (N.D. Cal. 2016), aff'd , 684 F. App'x 971 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("[A]utomation of a process using a computer is ... insufficient to save the asserted claims from abstractness.").
If the claims are directed to an abstract idea, courts proceed to step two and "consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination" to determine "whether [the claim] contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Alice , 573 U.S. at 217, 221, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment." Id. at 223, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Instead, this test "is satisfied when the claim limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry." Berkheimer v. HP Inc. , 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). Both steps of the Alice inquiry are informed by "the claims in light of the written description." Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. , 841 F.3d 1288, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
"Whether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law which may contain disputes over underlying facts." Berkheimer , 881 F.3d at 1368. But this does not mean that patent eligibility cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, as "not every § 101 determination contains genuine disputes over the underlying facts material to the § 101 inquiry." Id. "[P]atent eligibility can be determined at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage ... when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law." Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. , 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In some cases, for example, the factual question of "[w]hether the claim elements or the claimed combination are well-understood, routine, [or] conventional" may "be answered adversely to the patentee based on the sources properly considered on a motion to dismiss, such as the complaint, the patent, and materials subject to judicial notice." Id. at 1128. "If there are claim construction disputes at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, ... either the court must proceed by adopting the non-moving party's constructions, or the court must resolve the disputes to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis, which may well be less than a full, formal claim construction." Id. at 1125 (citations omitted).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Scope of the Analysis
Before analyzing validity under the Alice test, the Court addresses the scope of its analysis. Generally, a court need not address the patent eligibility of each claim separately if the claims are "substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea." Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n , 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Instead, the analysis may be limited to a "representative claim" if "the patentee does not present any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim" or "if the parties agree to treat the claim as representative." Berkheimer , 881 F.3d at 1365 ; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, courts may not assume that an independent claim is representative of all dependent claims. See Berkheimer , 881 F.3d at 1365.
Here, Quad City focuses on claims 1 and 7. But it also states, without elaboration, that "dependent claims, claims 2-58, include further limitations that were not ... well-understood, routine, or conventional." Case No. 20-1996, ECF No. 21 at 19:12-15; Case No. 20-2442, ECF No. 20 at 17:20-23. This conclusory statement does not represent "meaningful argument" that any dependent claim limitation presents an inventive concept. Berkheimer , 881 F.3d at 1365.
An examination of the claims shows that the dependent claims fall in two categories: some dependent claims add limitations based on basic economic practices – including counter-offers, dispute arbitration, and business referrals (see, e.g. , claims 34, 4, and 10); and other dependent claims add limitations based on artificial intelligence – including prediction of participant behavior and simulation (e.g. , claims 8, 19, 46). The first category of dependent claims cannot render the claims non-abstract or supply an inventive concept because they describe economic practices. But the second category may conceivably supply an inventive concept.
Accordingly, for purposes of the following analysis, the Court treats claim 1 as representative of claims 2-6, 10-12, 14-18, 22-30, 32-39, and 49-58, and claim 7 as representative of claims 8-9, 13, 19-21, 31, 40-48, and 50, but considers the limitations in the second category at step two of the Section 101 analysis. B. Alice Step One
At step one, the Court finds claim 1 of the ’575 Patent directed to the abstract idea of a service marketplace that uses standardized terms. Claim 1 recites a "computer-implemented method for facilitating a services marketplace between multiple buyers and sellers of services" that (1) defines a set of participants, service classifications, and material terms; (2) compiles and matches offers and requests for offers using the standardized terms, (3) communicates the results to participants, where the offers and requests are unknown beforehand, and (4) analyzes speech, language, emotion, or other characteristics of the participants.
Steps 1 through 3 describe a basic service marketplace. Only the matching step requires a computer to "automatically" match the offers and requests, while the remaining steps can be implemented by human beings. Indeed, the specification acknowledges that each limitation describes traditional economic practices known well before the patent. See ’575 Patent at 6:59-66 (recognizing that UCC uses standard terms to facilitate transactions), 10:51-54 (submitting offers and requests may be "traditional"), 14:11-21 (simultaneous bidding well-known in the stock market); see also id. at 1:12-26 (describing the goal of the invention as making services as freely tradeable as goods, stocks, and commodities using standardized material terms).
The fourth step does not render the claims directed to a non-abstract idea. First, detecting participant "speech, language, emotion, social intelligence, character and characteristics" is routinely performed by humans when conducting face-to-face transactions. The basic idea of understanding customer "characteristics" stretches back to the market research industry that burgeoned in the 1920's and has been a hallmark of successful merchants for much longer. More importantly, the claims do not recite any novel computer implementation of such analysis. Instead, the claim "describe[s] a desired function or outcome" of recognizing participant characteristics without limiting that function to any technical solution. Affinity Labs of Tex. , 838 F.3d at 1269. Finally, the limitation is not directed to improving computer functionality. Quad City does not identify any technical problem that is resolved by identifying participant characteristics. Instead, the benefits of recognizing participant characteristics by a computer appear to be the same as those of recognizing participant characteristics using human beings—namely, better marketing. See ’575 Patent at 17:41-58, 27:1-4.
The limitation requiring recognition of participant characteristics is oddly disconnected from the rest of the claim. The specification describes using information about participants to "develop[ ] fundamental knowledge concerning the nature of learning and intelligence," to conduct tele-medicine, and for "collaborative knowledge construction" between different disciplines. See ’575 Patent at 25:56-65, 26:55-27:4. For purposes of this analysis, the Court analyzes the claim "as a whole" by interpreting this limitation in the context of a service marketplace.
Accordingly, the Court finds that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of matching service offers and requests using standardized terms. Such basic economic practices are routinely found to be patent ineligible. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding offer-based price optimization patent ineligible); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC , 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using advertising as currency is an abstract idea); Morsa v. Facebook, Inc. , 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ("matching consumers with a given product or service" is an abstract concept that "has long been practiced as long markets have been in operation" (citation omitted)).
Likewise, the Court finds claim 7 directed to the abstract idea of making predictions from data derived from a service marketplace. The "gist" of claim 7 and its related claims is that once a service marketplace moves online, the computer records data that can be analyzed to make useful predictions. Claim 7 recites data mining generically; claim 8 describes simulating a marketplace based on the results; claim 19 describes predicting participant behavior based on the data mining; claim 20 describes maximizing profit; claim 31 describes creating a hologram based on the data; and claim 46 describes an algorithm for predicting body language.
These claims are directed to an abstract idea for three reasons. First, the specification does not limit data mining to a computer technique, but defines it broadly as "knowledge discovery, often via computer-assisted process, [that] uncovers hidden patterns and relationships in data ... through advanced statistical analysis and modeling techniques." ’575 Patent at 15:54-59 (emphasis added). Even assuming that the claims require a computer (contrary to the specification), there is no dispute that "knowledge discovery" via "statistical analysis and modeling" has been practiced since the advent of statistics. The other dependent claims add subject matter limitations, such as market simulation, profit maximization, and participant behavior, but do not change the basic concept of applying statistics to data to make predictions.
Second, the claims focus on functional results. None of the claims describe a specific implementation for data mining or prediction on a computer. Instead, they simply describe the result of "predicting," "simulating," and "optimizing" and thus do not provide an improvement in computer functionality. See U. of Fl. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co. , 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding that functional recitations of computer functions like "converting" do not improve computer functionality); Affinity Labs , 838 F.3d at 1258 (finding claims related to wirelessly communicating broadcast content patent ineligible because "nothing in claim 1 ... is directed to how to implement out-of-region broadcasting on a cellular phone"); Intellectual Ventures I , 838 F.3d at 1316 (finding claims directed to email filtering abstract because they imposed "no restriction on how the result is accomplished").
Finally, even assuming that the claims require a particular data mining technique, it is well-established that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more," is an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1354 (collecting cases). Here, the specification states that "[m]any off-the shelf data mining algorithm tools ... are available to be used in conjunction with extensive researches conducts on user experiences and product functionality." ’575 Patent at 6:19-24. The specification distinguishes those techniques by stating that unlike the off-the-shelf software, the claimed invention asks the question "[m]y goal is for y to happen in the future, what do I do now to make it happen?" Id. at 16:27-47. Even assuming that such reasoning is required by the claims, the form of data mining represents a mental process not eligible for patent protection. Cf. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC , 898 F.3d 1161, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results" are abstract).
Accordingly, the Court finds claim 7 directed to the abstract idea of making predictions from data derived from a service marketplace using statistics.
Quad City makes four additional arguments at this stage of the analysis, none of which are persuasive. First, Quad City argues that Defendants present no evidence of patent ineligibility. However, no evidence is required on a motion to dismiss. Second, Quad City argues that the ’575 Patent improves computer functioning by customizing offers to participants, instead of sending information to all participants, which could slow down a computer. Whatever the benefit to computers, the specification makes clear that this feature is meant to prevent inundating the buyer with offers. See ’575 patent at 5:54-67. "This is not what the Supreme Court meant by improving the functioning of the computer itself." Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp. , 951 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding claims that improved advertising delivery through use of computer memory to be not patent-eligible); see also Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc. , 873 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (making "process more efficient" does not "render an abstract idea less abstract").
Third, Quad City argues that during prosecution, the examiner found that the prior art did not teach measuring emotional intelligence without personal (human) intervention. See Case No. 20-1996, ECF No. 16 ¶ 16. Quad City's argument confuses the analyses required under Section 101 versus Sections 102 and 103: novelty does not render an abstract idea patent eligible. See SAP Am. , 898 F.3d at 1163 ("We may assume that the techniques claimed are ‘groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility." (quoting Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. , 569 U.S. 576, 591, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013) )). Finally, Quad City argues that claim construction is required before patent eligibility can be determined. True, "[i]f there are claim construction disputes at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, ... either the court must proceed by adopting the non-moving party's constructions, or the court must resolve the disputes to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis," Aatrix , 882 F.3d at 1125, but here there are no such disputes to resolve, given that Quad City does not identify any proposed construction or explain how claim construction would change the Court's analysis. Patent eligibility may therefore be resolved on a motion to dismiss without further consideration. See Elec. Comm'n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC , 958 F.3d 1178, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
The Court therefore finds the claims of the ’575 patent directed to abstract ideas.
C. Alice Step Two
At step two, the Court finds that the claims fail to recite an inventive concept beyond the "routine, conventional, and well-known" implementations on a computer. Quad City does not identify any limitation that supplies an inventive concept beyond the abstract ideas of a service marketplace that matches offers and requests for offers using standardized terms and then applies statistics to the resulting data to form predictions. The Court finds there are none.
As explained above, claim 1 recites a basic service marketplace with the additional step of measuring participant characteristics (such emotion and social intelligence). A computer is only required to "automatically" match terms and requests. Additionally, assuming the prosecution history limits the claims to measuring participant characteristics "without personal intervention" through prosecution disclaimer, that step also requires a computer. The rest of the limitations may be performed by human beings using conventional technology, like phones. See ’575 patent at 7:11-14, 8:26-29, 9:16-36, 10:1-6, 10:51-54.
But the claims do not describe any method for accomplishing the computer-implemented steps, routine or otherwise. Instead, the claims require the bald result of automatically matching and recognizing characteristics. Because the computer-limitations recite purely functional results, they cannot supply an inventive concept. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. , 855 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (no inventive concept where claims do not require "a particularized application of encoding and deciding image data"); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC , 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (no inventive concept where clams use "generic functional language" to achieve purported solution); cf. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (2015) (reciting an abstract idea and stating "applying it with a computer" not patent eligible). Nor does the ordered combination of steps add anything more.
For similar reasons, claim 7 and its related claims fail to recite an inventive concept. These claims do not recite any technical implementation—they claim only the functional results of "discover[ing] at least one transactional attribute," "simulating the marketplace," "analyzing ... signals," "predicting behavior," "optimizing profits," and so on. ’575 patent at claims 7-9, 19-21. Where the claims require a particular environment, such as "balancing the load of a cluster of computers" or with participants "without sufficient internet infrastructure," the specification does not suggest the implementation was novel. See id. at claim 12, claim 48, 7:49-56. Nor are the remaining functions, such as translating computer and human languages or providing a hologram, described as unconventional. Id. at claims 31, 40, 43-44, 50. In short, Quad City does not allege, and the specification provides no evidence, that any of these steps require anything more than a generic computer implementation.
Quad City claims that the specification nevertheless describes improvement in computer efficiency. However, read in context, these statements refer to improved efficiency associated with using standardized terms to facilitate service transactions, as well as benefits from data mining. See, e.g., id. at 2:48-49 (reduce manual analysis), 16:31-51 (benefits from data mining method), 16:62-67 (standardized terms allow more effective analysis), 18:33-52 (benefits from data mining). While these methods may improve the economic practices at issue, they provide no benefit to the computer itself. See Secured Mail Solutions , 873 F.3d at 910 (improving abstract process does not make it less abstract); BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc. , 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[A] claimed invention's use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than the ineligible concept."); see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC , 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (finding claims directed to trading display patent ineligible because they made the trader, not the computer, more efficient).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the claims of the ’575 patent lack an "inventive concept" beyond their abstract ideas.
D. Additional Grounds
Zoosk and EC Services move to dismiss on additional grounds, including failure to allege sufficient factual matter and failure to state a plausible claim. Because the Court finds the claims invalid, it does not reach these grounds. Nevertheless, should Quad City amend its complaint, it should include a limitation-by-limitation analysis so that the Court can assess the plausibility of the infringement claims. See AlterG, Inc. v. Boost Treadmills LLC , 388 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ("A direct infringement claim ‘does not satisfy the standards of Twombly and Iqbal where it does not at least contain factual allegations that the accused product practices every element of at least one exemplary claim.’ ") (quoting Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC , No. 16-cv-06795-EJD, 2017 WL 2311407, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) ).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds all claims of the ’575 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court grants Zoosk's and EC Services’ motions to dismiss without prejudice. See Aatrix , 882 F.3d at 1126-28 (finding abuse of discretion where district court denied leave to amend). Quad City may file amended complaints within twenty-one days of this Order. Failure to file a timely amended complaint will result in dismissal with prejudice.