DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time, Inc.
OPINION & ORDER: As set forth within, applying those principles to the case at hand, it is clear that the Court's decision in Bravo requires dismissal of Time. The cases involve the same plaintiff, alleging infringement of the same patent, in th e same forum. In Bravo, the Court held that the '516 Patent was invalid under § 101 of the Patent Act, because it is drawn to the abstract ideal of meal planning. That is a legal determination, which DietGoal certainly had a "full and fair opportunity and incentive to litigate" - a reality DietGoal does not seriously contest in its July 21, 2014 letter. Thus, the Court's § 101 determination applies with equal force to Time, requiring dismissal of that case as well. Considerations of "justice and equity" do not require a contrary result. DietGoal is free and indeed it has already taken steps - to pursue an appeal of the Court's ruling on the validity of the '516 Patent before the Federal Ci rcuit. And if the Federal Circuit vacates or reverses the Court's §101 ruling on appeal, DietGoal will have the opportunity to continue to litigate both Bravo and Time before this Court. Dismissal of Time at this juncture does not prejudice DietGoal in any way. Accordingly, Time is dismissed on the ground of collateral estoppel. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/8/2014) (ajs)
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?