Judge Scholer granted the defendant’s motion, finding that the defendant did not reside in nor have a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Texas.
Judge Gilstrap denied the motion without prejudice, finding that claim construction could be of benefit in addressing the issues of eligibility of the asserted patents in the case.
The issue here was the “original patent requirement” of 35 U.S.C. § 251(a). Judge Albright concluded that the reissued invention was not disclosed in the original patent.
Judge Albright held that the defendant would be required to produce responsive documents in the possession of its subsidiaries.
The court granted the motion, precluding arguments regarding an alleged failure to preserve documents or destruction of document.
Judge Albright denied the motion, finding that venue was sufficiently alleged, and reiterating that “a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss is a procedurally awkward place for a court to resolve a patent’s § 101 eligibility.”
Judge Albright’s opinion reiterates his recent standards for the “uphill scrabble” faced by accused infringers invoking § 101 in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
On the bright side, it was denied as to patent misuse.
Judge Gilstrap granted this FRCP 12(c) motion, finding the subject matter of the patent ineligible for patent protection.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s infringement contentions were insufficient.