Blue Spike, LLC v. Google Inc.

Filing 83

JUDGMENT INVALIDATING ASSERTED PATENTS PURSUANT TO DKT. NOS. 75, 80. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/1/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

2
3
4

Case No. 14-cv-01650 (YGR)
BLUE SPIKE, LLC,

5

Plaintiff,

6

v.

7

GOOGLE INC.,

8

Defendant.

[PROPOSED FORM OF] JUDGMENT
INVALIDATING ASSERTED PATENTS
PURSUANT TO DKT. NOS. 75, 80
Hearing Date:
Hearing Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:

N/A
N/A
Courtroom 1, 4th Floor
Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

9
10

This action having come before the Court, and pursuant to the Court’s Orders: (1) granting

11

Defendant Google Inc.’s (“Google”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. Nos. 59, 75); and

12

(2) accepting Plaintiff Blue Spike, LLC’s (“Blue Spike”) Statement of Non-objection (Dkt. No. 77)

13

in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Dkt. Nos. 76, 80) – together which find all asserted

14

claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,472 (the “’472 Patent”), 7,660,700 (the “’700 Patent”), 7,949,494

15

(the “’494 Patent”), 8,214,175 (the “’175 Patent”), and 8,712,728 (the “’728 Patent”) (collectively,

16

the “Patents-In-Suit”) invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 – IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED AND

17

ORDERED that:

18

1.

19

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order on September 8, 2015 (Dkt. No. 75),

the following asserted claims are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101:

20



claims 1-4, 8, and 11 of the ’472 Patent;

21



claims 1, 10-12, 18, 21, 27, 40, and 51 of the ’700 Patent;

22



claims 11, 15, 17, and 29 of the ’494 Patent;

23



claims 1, 8, 11, 12, 16, and 17 of the ’175 Patent; and

24



claims 1, 4, 5, 16, 25, and 26 of the ’728 Patent.

25

2.

For the same reasons set for in the Court’s Order from September 8, 2015 (Dkt. No.

26

75) and pursuant to the Court’s Order from September 18, 2015 (Dkt. No. 80), the following

27

asserted claim is also invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101:

28



claim 30 of the ’728 Patent.
-1-

PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 14-CV-1650-YGR

1

3.

2

this case.

3

4.

4

The foregoing claims of the Patents-In-Suit represent all pending claims at issue in

WHEREFORE JUDGMENT on the pleadings is entered in this case in favor of

Defendant Google and against Plaintiff Blue Spike.

5
6
7

Dated:

2015

8

By: _______________________________
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 14-CV-1650-YGR