IP Blog
dismiss
On Remand, Software Patents Held Invalid for Lacking Sufficient Factual Allegations
While software patents have recently survived Rule 12 motions to dismiss on the pleadings, a lack of an inventive concept doomed a set of software patents as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. MyMail Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 17-cv-04487 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2020). Plaintiff MyMail sued Defendants ooVoo and IAC for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,275,863 and 9,021,070....
Strike Zone Patent Survives Dismissal: Sportvision, Inc. v. MLB Advanced Media, LP
Major League Baseball may be on hold, but the next inning of baseball patent litigation has just started. Sportvision, Inc. v. MLB Advanced Media, LP, No. 18 Civ. 3025 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020). Like several other courts recently, the Court denied a motion to dismiss a software patent on the pleadings as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiffs Sportvision...
Another Motion to Dismiss Denied by Alleging Inventive Concept: Nice Ltd. v. Callminer, Inc.
Once again, a court has denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit, holding that the question of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 could not be decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The Court held that the pleadings alleged an unresolved question of fact of whether the asserted claims contain inventive concepts sufficient to transform an abstract idea...
Will Dismissal on the Pleadings for Section 101 Eligibility Become Rare?
Should district courts consider eligibility of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)? The Western District of Texas seems to think this analysis should wait, and only rarely should Section 101 eligibility be decided on the pleadings. Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v. Brightpearl, Inc., 6-20-cv-00114 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2020, Order). Defendant...
Claims Survive on Unresolved Question of Fact
The Central District of California recently denied a motion to dismiss on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because a question of fact remained unresolved. In MoviePass, Inc. v. Sinemia, Inc., No. CV 2:18-1517 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2019), the Court held that the question of whether claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,484,133 and 8,612,235 are eligible under Section...
Another Delayed Patent Eligibility Decision
Once again, a district court in California urged parties to improve their pleadings before deciding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Kajeet v. Qustodio, CV18-01519 JAK (Feb. 28, 2019), the Central District of California granted, without prejudice, a motion to dismiss a complaint for patent infringement under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Kajeet, Inc. asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,712,371, 8,630,612,...
District Courts Avoid Determining Patent Eligibility
How much evidence and claim construction does a court need to make a determination on eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101? According to district courts in California, it depends? In SkyHawke Techs. v. DECA Int’l, CV 18-1234-GW(PLAx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2019), the Central District of California granted a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c), admonishing...