Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.

Filing 175

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiff's Supplemental Response due by 2/24/2021. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/17/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2021)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

OAKLAND DIVISION

4
5

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,

6
7
8

v.

11

14

v.

17

20

v.

23

26
27

Dkt. No. 128

Defendant.
v.

Case No. 17-cv-05932-YGR

UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,

Dkt. No. 110

Defendant.
v.

Case No. 17-cv-05933-YGR

FOSSIL GROUP, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 193

Defendants.
v.

Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 130

Defendants.

24
25

Case No. 17-cv-05931-YGR

NIKE, INC.,

21
22

Dkt. No. 130

Defendant.

18
19

Case No. 17-cv-05929-YGR

MOOV, INC.,

15
16

Dkt. No. 148

Defendant.

12
13

Case No. 17-cv-05928-YGR

FITBIT, INC.,

9
10

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 17-cv-05936-YGR

NIKON AMERICAS, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 135

Defendants.

28
1

1

On February 17, 2021, the Court held a hearing regarding Defendants’ motion for summary

2

judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (See Case No. 17-cv-5933, Dkt. No. 193.) As

3

explained at the hearing, Plaintiff proposes a number of inventive concepts based on the combination of

4

elements that are otherwise individually addressed. (E.g., Dkt. No. 206-1 # 16-20.) Under Federal

5

Circuit precedent, the relevant inquiry is whether these elements are individually “well-understood,

6

routine, or conventional” and whether considering those elements as an ordered combination “add[s]

7

nothing . . . that is not already present when the [elements] are considered separately.” Chamberlain

8

Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Mayo Collaborative

9

Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)).

10

Accordingly, and as stated at the hearing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit additional briefing that

11

identifies each combination (i.e., the inventive concept based on the combination of inventive concepts

12

that Plaintiff asserts individually) and what the combination “adds” to the analysis beyond consideration

13

of the individual concepts. The Court will order additional briefing to address the substance of the

14

allegations if necessary. Failure to identify additional inventiveness based on the combination will be

15

deemed acquiescence that the conventionality of that combination depends on the conventionality of the

16

constituent concepts. Plaintiff shall file the supplement briefing no later than February 24, 2021.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2021
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2