Clash of the 101 Motions: Motion to Dismiss Claims Versus Motion for Summary Judgment as to 101 Defense

Although most 101 defenses are raised via motions to dismiss under 12(b)(6), a few are brought under 12(c), and more than a few are either filed in or converted to the context of summary judgment.  But this case raises an interesting twist with the defendant seeking dismissal on 12(b)(6) grounds and the plaintiff seeking summary judgment that the 101 defense is without merit.  So let’s see how that worked out for them.

EDTX Grant Rate on 101 Motions Up to 75%; Del/ND Cal. 101 Grant Rate Drops to 23%

Fenwick & West’s BilskiBlog had a good summary of the state of 101 caselaw as of the end of Q1 2017 yesterday.  Most notable to me was their observation of the pronounced change in grant rates for 101 motions in patent-heavy district in the last six months.

They compared grant rates from mid-2014 through the third quarter of 2016, and then over the past six months, uncovering two significant trends.  First, the three top districts in terms of rulings that are not the EDTX had grant rates from 65-74%, but those rates dropped dramatically to 18-40% in the last six months.  Excluding CD Cal and only looking at the double digit districts, the rate is 18-25%.

In contrast to its 31.9% grant rate from 2014-2016, however, the EDTX grant rate for 101 motions the last six months has increased to 75%, with 12 of 16 motions being granted.  That is over three times the grant rate in D Del and ND Cal, which are currently at 23%.

The reason for the spike appears to be a batch of grants in March 2017, but the post recognizes that the overall national trend is a downward one nonetheless.

Another 101 Ruling – Enfish-y or not?

I am going to have to license the graphics from Nintendo’s Wonderful 101 and it’s character Alice before this spring is out because they are in pretty heavy rotation with all the 101 rulings coming out.  This morning’s focuses, as the opinions all do, on whether the claims are more analogous to the cases where patentable subject matter was found, or where it wasn’t, in, for example, Enfish.

In this case,

101 Motion Denied w/o Prejudice Pending Claim Construction; Case Stayed Pending CBM Review

Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) alleging lack of patentable subject matter in this case, and asked the Court to invalidate the asserted claims on the basis that they are directed to the abstract idea of “offering, tracking, and processing discounts”—a concept Defendants contended is a longstanding commercial practice.

In its opinion, the Court

101 Motion Granted as to 974 Claims in Six-Defendant Financial Services Litigation

It’s been a busy spring for 101 grants over at the courthouse.  This morning I saw another order, this time granting motions by six defendants to dismiss 974 claims in ten patents under 101 in a case involving patents dealing with financial services, but with a few twists we haven’t seen in other recent orders, including the effect of prior Markman rulings and 101 rulings involving the same patents.  Both are addressed in my analysis below. The case involves

101 analysis and the redshirt phenomena

A latecomer to the 101 analysis, but these orders just keep coming out… Earlier this month Judge Payne recommended dismissal of a patent for on 101 grounds in a consolidated case.  He has now issued orders (exemplar below the link, as well as the original) extending that dismissal to the consolidated defendants. The cases arise out of litigation