1. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WHITE KNUCKLE GAMING, LLC’S
REPLY BRIEF
ANDREW S. HANSEN
HANSEN IP, LLC
Bountiful, Utah, 84010
282 Maxine Circle
Telephone: (801) 671-3621
DAVID A. JONES
ALPINE IP, PLLC
3450 N Triumph Blvd., Suite 102
Lehi, Utah 84043
Telephone: (801) 631-3496
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
2016-2286
WHITE KNUCKLE GAMING, LLC, a Utah limited liability company,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
—v.—
ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United Stated District Court for the
Northern Division of Utah in No. 1:15-cv-00150
Judge Jill N. Parrish
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WHITE KNUCKLE GAMING, LLC’S
CORRECTED PRINCIPAL BRIEF
ANDREW S. HANSEN
HANSEN IP, LLC
282 Maxine Circle
Bountiful, Utah, 84010
Telephone: (801) 671-3621
DAVID A. JONES
ALPINE IP, PLLC
3450 N Triumph Blvd., Suite 102
Lehi, Utah 84043
Telephone: (801) 631-3496
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant

2. i
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
WHITE KNUCKLE GAMING, LLC v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.
Appeal No. 16-2286
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
The undersigned counsel certifies the following:
1. The full name of every party represented by the undersigned is:
White Knuckle Gaming, LLC
2. The real party in interest represented by the undersigned is:
N/A
3. All parent companies and any publicly held companies that own 10
percent
or more of the stock of the party represented by me are:
Voodoo Gaming, LLC
4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that
appeared for the party now represented by the undersigned in the
trial court or are expected to appear in this court are:
DATED: November 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Andrew S. Hansen
ANDREW S HANSEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
ANDREW S. HANSEN
HANSEN IP, LLC
282 Maxine Circle
Bountiful, Utah 84010
Telephone: (801) 671-3621
DAVID A. JONES
ALPINE IP, PLLC
3450 N Triumph Blvd., Suite 102
Lehi, Utah 84043
Telephone: (801) 631-3496

3. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
I. REPLY ARGUMENT ....................................................................................1
A. At step one, the claims of the ‘575 patent are not abstract ...........2
1. The district court failed to follow the common law approach
used in Alice to determine whether “updating software in
sports video games” is a “patent-eligible concept” ....................2
2. There is no evidence that the claim element, “receiving a
series of updated player performance parameters during a
single sports season” is conventional...........................................8
3. The patent ineligible concept of “collection and analysis of
information” is unlike “updating software in sports video
games”...............................................................................................11
4. The ‘575 claims are not “drawn to an idea itself” because they
recite technological means for effecting the video game
“updating”.........................................................................................14
B. At Step 2, the claims are not abstract. .............................................16
1. EA fails to address the new and non-conventional elements of
the claims related to “a series of updated video game character
performance parameters” received “during a single sports
season” ..............................................................................................16
II. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................17

4. iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC,
838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................7, 14, 15
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Int’l,
134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)........................................................................................1
Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom,
No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016)..................3, 7
Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. ATT Mobility LLC,
827 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................8
Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .....................................................................12
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, LP,
773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................5
Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175 (1981).......................................................................................1, 8
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................12
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................15
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc.,
No. 2015-1985, 2016 WL 5899185 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016) ..................13
In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig.,
823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................1, 6, 8, 12
Intellectual Ventures, LLC v. Capital One Bank,
792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................4, 5
Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................5
STATUTES
35 U.S.C § 101…………………………………………………………….passim

5. iv
ABBREVIATIONS
“’575 patent” refers to the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,540,575.
“BB” refers to White Knuckle’s opening brief (Blue Brief).
“RB” refers to EA’s response brief (Red Brief).

6. 1
I. REPLY ARGUMENT
EA argues that the ‘575 patent addresses the abstract concept of
“updating software in a sports video game.” (RB16). To reach this
conclusion EA must ignore meaningful elements of the claims in both
step one and step two of the Alice analysis. In particular, neither EA nor
the court gave any weight to the claim elements related to “during a
single sports season, receiving a series of updated video game character
performance parameters.” (Appx122 at col. 8, ll. 33-34).
This claim element is a meaningful component of the improvement
to the prior art and EA generalizes the claim to avoid addressing it. This
Court’s precedence dictates that courts “‘must be careful to avoid
oversimplifying the claims’ by looking at them generally and failing to
account for the specific requirements of the claims.” In re TLI Commc'ns
LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); see also Diamond
v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 189 n.12 (1981).
EA has not, and cannot, provide a sufficient rationale under Alice,
or a common law framework, for why “updating software in a sports video
game” is abstract. EA attempts to show that “updating software in a

7. 2
sports video game” is “indistinguishable from the process of information
collection and analysis” (RB18). However, the claims of the ‘575 patent
are easily distinguished based on the data types it claims and the
particular application of those data types. In the present case, the “data”
type claimed is a video game character performance parameters, which
is not information that is to be understood or used by humans. Rather,
the parameters are data structures that are functionally incorporated
within a video game machine and are used by the video game machine to
render a new video game that performs differently than before. (see
Appx119 at col. 5, l. 51 – col. 6, l. 3).
At the second step of Alice, the claims are patent-eligible because
they include meaningful non-conventional elements that improve the
functioning of the video game software itself. Importantly, these unique
improvements to the annually produced video games lifts a sports video
game’s realism and authenticity by causing the video game to simulate
changes in real-life athletic performance throughout a sports season.
A. At step one, the claims of the ‘575 patent are not
abstract
1. The district court failed to follow the common law
approach used in Alice to determine whether

8. 3
“updating software in sports video games” is a
“patent-eligible concept”
The Supreme Court in Alice applied common law to determine
whether the claims were directed to a “patent ineligible concept.” Alice
134 S. Ct. at 2355. This Court recently affirmed the common law
methodology in Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, holding:
[A] search for a single test or definition in the decided cases
concerning § 101 from this court, and indeed from the
Supreme Court, reveals that at present there is no such
single, succinct, usable definition or test…. Instead of a
definition, then, the decisional mechanism courts now apply
is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel
descriptive nature can be seen—what prior cases were about,
and which way they were decided. That is the classic common
law methodology for creating law….
No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016).
(internal citations omitted)
When determining whether “updating software in sports video
games” is abstract, the district court omitted an examination of earlier
cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature could be found.

9. 4
While EA and the district court cite to several cases, the court’s order is
not clear as to which if any of the cases it relies on have a claimed concept
similar in nature to “updating software in sports video games.” (Appx5-
7). In its step-one analysis, the only authorities for which the district
court mentions the nature of the claimed concepts are Bilski and Alice
(“risk hedging” and “computeriz[ing] the use of a third-party
intermediary,” respectively) (Appx5). However, the district court does not
provide any analysis for why the claimed concepts in Bilski/Alice could
or would serve as a basis for finding “updating software in sports video
games” abstract. The citation to Bilski and Alice merely followed with a
conclusion that the claims in this case “recite a simple internet-based
method of updating software in sports video games” and that “This is an
abstract idea—updating software in sports video games—and it is
performed on a conventional computer, serer, and network.” (Appx6).
The concept of “updating software in sports video games” is
fundamentally unrelated to the “fundamental economic practices” found
to be abstract in Bilski and Alice. As such, the district courts reliance on
Bilski and Alice does not fulfill the Alice requirement of a common law
approach to finding an abstract idea under § 101.

10. 5
The district court’s step-one analysis cites Intellectual Ventures,
LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) for its
statement that “[an]n abstract idea does not become non-abstract by
limiting the invention to a particular field.” (Appx5). However, the court
does not discuss the nature of the Intellectual Ventures’ claimed concept
nor does it provide a justification for why “updating software in sports
video games” is similar in nature. The claimed concept in Intellectual
Ventures was “tracking financial transactions to determine whether they
exceed a pre-set spending limited (i.e., budgeting).” Id. at 1367. The
“budgeting” claimed in Intellectual Ventures shows no resemblance to the
claimed concept, “updating software in sports video games.”
The district court also cites DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, LP,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014); however, here again, the court does
not discuss the nature of the claimed concepts in the case. Moreover, the
claims in DDR Holdings were found to be patent eligible and the quoted
material relates to the claimed concept in Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
which the DDR Holdings court distinguished. DDR Holdings, LLC, 773
F.3d at 1258 (citing Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 1335 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (claimed concept directed to “a method of using advertising as

11. 6
an exchange or currency,” which is not relevant to “updating software in
sports video games.”). Thus, the district court’s reliance on DDR Holdings
also fails to provide a common law basis for finding “updating software
in sports video games” to be a patent ineligible concept at step one.
EA attempts to buttress the district court’s ruling by citing In re
TLI. (RB13). EA alleges, “the [TLI] Court observed at step one that
tangible claim components such as a telephone unit and server ‘merely
provide[d] a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea
of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner’ and
thus did not save the claim from abstraction.” Id. (citing In re TLI, 823
F.3d at 611).
The implication of EA’s argument is that “updating software in a
sports video game” is abstract simply because the patent describes
generic components such as a server. However, the “generic
environment” in TLI did not make the claims abstract; rather the TLI
claims were abstract because they were directed to a human activity —
“classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.”
EA has failed to make the relevant functional comparison between
the concepts in the ‘575 claims and TLI. Instead of comparing “updating

12. 7
software in sports video games” to “classifying and storing digital
images,” EA compares the server in the ‘575 patent to the “generic server”
in TLI to arrive at the incorrect conclusion that this case and TLI are
factually similar.
EA repeats the same error when citing to DirecTV, LLC. EA
contends, “a generic depiction, as this Court found, supports the
conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea.” (RB13) (citing
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 15-1845, 2016 WL
5335501, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016). Here again there is no
functional comparison between the concepts of the ‘575 patent and the
claimed concept in DirectTV. Rather EA merely correlates the
overlapping disclosure of a generic component and relies on the existence
of that generic component to argue the claimed concepts are factually
similar.
This Court’s recent decision in Amdocs warns against a § 101
analysis based on generalizations and words out of context. see Amdocs,
No. 2015-1180, 2016 WL 6440387 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) at fn 4 (“In the
complexities of § 101, the law is evolving into greater certitude based on

13. 8
experience, not on generalizations. Words out of context are less useful—
especially if inapt.”)
2. There is no evidence that the claim element,
“receiving a series of updated player performance
parameters during a single sports season” is
conventional
At step one, the district court’s determination that the claims are
directed to “updating software in sports video games” ignores the
concrete tangible elements related to “receiving a series of updated player
performance parameters” “during the single sports season” and updating
the sports video game with “each of the updated video game character
performance parameters received” in the series. (Appx5-7; Appx121, col.
8, ll. 33-48).
As previously held, courts “must be careful to avoid oversimplifying
the claims” by looking at them generally and failing to account for the
specific requirements of the claims. TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 611; see
also Diehr, 450 U.S. at 189 n.12, 101 S.Ct. 1048. The flexible approach
set forth in Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. ATT Mobility LLC, is not
a license to ignore the salient elements of the claims altogether. 827 F.3d
1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the two stages [of Alice] involve overlapping

14. 9
scrutiny of the content of the claims … [and] there can be close questions
about when the inquiry should proceed from the first stage to the second).
Here, there is no evidence that at the time of the invention, it was
conventional to configure a sports video game to “receive a series of
updated player performance parameters.” Nor was it conventional to
receive such updates in a series “during a single sports season.” Rather,
as stated in the ‘575 patent, the convention at that time was to develop
new video games “once a year” using “averages” from “the most recent
year” or “season”. (Appx117 at col. 1, ll. 23-33). These “seasonal averages”
were akin to the seasonal stats on a baseball card. Video game producers
typically released a new video game once per year and used “averages”
from “the most recent year.” Id.
The time-based context of the ‘575 patent itself describes the
following improvements:
As events occur in the real world that may influence a game
attribute, a parameter is recorded on a server. A video game
player may connect to the server and download the
parameter. The parameter is stored by the video game and
changes an attribute of the video game…. Instead of playing

15. 10
with last season’s teams, video gamers get a simulation of the
fresh new events of the week, day, or hour.
(Appx117, col. 2, ll. 11-15, 25-27).
Thus, upon waiting until the next seasonal release of data, the
opportunity to relive a “fresh new event[] of the week, day, or hour” has
expressly come-and-gone as recognized by the ‘575 patent. Updated
parameters received “during the season” and based on sporting events
from “that season” cannot be “seasonal” or “yearly” averages since the
season/year is not over “during a single sports season.” Therefore, as
compared to a “seasonal average,” a “during season” character
performance parameter is different in kind. In particular, the shorter
duration creates more variability or randomness that is inherent in
performances based on real life athletes. The simulation based on “new
events of the week, day, or hour” are therefore inherently “dynamic” like
real life. In contrast, a seasonal average smooths out the variability that
occurs in real life.
EA’s allegation that the claims require nothing more than
“accelerating” “routine conventional activity” is simply not true. (see
RB9). The ‘575 patent is concerned with creating video game characters

16. 11
that reflect the day-to-day or week-to week changes of the real-life
players. (Appx117, col. 2, lines 21-26). The claimed video games include
data structures—namely a “series of updated character performance
parameters” associated with “video game characters” to “change the
manner in which the video game characters perform in the video game.”
EA’s arguments fails to appreciate the difference between “a series of
video games” and “a single video game configured to receive a series of
updated character performance parameters.” The claims of the ‘575
patent are direct to the latter (i.e., a single game configured to receive a
series of parameters). (compare Appx117 col. 1, ll. 23-31 with Appx117,
col. 8, ll. 33-48). The data structures recited in the claims and their
arrangement (i.e., a series during the season) are non-conventional and
create a new and useful video game that improves upon the “series of
video games” described in the background of the ‘575 patent.
3. The patent ineligible concept of “collection and
analysis of information” is unlike “updating
software in sports video games”
EA agrees with the district court that the claimed concept is
“updating software in sports video games.” (RB17). However, EA
attempts to supplement the basis of the district court’s Order by citing to

17. 12
recent cases from this Court that have found the concept of collecting and
analyzing information to be patent ineligible. Id.
EA incorrectly generalizes the phrase “updating software in sports
video games” to mean “collecting and analyzing information,” when a
plain reading of the phrase “updating software in sports video games”
simply does not convey such meaning. When this Court has found patent
ineligible concepts to be based on human activities such as merely
“collecting information,” “organizing information,” “analyzing
information,” or “displaying information” the court identifies the claimed
concept as being so. (see Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claimed concept directed to “collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection
and analysis”); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claimed concept
directed to “1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory”); In
re TLI Commc’ns, 823 at 613 (concept directed to “classifying and storing
digital images in an organized manner”); Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-
2080, 2016 WL 5335502, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) (claimed concept

18. 13
directed to “a method for recording, communicating and administering
[a] digital image.”), and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., No.
2015-1985, 2016 WL 5899185 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2016) (concept directed
to “analyzing records of human activity to detect suspicious behavior.”).
In each of these cases, there is clear language connecting the
“claimed concept” to a well-recognized human activity performed on mere
information (i.e., organizing, recording, analyzing, and/or displaying the
information). And, the processed information is used in the same way
that a human would use the information (i.e., recorded, analyzed,
displayed, organized, etc.).
The activity, “updating software in a sports video game” is not one
of the recognized patent-ineligible concepts. Moreover, this activity is not
performed on information to be understood or used by a human. The data
structures in the claimed video game software (e.g., the “series of video
game character performance parameters”) are in machine language to be
understood by a video game machine—a special purpose computer. The
video game character parameter changes how the machine generates the
video game characters in the sports video game.

19. 14
The claims of the present invention are distinguished from the
foregoing cases that describe human activities performed on mere
information to be understood by a human. Humans are not capable of
processing video game character performance parameters in association
with video game characters to produce a sports video game.
Consequently, the “data” or information used in the claimed invention is
non-analogous to the information used in human activities that this
Court has, in many cases, found to be an ineligible concept.
4. The ‘575 claims are not “drawn to an idea itself”
because they recite technological means for
effecting the video game “updating”
The case law under § 101 also includes instances where a claim has
been found abstract for being “drawn to an idea itself.” see Affinity Labs
of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In
DirecTV, the court found the claims to be directed to the concept of
“providing out-of-region access to regional broadcast content.” Id. The
claims recite general components, “cellular telephone, a graphical user
interface, and a downloadable application.” The court found the claimed
invention to be “entirely functional in nature” and “drawn to the idea
itself.” Id.

20. 15
The claims of the present invention are distinguished from the
claims in DirecTV because unlike that case, the ‘575 claims recite non-
conventional data structures such as “a series of video game character
performance parameters” “associated with individual video game
characters” that are used by the video game machine to “affect the
manner in which the video game characters perform in the video game.”
(Appx120, col. 8, ll. 33-48). These structures are not used as “tool” to
carry out an otherwise abstract idea. see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, the data structures are the
features that produce the improvement (i.e., a sports video game that
simulates the day-to-day or week-to-week changes in the performance of
real-life players).
The claims also require the updated parameters to be received in “a
series” and “during a single sports season,” which further defines the
relationship between the data structures in the video game. The data
structures and the relationships between different data structures are a
“technological means” for how the video game is updated, which makes
the claims patent eligible and not an “idea itself.” see DirecTV, 838 F.3d
at 1262.

21. 16
B. At Step 2, the claims are not abstract.
1. EA fails to address the new and non-conventional
elements of the claims related to “a series of
updated video game character performance
parameters” received “during a single sports
season”
EA’s allegations that the ‘575 patent “merely accelerates” a known
process relies on an assumption that the claimed “updating” is no
different than the kind of “updating” to the previous video games. (Appx9,
31). As discussed above, the ‘575 claims are not directed towards
producing new installments of the game only to make them update faster.
Indeed, the accused products in this case NBA Live 14, NBA Live 15, and
NBA Live 16 were produced in successive years (2014, 2015, and 2016),
yet they allegedly receive “a series of updated character performance
parameters during a single sports season,” which the complaint identifies
as EA’s “Live Seasons technology.” (Appx134).
EA’s continued practice of selling annual releases of its video
games, despite these video games allegedly having during season updates
(i.e., Live Seasons technology), is evidence that the two features are
distinct. In other words, during season updates of character performance

22. 17
parameters is not a substitute for creating a new video games once per
year.
Thus, when properly analyzed, the purpose of the invention is not
to speed up the delivery of video games produced annually; rather the
claims are directed to “receiving updated character performance
parameters” in “a series” “during the season” to “affect[]the manner in
which the video game characters perform in the video game” (Appx120,
col. 8, 33-48). These limitations add substantially more than just
“updating software in a sports video game.” These features are
meaningful data structures that change how the video game behaves and
are therefore not abstract at step two of Alice.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court should
be reversed and the case remanded for trial.
DATED: November 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Andrew S Hansen
ANDREW S HANSEN

23. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 22, 2016, a copy of the following
document:
• White Knuckle Gaming, LLC’s REPLY BRIEF
Was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF
system. Notice of this filling will be sent by operation of the ECF system
to all counsel of record. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s
ECF system.
DATED: November 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Andrew S Hansen
ANDREW S HANSEN
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant

24. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 32(A)(7)(C), I certify that
according to the word-processing system used in preparing it, the
foregoing REPLY BRIEF is 3,315 words in length, excluding those
portions exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii) and Fed. Cir. R. 32(b)
and therefore complies with the type-volume limitation set forth in Fed.
R. App. P. 28.1(e)(2)(C).
DATED: November 22, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Andrew S Hansen
ANDREW S HANSEN
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant