Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Section 101 Defense Premature

Judge Ezra denied the motion, declining to find that the asserted claims were directed at unpatentable subject matter. He noted that Federal Circuit jurisprudence limits a courts’ authority to issue
ineligibility determinations at a case’s earliest stages, noting both the need for claim construction and the procedural context requiring a court considering a Rule 12(c) motion to accept a complaint’s factual allegations as true. He noted that “fact discovery and expert reports are often necessary to ensure that
courts do not ‘prematurely’ rule on eligibility,” and that “it is inefficient to attempt to resolve §101 motions at such an early stage where the parties do not agree that the claims are representative.”

Another Omnibus Pretrial Order

Last week’s Sable v. Cloudflare omnibus order with pretrial rulings was so popular, let’s try another one. This week’s is in Flypsi v. Google, and includes the plaintiff going 0-5 on its SJ and expert motions, and Google topping it, going 0-8 on theirs, with one small asterisk (don’t go into Google’s total advertising revenue).

Waco Patent Case Dismissed on 101 Grounds

Judge Kathleen Cardone of El Paso granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that: (1) the challenged claim was representative of the other claims of the patent because all were directed to the same idea, managing vehicle access to a secure area; (2) managing vehicle access to a secure area was an abstract idea; and (3) the claim did not contain an inventive concept.

Twiqbal Rides Again: Motion to Dismiss Granted

Like Proudlion, the defendant asserted both that the claims were insufficiently pleaded and that they didn’t meet Section 101. And like Judge Hanen, Judge Rodriguez granted the motion on the Twiqbal ground, but without leave to replead, noting he had already granted the plaintiff leave to amend once. The court also noted that that he had “already” dismissed the complaint on Section 101 grounds. (And yes, this is what a “Twiqbal” looks like.)

Entropic? Summary Judgment Grants and Denials in Marshall


Probably in the eye of the beholder whether these rulings were a positive development, but they definitely decreased entropy in this case brought by Entropic Communications. Judge Payne (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity as to certain prior art defenses (which just FYI isn’t the same thing as a judgment of “validity”); (2) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the defendant’s Section 101 defense; and (3) denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity.


World’s Shortest Section 101 Dismissal

In fairness, it was with leave to replead, directing the plaintiff what to include, if it can. But there is no analysis explaining why the court concluded that the claims of the patent “as currently pleaded” didn’t meet either of the Alice steps – only a statement that what the plaintiff should include is express factual allegations “that address whether the claims recite elements that are well-understood, routine, or conventional.”