Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 345 Report and Recommendations, 259 Sealed Motion, filed by T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., T-Mobiles objections, 394 , are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/15/2017. (nkl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD,
T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE U.S.A.,
Case No. 2:16-CV-00052-JRG-RSP
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge regarding the
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement under § 101 (Dkt. No. 259). T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.,
T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, “T-Mobile”), object to the Report and Recommendation which
recommends to this Court that it deny T-Mobile’s motion for summary judgment that the ‘365 and
‘617 patents are invalid under § 101. Having reviewed the Defendants’ objections, and having
fully considered the Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or
modify the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C.
Indeed, contrary to T-Mobile’s objections, the conclusion of the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation that “the claims’ character as a whole cannot be classified as an ‘abstract idea’
under Alice’s Step 1,” (Dkt. No. 345 at 7), is correct.
“Precedent has recognized that specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or
improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter.”
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. Appx. 1001, 1004–05, 2017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., the court upheld the patent eligibility of claims
“necessarily rooted in computer technology” that “overcome a problem specifically arising in the
realm of computer networks.” 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Similarly, “claimed
process[es] us[ing] a combined order of specific rules” that improved on existing technological
processes were deemed patent-eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, claims that were “directed to a specific improvement to
the way computers operate, embodied in [a] self-referential table,” were deemed eligible in Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“Abstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computerimplemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known
or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole.”
Trading Techs., 675 Fed. Appx. At 1005. (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). The Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation implemented a proper analysis under Federal Circuit law, and the
Court finds no error in it.
It is ORDERED:
(1) T-Mobile’s objections, Dkt. 394, are OVERRULED.
(2) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 345, is ADOPTED.
(3) Accordingly, T-Mobile’s motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 259, is DENIED.
SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 15th day of September, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?