Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. et al v. CenturyLink, Inc.

Filing 215

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 184 Report and Recommendations,,. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/30/2015. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

PHOENIX LICENSING, L.L.C., et al.
v.
CENTURYLINK, INC., et al.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:14-cv-965-JRG-RSP
(lead case)

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Asserted Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
(“Defendants’ Objections”). Dkt. No. 188.

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly held that a
determination of patent validity under § 101 “requires a legal analysis that can—and often
does—‘contain underlying factual issues.’” Dkt. No. 184 at 3 (citing Accenture Global Servs.,
GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge correctly held that the nature of the Asserted Patents and the parties’
unresolved claim construction disputes would render an analysis under Mayo premature and
improper at the pleading stage. Id. at 3-5 (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293–94 (2012)).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees with the conclusions of the Report and
Recommendation, and the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s rulings neither “clearly erroneous
[n]or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(a). Accordingly, Defendants’
Objections are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
Denying-in-Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 184) is hereby ADOPTED.
So Ordered and Signed on this

Sep 29, 2015