Valmont Industries Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation
Filing
107
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 68 motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 11/14/18. (ntl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
VALMONT INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. 15-42-LPS
V.
LINDSAY CORPORATION and
LINDSAY SALES & SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.
Susan E. Morrison, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., Wilmington, DE
P. Weston Musselman, Jr. , Ricardo J. Bonilla, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., Dallas, TX
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Rodger D. Smith II, Eleanor G. Tennyson, Jennifer A. Ward, MORRIS , NICHOLS, ARSHT &
TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE
Attorneys for Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
November 14, 2018
Wilmington, Delaware
Plaintiff Valmont Industries, Inc. ("Plaintiff' or "Valmont") asserts, in the operative
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), that Defendants Lindsay Corporation and Lindsay Sales
& Services, LLC ("Defendants" or "Lindsay") infringe Valmont's U.S . Patent No. 7,003 ,357 C2
(D.I. 66-1) ("the '357 Patent"), entitled "Method and Means for Reading the Status of and
Controlling Irrigation Components." Lindsay filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6), contending that the patent-in-suit fails to claim patent eligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (D.I. 68)
I.
B ACKGROUND
The patent-in-suit is directed to the use and improvement of irrigation control and
monitoring systems. (See ' 357 patent at Abstract) The patent teaches the use of a hand-held
portable device to remotely display and control irrigation systems. The parties dispute whether
the aim and inventiveness of the patent was directed to allowing remote and portable irrigation
control (see D.I. 100 ("Tr.") at 86) (Defendants: "It' s our view that they're just using the
computer technology here, a hand-held computer as a tool to implement something that was well
known.") or to overcome challenges in displaying irrigation status on a compact screen (see Tr.
at 97) (Plaintiff arguing that patent is "about particular GUis that allow a user to quickly and
easily read a comprehensive set of information on a single screen").
The ' 357 patent has been revised multiple times. First, all but claims 11 and 16 were
found unpatentable during the inter partes review (IPR). (D.I. 30 at 2) Second, claim 16 was
found unpatentable and claims 19-90 were added in the first ex parte reexamination. (D .I. 31
1
13) Third, claims 19, 20, 21, and 23 were amended as a result of a second ex parte
reexamination. (D.I. 66-3) Lastly, on May 9, 2018, the Federal Circuit on appeal from the IPR
1
invalidated claim 11, leaving claims 1-18 invalidated with claims 19-90 remaining in effect. See
Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corp., 730 F. App' x 918 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Defendants point to claim 25 as representative of the asserted claims (25-90). (D.I. 69 at
3-4; Tr. at 92-93) Plaintiff contests the representativeness of claim 25, citing claims 79 and 37
as presenting different issues. (Tr. at 114-15) While the SAC focuses on claim 25, Plaintiff is
asserting other claims as well, and the Court is not persuaded of its representativeness. Hence,
the Court will address the three claims cited by the parties - claims 25, 37, and 79 - but will
require additional briefing if either party seeks a ruling on any other claim.
Claim 25 of the '357 patent recites:
A remote user interface for reading a status of and controlling irrigation
equipment including a pivot and at least two end-guns affixed to the pivot,
compnsmg:
a hand-held display;
a processor;
wireless telemetry means for transmitting signals and data between
the remote user interface and the irrigation equipment; and
software operable on said processor for:
(a) displaying data received from the irrigation equipment as a
plurality of graphic user interfaces (GUis) that are configured to present
said data as status information on said display, wherein said plurality of
GUis are shaped to identify particular types of irrigation equipment by
comprising a pivot GUI that represents the pivot, at least two end-gun
GUis that represents the at least two end guns affixed to the pivot, and a
spray pattern GUI that represents a setting of the at least two end-guns
along a pivot path; wherein the pivot GUI has a shape representing the
pivot path of the pivot, the shape partitioned into a plurality of wedges;
wherein the spray pattern GUI has a spray pattern representing the setting
of the at least two end-guns along the pivot path;
(b) receiving a user' s commands to control the irrigation
equipment, through said user's manipulation of said GUis, wherein
receiving the user' s commands comprises: receiving the user's selection
of a wedge; and receiving the user' s selection of a change of a status of
one of the least two end-guns for the selected wedged; and
2
(c) transmitting signals to the irrigation equipment to control the
irrigation equipment in accordance with said user's commands; and
(d) displaying a changed spray pattern of the selected wedge
according to the change of the status of one of the least two end-guns.
('357 patent at 1:63-2:37)
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
Evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires
the Court to accept as true all material allegations of the complaint. See Spruill v. Gillis, 372
F.3d 218,223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but
whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." In re Burlington Coat
Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F .3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Thus, the Court may grant such a motion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff,
plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Maio v. Aetna, Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2000)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility.
See Johnson v. City ofShelby, 135 S. Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not be dismissed,
however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at
346.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a civil plaintiff must allege facts that 'raise a right to
relief above the speculative level on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact)."' Victaulic Co. v. Tieman , 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting
3
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . At bottom, "[t]he complaint must state enough
facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [each] necessary
element" of a plaintiffs claim. Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc., 522 F.3d 315,
321 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court is not obligated to accept as true "bald assertions," Morse v. Lower Merion
Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), "unsupported
conclusions and unwarranted inferences," Schuylkill Energy Res., Inc. v. Pa. Power & Light Co.,
113 F.3d 405, 417 (3d Cir. 1997), or allegations that are "self-evidently false," Nami v. Fauver,
82 F.3d 63 , 69 (3d Cir. 1996).
B.
Patentable Subject Matter
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,
may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." There are
three exceptions to§ 101 's broad patent-eligibility principles: "laws of nature, physical
phenomena, and abstract ideas." Diamondv. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303,309 (1980). "Whether
a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question oflaw which may contain disputes
over underlying facts ." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289
(2012), the Supreme Court set out a two-step "framework for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int '!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
4
(2014). First, courts must determine if the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept ("step one"). See id. If so, the next step is to look for an '"inventive concept' - i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself' ("step two"). Id.
The two steps are "plainly related" and "involve overlapping scrutiny of the content of the
claims." Elec. Power Grp. , LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
At step one, "the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added); see also Affinity Labs of
Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Affinity Labs I") (stating
first step "calls upon us to look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to
determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter").
In conducting the step one analysis, courts should not "oversimplif[y]" key inventive
concepts or "downplay" an invention's benefits. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327,
1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[C]ourts 'must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by
looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.")
(quoting In re TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
At step two, courts must "look to both the claim as a whole and the individual claim
elements to determine whether the claims contain an element or combination of elements that is
sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon
the ineligible concept itself." McRo, 837 F.3d at 1312 (internal brackets and quotation marks
omitted). The "standard" step two inquiry includes consideration of whether claim elements
5
"simply recite 'well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]. "' Bascom Glob. Internet
Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S.
Ct. at 2359). "Simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality, [is]
not enough to supply an inventive concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (internal quotation marks
omitted; emphasis in original).
However, "[t]he inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each
claim element, by itself, was known in the art." Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. In Bascom, the
Federal Circuit held that "the limitations of the claims, taken individually, recite generic
computer, network and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself," but
nonetheless determined that an ordered combination of these limitations was patent-eligible
under step two. Id. at 1349.
The Federal Circuit recently elaborated on the step two standard, stating that " [t]he
question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact. Any fact, such as this
one, that is pertinent to the invalidity conclusion must be proven by clear and convincing
evidence." Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368; see also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades
Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 , 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("While the ultimate determination of
eligibility under§ 101 is a question oflaw, like many legal questions, there can be subsidiary
fact questions which must be resolved en route to the ultimate legal determination."); Automated
Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. , 723 F. App'x 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("We have held
that ' whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant fi eld is a question of fact. "') (quoting
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368).
6
"Whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes
beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a
piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and
conventional." Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369; see also Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., 725 F.
App'x 959, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Something is not well-understood, routine, and conventional
merely because it is disclosed in a prior art reference. There are many obscure references that
nonetheless qualify as prior art.").
As part of the step two "inventive concept" inquiry, the Federal Circuit has looked to the
claims as well as the specification. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. , 838
F .3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Affinity Labs If') ("[N]either the claim nor the specification
reveals any concrete way of employing a customized user interface."). Still, it is not enough just
to disclose the improvement in the specification; instead, the Court's task becomes to "analyze
the asserted claims and determine whether they capture these improvements." Berkheimer, 881
F.3d at 1369 (emphasis added). In other words, " [t]o save a patent at step two, an inventive
concept must be evident in the claims." RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. , Ltd. , 855 F.3d
1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added); see also Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 ("[W]e must
examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ' inventive concept. "')
(emphasis added); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.").
At both steps one and two, it is often useful for the Court to compare the claims at issue
with claims that have been considered in the now considerably large body of decisions applying
§ 101. See Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. , 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Finally, as a procedural matter, the Federal Circuit has observed frequently that
7
§ 101 disputes may be amenable to resolution on motions for judgment on the pleadings,
motions to dismiss, or summary judgment. See, e.g. , Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368 ("Whether a
claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law which may contain disputes over
underlying facts. Patent eligibility has in many cases been resolved on motions to dismiss or
summary judgment. Nothing in this decision should be viewed as casting doubt on the propriety
of those cases. When there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the claim
element or claimed combination is well-understood, routine, conventional to a skilled artisan in
the relevant field, this issue can be decided on summary judgment as a matter of law.")
(emphasis added); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(affirming grant of Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on pleadings for lack of patentable subject
matter).
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that the claim 25 is ineligible under § 101 because it is directed to
the abstract idea of monitoring and controlling the status of irrigation equipment, something that
could be done "by field workers taking directions from a foreman." (D.I. 69 at 8; see also Tr. at
102-03) Defendants further contend that claim 25 contains no inventive concept and merely
recites well-understood, routine, and conventional elements. (See D.I. 69 at 10; Tr. at 92)
Plaintiff responds that the patent is directed to an improved and innovative user interface, which
is not an abstract idea. (See D.I. 72 at 10; Tr. at 100-01) Claim 25 is patent-eligible also
because, according to Plaintiff, it is "directed to a particular implementation of a solution to a
computer problem." (D.I. 72 at 12 ("The asserted claims are directed to specific
implementations of the claimed invention that are particular for use in remote devices and their
monitoring and controlling of irrigation equipment."); Tr. at 106)
8
A.
This Motion May Be Decided without Further Discovery
As an initial matter, the Court has determined that no disputes of fact make resolution of
the issues presented by the motion inappropriate. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369. In its SAC,
Plaintiff alleges:
In particular, a difficulty that had previously inhibited the
use of handheld devices to monitor and control irrigation
equipment was their inherently small screens. Valmont's
engineers developed novel graphical user interfaces, particular to
the application relating to the monitoring and controlling of
irrigation equipment, that could represent a lot of information in a
relatively small area, yet still be quickly and easily read. Among
these innovations were graphical user interfaces that are shaped to
represent one or more data and whose shape may change in
response to changes in the data.
(D.I. 66 at ,r 12) Plaintiff relies on this allegation and an excerpt from Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128,
to argue that because the SAC alleges "that individual elements and the claimed combination are
not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity," the § 101 "question cannot be answered
adversely to the patentee based on the sources properly considered on a motion to dismiss." .
(D.I. 72 at 18-19) (citing Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128) In particular, Plaintiff argues that discovery
will address whether "the use of these GUis on these devices ... would ... have been a wellknown, routine, conventional use of these interfaces or would ... be unconventional" (Tr. at
106)
But the claims do not capture Plaintiffs purported innovation: the use of compact and
efficient GUis on a small screen. See, e.g. , TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp Inc., 2018 WL 1479027, at
*8 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2018) ("Unlike, for instance, the claims involved in Berkheimer, the
specification here is silent as to what the specific claimed improvement is, how it differs from
the prior art, or how any inventive feature, alone or as an ordered combination, is used in an
unconventional manner.") (citing Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369). Plaintiff finds support for its
9
position in the section of the patent "talking about how Valmont's engineers found a way to
present this information in a manner that was quickly and easily read." (Tr. at 107-08) (citing
'3 57 patent at 2:27-31) The lone supporting passage on which Plaintiff relies immediately
follows the patent's description of the prior art's problems with portability. ('357 patent at 1:2445) The portability problem is consistently referenced throughout the patent. In the Court's
view, "quick and easy" is in relation to and results from the portability of the "remote user
interface," not the "plurality of graphic user interfaces" that the display may generate. ('357
patent at 2:27-31) This is the only plausible conclusion that can be reached based on the patent,
so the SAC's allegations of innovative GUis (D.I. 66 at ,r 12) need not be accepted as true, even
at the pleading stage. See generally Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The '3 57 patent is unlike the patents involved in Aatrix, which claimed an improvement
in the importation and conversion of data from multiple third-party software applications which was a technological improvement. Similarly, the alleged innovation is distinct from Core
Wireless, where the Federal Circuit relied on an abundance of support in the specification and
failures of the prior art to find an innovative concept. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("The specification confirms that these
claims disclose an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small
screens. It teaches that the prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient
functioning of the computer."); see also Trading Techs. Int'!, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. , 675 F. App'x
1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (assessing whether claims were directed to "specific . .. solution of
a problem, or improvement in the functioning of technology").
In sum, Plaintiff has identified no factual disputes that require discovery and further
proceedings that need to be resolved before assessing the patentable subject matter issue.
10
B.
Claim Construction
In their briefing the parties disputed the need for claim construction prior to the Court' s
consideration of the motion to dismiss. (Compare D .I. 72 at 19-20 (citing Content Extraction,
776 F.3d at 1349) with D.I. 77 at 8-9) However, both parties now agree that claim construction
does not bear on the motion to dismiss, and may be decided separately. (See Tr. at 95-96) The
Court agrees. 1
C.
Claim 25 Is Directed to Nonpatentable Subject Matter
Claim 25 of the' 357 patent is directed to "a remote user interface for reading a status of
and controlling irrigation equipment." ('357 patent at claim 25)
1.
Step One
At step one the Court inquires whether the focus of the claims "is on the specific asserted
improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract
idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. The
Court agrees with Defendants that claim 25 is directed to the abstract idea "of remotely
monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment" (D.I. 77 at 9; see also Tr. at 87) and not, as
Plaintiff contends, "to specific improvements to irrigation control systems comprising innovative
GUis for monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment via a hand-held device. " (D.I. 72 at 3;
see also Tr. at 99)
Generic rearrangements of graphical displays are not "a ' specific asserted improvement
in computer capabilities.'" (See D.I. 72 at 10) (quoting Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879
F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) Plaintiff describes how the invention allows computers to
1
In any event, by separate Opinion issued today, the Court has resolved the parties' claim
construction disputes, which were argued at the same hearing as the motion. None of the Court's
constructions impact the § 101 analysis.
11
perform the same functions as in the prior art, but on a smaller screen. This data-reformatting,
even if captured in the claims, is an abstract idea.
Plaintiff relies on Core Wireless for its contention that the '357 patent's GUis are not an
abstract idea under Alice/Mayo. (See Tr. at 101 -05) In Core Wireless , the Federal Circuit found
patentable "improved display interfaces," but this was where the specification disclosed exactly
how and why the patented display diverged from "conventional navigation approaches." 880
F.3d at 1359. Here the patent says nothing about the display's innovativeness. Further, while
the '357 patent claims the use of GUis and provides examples, the patent in Core Wireless went
further by "specifying a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed.
The claim further required the application summary window list a limited set of data." Id. at
1362 (emphasis added). By contrast, applying irrigation data to an "interactive interface
limitation [remains] a generic computer element." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One
Bank (USA) , 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Because Defendants have met their burden at Step One, the Court will address Step Two.
2.
Step Two
The Court agrees with Defendants that "the ordered combination of claim 25's elements
also does not render the claim patent-eligible." (D.I. 69 at 13; Tr. at 92-93) Of significance, the
specification describes the invention, but never articulates patentable solutions to prior art
problems. See, e.g., Triplay, 2018 WL 1479027, at *8 (" [T]he specification describes the
claimed invention. But it never really seems to clearly articulate - at least with respect to the
'access block' and 'media block' components of the invention - what problems remained
unsolved as to those prior art systems, and/or how the use of these components as a part of a
messaging system provided an improvement over the prior art.") (internal quotation marks
12
omitted). In fact, the '357 patent describes two pieces of prior art, both of which relate
exclusively to limits on portability. (See ' 357 patent at 1:24-45) The patent functions
conventionally, achieving portability over the prior art through the application of a standard
computer telecommunication system, processor, and display. See Triplay, 2018 WL 1479027, at
*8 (citing Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368; Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128; Automated Tracking Sols.,
723 F. App'x at 995).
Plaintiffs SAC tries to read an innovation and purpose into the claims that simply is not
plausibly in the patent. See Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128. Plaintiff argues that its SAC (as well as
the specification) demonstrates that the patent is "directed to specific implementations of the
claimed invention that are particular for use in remote devices and their monitoring and
controlling of irrigation equipment." (D.I. 72 at 13 ; see also D.I. 72 at 16 (citing Bascom, 827
F.3d 1341)) This characterization finds no basis in the patent and cannot, therefore, render the
claims patent eligible.
D.
Claims 79 and 37 are Likewise Unpatentable Under Alice
Plaintiff points out that "Claim 79 requires receipt of a user' s commands to control the
irrigation equipment through the user' s manipulation of the GUis such that the user is able to
customize the screens to depict particular pieces of irrigation equipment being controlled." (D.I.
72 at 16-17) Claim 79 does not become patent eligible by "allow[ing] the user to customize the
information that goes on the display that makes it easier for them to see the most pertinent
information for them." The patent does not add an inventive element but merely incorporates a
conventional feature of interactive displays. (Tr. at 115)
13
Claim 3 7, which calls for "monitoring and warning a user of the operational status of the
irrigation equipment." (D .I. 72 at 17) Plaintiff identifies nothing on which the Court may rely to
find this unconventional or not routine.
In sum, the Court finds claims 25 , 37, and 79 to be patent ineligible. Should either party
seek a ruling on the eligibility of any other claims, it will need to propose a briefing schedule to
provide the Court with the input it needs to render an additional decision.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to claims 25, 37, and 79. An order follows.
14
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?