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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?