TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Comcast Interactive Media LLC, Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Online LLC, Defendants-Appellees
Two-Way Media Ltd. appeals from a accommodation of the United States Commune Cloister for the Commune of Delaware that begin the claims of the asserted patents to be directed to apparent disqualified accountable amount beneath 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because the claims are directed to abstruse annual and accommodate no added elements that transform the attributes of the claims into a patent-eligible appliance of the abstruse ideas, we affirm.
Background
A. Technical Background
The patents-in-suit are accompanying as a alternation of assiduity applications, and appropriately allotment essentially the aforementioned specification. U.S. Apparent No. 5,778,187 (“'187 patent”) issued first, followed by U.S. Apparent Nos. 5,983,005 (“'005 patent”), again 6,119,163 (not at affair here), again 6,434,622 (“'622 patent”), and again 7,266,686 (“'686 patent”). The patents are advantaged “Multicasting Adjustment and Apparatus,” and about chronicle to a adjustment for alive audio/visual abstracts over a communications adjustment like the internet. Affirmation 1 of the '187 apparent is adumbrative of all claims of the '187 apparent and '005 patent, claims 1 and 29 of the '622 patent, and claims 1, 22, 26, and 30 of the '686 apparent are adumbrative of their corresponding patents.
The patents explain that internet systems about accomplish on a point-to-point, or unicast, basis. In unicast systems, a bulletin is adapted into a alternation of addressed packets which are baffled from a antecedent bulge to a destination node. But these unicast systems abridgement the adequacy to advertisement a bulletin from a antecedent bulge to all the added recipients in a network, as this blazon of operation could calmly afflict the network.
IP Multicasting, in contrast, provides a way to address one packet of advice to assorted recipients. In such a system, packets destined for several recipients are encapsulated in a unicast packet and forwarded from a antecedent to a point in a adjustment area the packets are replicated and forwarded on to all adapted recipients. A multicast packet can be baffled from a antecedent bulge through a advantage of multicast routers to one or added accessories accepting the multicast packets. The packet can again be advertisement to all the host computers that are associates of the multicast group. The patents explain that this technology had ahead been acclimated to accommodate internet-based audio/visual conferencing appliance as able-bodied as radio-like broadcasts to absorbed parties.
The patents call the apparatus as an bigger scalable architectonics for carrying real-time information. Embedded in the architectonics is a ascendancy apparatus that provides for the administering and administering of users who are to accept real-time information. Figure 1 provides a schematic diagram depicting an overview of the system:
J.A. 80. In this system, the Primary Servers and Media Servers are commutual by the internet. The Ascendancy Servers affix users with Media Servers appliance a alternation of bulletin exchanges. The patents additionally call ecology adjustment altitude and breeding annal about the real-time streams.
The parties accede that affirmation 1 of the '187 apparent is adumbrative of the claims of the '187 apparent and '005 patent. It recites:
1. A adjustment for transmitting bulletin packets over a communications adjustment absolute the accomplish of:
converting a advantage of streams of audio and/or beheld advice into a advantage of streams of addressed agenda packets acknowledging with the blueprint of a adjustment advice protocol,
for anniversary stream, acquisition such beck to one or added users,
controlling the acquisition of the beck of packets in acknowledgment to alternative signals accustomed from the users, and
monitoring the accession of packets by the users and accumulating annal that announce which streams of packets were accustomed by which users, wherein at atomic one beck of packets comprises an audio and/or beheld alternative and the annal that are accumulated announce the time that a user starts accepting the audio and/or beheld alternative and the time that the user stops accepting the audio and/or beheld selection.
J.A. 111 at col. 18 ll. 17–34; J.A. 114 (certificate of correction). Two-Way Media asserts that the claims of the '622 apparent are directed to the appearance declared in the specification, but are claimed added broadly. For example, affirmation 29 recites:
29. A adjustment for forwarding real-time advice to one or added users accepting admission to a communications adjustment comprising:
processing one or added streams of audio or beheld advice into one or added streams of packets for forwarding over the communications network, wherein at atomic one beck of packets comprises audio or video information,
forwarding the agenda packets to the users in acknowledgment to advice alternative signals accustomed from the users,
verifying the operational cachet of the users' admission to the communications adjustment during commitment of the real-time information, and
updating a database with break of: (i) which streams of packets were accustomed by which users, (ii) the time back commitment of anniversary beck to anniversary user commenced, and (iii) the time back commitment of anniversary beck to anniversary user terminated.
J.A. 202 at col. 20 ll. 19–36. Affirmation 30 of the '686 apparent includes assertive “commercial purposes” and recites:
30. A adjustment for metering real-time alive media for bartering purposes, said adjustment comprising:
selecting an average server from assorted average servers;
forwarding at atomic one archetype of a real-time media beck from said average server against a user device;
detecting a abortion of said forwarding;
after said termination, free an admeasurement of said real-time media beck forwarded against said user device; and
logging said admeasurement for bartering purposes.
J.A. 248 at col. 20 ll. 6–16; J.A. 251 (certificate of correction).
B. District Cloister Decision
The commune cloister accepted Appellees' 1 motion for acumen on the pleadings and captivated that the '187 patent, '005 patent, '622 patent, and '686 apparent were disqualified beneath § 101. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, Nos. 14-1006-RGA, 14-1212-RGA, 2016 WL 4373698 (D. Del. Aug. 15, 2016). The commune cloister aboriginal addressed affirmation construction, again addressed evidentiary arguments, and assuredly addressed the patents' accommodation beneath the two-step framework consort in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, –––U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014).
Two-Way Media argued afore the commune cloister that Appellees' motion was abortive because affirmation architectonics was all-important to appraise whether the adumbrative claims were acceptable beneath § 101. Two-Way Media provided proposed affirmation constructions for assertive agreement of the asserted patents. J.A. 599–602. Appellees agreed that the commune cloister should accept Two-Way Media's affirmation constructions, but argued that the constructions did not adapt the § 101 analysis. The commune cloister ultimately adopted Two-Way Media's proposed constructions for the purposes of the motion. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at *3.
Two-Way Media additionally argued that the commune cloister should booty administrative apprehension of assertive abstracts from above-mentioned affairs afore the U.S. Apparent and Trademark Office and added federal courts. Id. at *3–4. The materials, consisting of able address excerpts, able balloon testimony, artist balloon testimony, and a columnist release, [BB45; RB31] purportedly accompanying to added tribunals' appraisal of the change and nonobviousness of the claimed inventions. Id. The commune cloister denied the request, acumen that the proffered abstracts were extraneous to a § 101 inquiry: “The change and nonobviousness of the claims beneath [35 U.S.C.] §§ 102 and 103 does not buck on whether the claims are directed to patent-eligible accountable amount beneath § 101.” Id. at *4.
The commune cloister again addressed the accommodation of the claims of the '187 apparent and '005 apparent and bent that the claims were directed to an abstruse idea:
The '187 and '005 patents are directed to the abstruse abstraction of (1) sending information, (2) administering the beatific information, (3) ecology cancellation of the beatific information, and (4) accumulating annal about cancellation of the beatific information. The claims are appropriately directed to methods of sending and ecology the commitment of audio/visual information.
Id. at *5 (citations omitted). The commune cloister bent that the claims did not recite a extenuative adroit abstraction beneath Alice footfall two. Although Two-Way Media had argued that the claims were directed to computer architectonics that apparent the abstruse problems of load, bottlenecking, and bare records, the commune cloister disagreed, captivation that “[n]one of the claims, however, recite or accredit to annihilation that could be declared as an architecture.” Id. The commune cloister especially advised Two-Way Media's proffered affirmation constructions back authoritative this determination: “The claims cannot adequately be apprehend to recite computer architectonics alike in ablaze of [Two-Way Media's] proposed affirmation constructions, some of which absolutely absorb the words ‘intermediate computers.’ ” Id. at *5 n.3 (citations omitted).
Having assured that the claims of the '187 apparent and the '005 apparent were apparent disqualified beneath § 101, the commune cloister abutting addressed the '622 apparent and '686 patent. The commune cloister bent that the '622 apparent was directed to the abstruse abstraction of ecology the commitment of real-time advice to a user or users, and the '686 apparent was directed to the abstruse abstraction of barometer the commitment of real-time advice for bartering purposes. Id. at *6–7. The claims independent no extenuative adroit abstraction because although they recited some computer components, they appropriate alone accustomed functionality of these components. Id. at *6–8.
Two-Way Media appealed. We accept administration beneath 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Standard of Review
We assay procedural aspects of the admission of acumen on the pleadings beneath Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) based on the law of the bounded circuit, in this case the Third Circuit. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Third Ambit contest absolute assay of Rule 12(c) motions. E.g., CoreStates Bank, N.A. v. Huls Am., Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 1999). We additionally assay de novo whether a affirmation is invalid beneath the judicially created exceptions to § 101. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1311.
Discussion
Section 101 of the Apparent Act defines apparent acceptable accountable matter:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and advantageous process, machine, manufacture, or agreement of matter, or any new and advantageous advance thereof, may access a apparent therefor, accountable to the altitude and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Cloister has continued captivated that there are assertive administrative exceptions to this provision: laws of nature, accustomed phenomena, and abstruse ideas. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354 (collecting cases).
In Alice, the Cloister supplied a two-step framework for allegory whether claims are apparent eligible. First, we actuate whether the adumbrative claims are “directed to” a administrative exception, such as an abstruse idea. Id. at 2355. If the claims are directed to acceptable accountable matter, the assay ends. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims are bent to be directed to an abstruse idea, we abutting accede whether the claims accommodate an “inventive concept” acceptable to “transform the attributes of the affirmation into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (internal citation marks omitted).
We accomplish that the '187 patent, '005 patent, '622 patent, and '686 apparent are apparent disqualified beneath § 101. We altercate anniversary in turn.
A. '187 Apparent and '005 Patent
1. Alice Footfall One
Under Alice footfall one, “the claims are advised in their absoluteness to ascertain whether their appearance as a accomplished is directed to afar accountable matter.” Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We attending to whether the claims in the apparent focus on a specific agency or method, or are instead directed to a aftereffect or aftereffect that itself is the abstruse abstraction and alone invokes all-encompassing processes and machinery. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. Claims directed to ambiguous accomplish to be performed on a computer appliance accepted computer action are not apparent eligible. Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49.
The commune cloister begin that affirmation 1 of the '187 patent, which is adumbrative of all of the claims of the '187 apparent and '005 patent, is directed to the abstruse abstraction of (1) sending information, (2) administering the beatific information, (3) ecology the cancellation of the beatific information, and (4) accumulating annal about cancellation of the beatific information. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at *5. Two-Way Media argues that the commune cloister erred by oversimplifying the affirmation and blank affirmation limitations present in its proposed constructions. We disagree.
Claim 1 recites a adjustment for acquisition advice appliance result-based anatomic language. The affirmation requires the anatomic after-effects of “converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records,” but does not abundantly call how to accomplish these after-effects in a non-abstract way. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims were directed to an abstruse abstraction area they claimed “the action of wirelessly communicating bounded advertisement agreeable to an out-of-region recipient, not a accurate way of assuming that function”). Affirmation 1 is agnate to added claims begin to be directed to an abstruse idea. In Electric Ability Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the challenged claims were directed to systems and methods for accomplishing real-time achievement ecology of an electric ability grid. We captivated that the challenged claims were directed to the abstruse abstraction of “gathering and allegory advice of a defined content, again announcement the results, and not any accurate assertedly adroit technology for assuming those functions.” Id. at 1354. In the aforementioned way, affirmation 1 manipulates abstracts but fails to do so in a non-abstract way.
Two-Way Media's proposed constructions do not change this outcome. Though Two-Way Media argues that its proposed affirmation constructions abundantly tie the claims to accurate scalable adjustment architecture, the constructions recite alone accepted computer components. For example, Two-Way Media proposed a architectonics of “controlling the acquisition of the beck of packets in acknowledgment to alternative signals accustomed from the users” as “directing a allocation of the acquisition aisle taken by the beck of packets from one of a appointed accumulation of average computers to the user in acknowledgment to one or added signals from the user selecting the stream.” J.A. 600. This architectonics fails to announce how the claims are directed to a scalable adjustment architectonics that itself leads to an advance in the activity of the system. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1338. Nor does the architectonics accommodate any ambit for the “signals” purportedly dictating how the advice is actuality routed. At best, the constructions adduce the use of all-encompassing computer apparatus to backpack out the recited abstruse idea, but that is not sufficient. In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Apparent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that, admitting reciting “concrete, actual components,” the claims were directed to an abstruse abstraction area “the concrete apparatus alone provide[d] a all-encompassing ambiance in which to backpack out the abstruse idea”). The affirmation is accordingly directed to an abstruse idea.
Because the affirmation is directed to an abstruse idea, we advance to Alice footfall two to actuate whether the adumbrative claims acknowledge a extenuative adroit concept.
2. Alice Footfall Two
In Alice footfall two, we accede the elements of the claim, both alone and as an ordered combination, to appraise whether the added elements transform the attributes of the affirmation into a patent-eligible appliance of the abstruse idea. Agreeable Extraction & Manual LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Alone reciting the use of a all-encompassing computer or abacus the words “apply it with a computer” cannot catechumen a patent-ineligible abstruse abstraction into a patent-eligible invention. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358; Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To save a apparent at footfall two, an adroit abstraction charge be axiomatic in the claims. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The commune cloister begin no extenuative adroit abstraction in affirmation 1 of the '187 patent. While acknowledging that the blueprint of the '187 apparent describes a adjustment architectonics as a abstruse innovation, the commune cloister assured that the affirmation does not recite this architecture, alike demography into annual Two-Way Media's proposed constructions. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at *5. We accede with the commune court. The capital botheration that Two-Way Media cannot affected is that the claim—as against to article purportedly declared in the specification—is missing an adroit concept. RecogniCorp, 855 F.3d at 1327. While the blueprint may call a declared avant-garde “scalable architecture,” affirmation 1 of the '187 apparent does not. J.A. 103 at col. 2 ll. 1–5.
The abridgement of an adroit abstraction recited in affirmation 1 precludes accommodation here. For example, the affirmation refers to assertive abstracts “complying with the blueprint of a adjustment advice protocol” and the abstracts actuality baffled in acknowledgment to one or added signals from a user, after allegorical the rules basic the advice agreement or allegorical ambit for the user signals. Neither the agreement nor the alternative signals are claimed, precluding their addition to the adroit abstraction determination. See Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp., 681 Fed.Appx. 950, 954–55 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding affirmation disqualified area it recited an “unknown and bearding process” to allegedly transform data).
Two-Way Media asserts that the affirmation solves assorted abstruse problems, including boundless endless on a antecedent server, adjustment congestion, blackballed variations in commitment times, scalability of networks, and abridgement of absolute recordkeeping. But affirmation 1 actuality alone uses all-encompassing anatomic accent to accomplish these declared solutions. “Inquiry accordingly charge about-face to any requirements for how the adapted aftereffect is achieved.” Elec. Ability Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. Annihilation in the claims or their constructions, including the use of “intermediate computers,” requires annihilation added than accepted computer and adjustment apparatus operating according to their accustomed functions. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319–21 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding disqualified a affirmation directed to a adjustment of virus screening alike area the adjustment appropriate use of an “intermediary computer in forwarding information”).
We additionally see no adroit abstraction in the ordered aggregate of these limitations. BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]n adroit abstraction can be begin in the non-conventional and non-generic adjustment of known, accepted pieces.”). The affirmation uses a accepted acclimation of steps—first processing the data, again acquisition it, authoritative it, and ecology its reception—with accepted technology to accomplish its adapted result. As the cloister in BASCOM noted, alone reciting an abstruse abstraction performed on a set of all-encompassing computer components, as affirmation 1 does here, would “not accommodate an adroit concept.” Id. (citing CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). We appropriately acquisition that affirmation 1 actuality fails to transform the abstruse abstraction into article more. Elec. Ability Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355–56.
Two-Way Media argues that the claims of the '187 and '005 patents are not preemptive, and accordingly are apparent eligible, because abounding methods of sending and ecology the commitment of audio/visual abide available. However, area a patent's claims are accounted alone to acknowledge apparent disqualified accountable amount beneath the Alice framework, as they are in this case, preemption apropos are absolutely addressed and fabricated moot. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Finally, Two-Way Media argues that the commune cloister erred by excluding its proffered affirmation from above-mentioned cases apropos to the declared abstruse innovations of its invention. We acquisition no absurdity in the commune court's assurance to adios Two-Way Media's proffered material, as the cloister accurately assured that the actual was accordant to a change and accuracy analysis, and not whether the claims were directed to acceptable accountable matter. Accommodation and change are abstracted inquiries. Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1263) (holding that “even assuming” that a accurate claimed affection was atypical does not “avoid the botheration of abstractness”). Accordingly, the commune cloister accurately bent that the patents were disqualified beneath § 101 on the base of the adumbrative claims and Two-Way Media's proposed constructions, which the commune cloister especially adopted.
B. '622 Apparent and '686 Patent
1. Alice Footfall One
The commune cloister additionally assured that the '622 apparent was directed to the abstruse abstraction of ecology the commitment of real-time advice to a user or users, and the '686 apparent was directed to the abstruse abstraction of barometer the commitment of real-time advice for bartering purposes. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at *6–7. Two-Way Media argues that the commune cloister erred by oversimplifying the claims bottomward to alone their conference and declining to admit the claims break abstruse problems. We disagree.
First, we see no absurdity actuality in the commune cloister citation to the conference in its assay of whether the claims are directed to an abstruse idea. See, e.g., BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348 (citing conference for beverage of abstruse idea). The commune court's assay centered on free the “focus” of the claims, and was appropriately in accordance with our precedent. E.g., Elec. Ability Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353.
Second, these claims ache from the aforementioned awkwardness affliction as affirmation 1 of the '187 patent. Two-Way Media admits that the adumbrative claims of the '622 apparent and '686 apparent are broader in several respects than affirmation 1 of the '187 patent. Appellant Br. 46, 53. We accede with the commune cloister that the claims here—directed to ecology the commitment of real-time advice to user(s) or barometer such commitment for bartering purposes—are agnate to added concepts begin to be abstract. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348 (filtering agreeable is an abstruse idea); Elec. Ability Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–53 (collecting information, allegory it, and announcement after-effects is an abstruse idea, alike back undertaken in “real-time”); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using announcement as an barter or bill is an abstruse idea). For these reasons, we accomplish that the adumbrative claims of the '622 apparent and '686 apparent are directed to abstruse ideas. Accordingly, we advance to Alice footfall two.
2. Alice Footfall Two
The commune cloister begin that that the claims of the '622 apparent and '686 apparent did not accommodate an adroit abstraction beneath Alice footfall two. Two-Way Media, 2016 WL 4373698, at *6–8. Two-Way Media argues that the commune cloister erred by declining to annual for a axial aspect of Two-Way Media's invention, the adjustment architecture, and declining to acclaim Two-Way Media's nonconventional adjustment of components. We disagree.
As with affirmation 1 of the '187 patent, the botheration is that no adroit abstraction resides in the claims. Affirmation 29 of the '622 apparent requires processing abstracts streams, transmitting them from “an average computer,” and again acknowledging assertive advice about the transmitted data. J.A. 202 at col. 20 ll. 19–36; J.A. 600. Affirmation 30 of the '686 apparent requires accepting and transmitting a real-time media beck from an average server, audition the abortion of the stream, and recording assertive advice about the stream. J.A. 248 at col. 20 ll. 6–16; J.A. 251; J.A. 601. We accede with the commune cloister that annihilation in these claims requires annihilation added than accepted computer and adjustment apparatus operating according to their accustomed functions. Intellectual Ventures, 838 F.3d at 1319–21; Elec. Ability Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355–56.
Nor do we see any adroit abstraction in the ordered aggregate of these steps. The accomplish are organized in a absolutely accepted way—data are aboriginal processed, sent, and already sent, advice about the manual is recorded. The claims appropriately abort to call a “specific, detached accomplishing of the abstruse idea” acceptable to authorize for accommodation beneath § 101. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350.
Conclusion
We accept advised Two-Way Media's added arguments but do not acquisition them persuasive. For the above reasons, we assert the commune court's acumen that the '187 patent, '005 patent, '622 patent, and '686 apparent are disqualified beneath § 101.
AFFIRMED
FOOTNOTES
1. Appellees are Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Interactive Media LLC, Verizon Services Corp., and Verizon Online LLC.
REYNA, Ambit Judge.
15 Things To Expect When Attending Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo | Encouraged to the website, in this particular period I will show you regarding keyword. And from now on, this can be the primary impression:
What about graphic over? will be that will wonderful???. if you think maybe and so, I'l m show you some image again below: So, if you would like receive these wonderful images related to (15 Things To Expect When Attending Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo), simply click save icon to store these images in your personal computer. There're prepared for obtain, if you'd rather and wish to grab it, just click save symbol on the article, and it will be directly saved in your pc.} Lastly if you would like find new and the latest picture related to (15 Things To Expect When Attending Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo), please follow us on google plus or save this page, we try our best to provide regular update with all new and fresh graphics. Hope you like staying here. For most upgrades and latest news about (15 Things To Expect When Attending Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo) graphics, please kindly follow us on tweets, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on bookmark section, We try to provide you with up grade regularly with all new and fresh graphics, like your surfing, and find the perfect for you. Here you are at our website, contentabove (15 Things To Expect When Attending Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo) published . Today we're pleased to declare we have found an extremelyinteresting nicheto be discussed, namely (15 Things To Expect When Attending Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo) Most people searching for information about(15 Things To Expect When Attending Cable One Fargo - Cable One Fargo) and definitely one of them is you, is not it?
