Good Technology Corporation et al v. MobileIron, Inc.

Filing 298

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 194 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16

GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and )
GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
MOBILEIRON, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
(Re: Docket No. 194)

In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 101
17
bars any patent claim directed to an abstract idea unless the claim includes “additional features”
18

that transform the idea into a patent eligible invention. 1 At first glance, Alice would seem to pose

19
serious problems for each of the claims of two patents Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and
20
Good Technology Software, Inc. assert against Defendant MobileIron, Inc. United States Patent
21
No. 7.907,386 appears directed to little more than the notion of enforcing rules. United States
22
Patent No. 7,702,322 appears no less abstract in claiming a way of ensuring the compatibility of
23
two items used together. In the absence of a transformation of these ideas, Good would appear to
24
be the owner of two patents worth little more than the paper they are printed on.
25
There’s just one thing—MobileIron never told Good about any Section 101 problem.
26
27
1

28

134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

1
Case Nos. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

1

In this district, the rules are clear: a party opposing a claim of patent infringement must

2

include in its invalidity contentions “[a]ny grounds of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 101.” 2

3

Invalidity grounds not disclosed “are barred.” 3 To its credit, MobileIron freely concedes that even

4

though its contentions included Section 101 challenges to other asserted claims, MobileIron did not

5

include any of the challenges it now brings in its motion for judgment on the pleadings.

6

No worries, says MobileIron. Patent eligibility under Section 101 is a “threshold inquiry”

7

of law akin to jurisdiction, 4 and the local patent rules do not extend to motions on the pleadings

8

that require no discovery. Unfortunately for MobileIron, the arguments fly in the face of

9

longstanding precedent.
First, while appellate courts have likened patent eligibility to jurisdiction, 5 the focus of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

such comments are plainly on timing—that is, when Section 101 should be considered. They do

12

not suggest that eligibility implicates Article III authority such that the issue is always subject to

13

court review. Nor could they: as the Supreme Court has gone to great lengths to explain, eligibility

14

questions such as those presented by MobileIron are a matter of statute, and nothing more. 6

15

Second, the Federal Circuit has recognized that our local patent rules “are designed to

16

address this problem [of nondisclosure] by requiring both the plaintiff and the defendant in patent

17

cases to provide early notice of their infringement and invalidity contentions and to proceed with

18

diligence in amending those contentions when new information comes to light in the course of

19

discovery.” 7 Importantly, the Circuit also has affirmed that this court “may impose any ‘just’

20

sanction” for violating these rules, including “‘refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or

21

2

22

3

23

Patent L.R. 3-3(d).

Mediatek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-05341, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
22442, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014).

4

24

In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff’d, Bilski V. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218
(2010).

25

5

26

See, e.g., Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718-19 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J.,
concurring).
6

See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 315-16 (1980).

7

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys. Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

27
28

2
Case Nos. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS