DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. et al

Filing 403

NOTICE by Google Inc., Jimmy John's Franchise LLC re 300 MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim Based on Unpatentable Subject Matter MOTION to Dismiss Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim Based on Unpatentable Subject Matter DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM BASED ON UNPATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC)(Carrano, Cono)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
DIETGOAL INNOVATIONS LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-00418-JRG
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ARBY’S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
BASED ON UNPATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Defendants Google Inc. and Jimmy John’s Franchise LLC (the “Defendants”) file this
Notice of Supplemental Authority and respectfully request that the Court consider the recent
precedential opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC, No. 2009-1242, 2012 WL 603969 (Fed.
Cir. Feb. 27, 2012) (attached hereto as Exhibit A) in conjunction with the Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Based on Unpatentable Subject Matter (Dkt. No. 300) (the
“Motion) and the Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a
Claim Based on Unpatentable Subject Matter (Dkt. No 398) (the “Reply”).
Since the Defendants filed the Motion, the Federal Circuit has issued two opinions in
which the patent at issue was held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101: the opinion in Dealertrack,
Inc. v. Huber, No. 2009-1566, 2012 WL 164439 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2012), discussed in
Defendants’ Reply, and the attached Fort Properties opinion. In both opinions, the Court held
that claims containing “computer” limitations were unpatentable under § 101 in view of the
Federal Circuit’s decision in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed.

Cir. 2011). See Dealertrack, 2012 WL 164439, at *16-*17 (“computer aided” limitation); Fort
Properties, 2012 WL 603969, at *6 (“computer” limitation).
The Fort Properties opinion directly supports Defendants’ contention that the claims of
the patent asserted by DietGoal, U.S. Patent No. 6,585,516, are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit and the lower court employed the § 101 analysis applied in
Defendants’ Motion and Reply, namely that the claims are directed to abstract ideas and that the
claims fail the machine-or-transformation test, respectively. See Fort Properties, 2012 WL
603969, at *2, *5.

DATED: February 28, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Cono A. Carrano
Cono A. Carrano
Lead Attorney
D.C. Bar No. 445995
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.887.4288
Email: [e-mail]
Dianne B. Elderkin
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
Two Commerce Square, Suite 4100
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 215.965.1210
Email: [e-mail]

2

David C. Vondle
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.887.4288
Email: [e-mail]
Kellie M. Johnson
State Bar No. 24070003
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 214.969.4343
Email: [e-mail]
John Wittenzellner
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
Two Commerce Square, Suite 4100
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 215.965.1210
Email: [e-mail]
Jennifer Parker Ainsworth
State Bar No. 00784720
Wilson Robertson & Cornelius PC
909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400
P.O. Box 7339
Tyler, TX 75711
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903.509.5092
Email: [e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant Google Inc.
Jennifer L. Fitzgerald
Freeborn & Peters LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.360.6594
Email: [e-mail]

3

Michael E. Jones
State Bar No. 10929400
Potter Minton, P.C.
110 N. College Avenue, Suite 500
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903.593.0846
Email: [e-mail]
Allen F. Gardner
State Bar No. 24043679
Potter Minton, P.C.
110 N. College Avenue, Suite 500
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903.593.0846
Email: [e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant
Jimmy John’s Franchise LLC

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all counsel of record who consented to electronic service are being
served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a) on
February 28, 2012. Any other counsel of record will be served by First Class U.S. mail on this
same date.

/s/ Cono A. Carrano
Cono A. Carrano

5