Motio, Inc. v. BSP Software LLC

Filing 243

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - DENYING 122 Amended MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings [CORRECTION to Dkt. 121] filed by Avnet, Inc.. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/8/2016. (baf, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

MOTIO, INC.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

V.
BSP SOFTWARE LLC,
BRIGHTSTAR PARTNERS, INC.,
and AVNET, INC.

CASE NO. 4:12-CV-647
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants‟ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Due to
Failure to Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. #122). After
reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,285,678 (“the ‟678
Patent”). The ‟678 Patent is titled “Continuous integration of business intelligence software.” It
was filed on December 30, 2010, and issued on October 9, 2012. The ‟678 Patent relates to
methods of providing automatic version control to a business intelligence system. ‟678 Patent at
Abstract. Plaintiff filed suit for infringement of the „678 Patent on October 10, 2012 (Dkt. #1).
On June 18, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. #121).
The following day, June 19, 2015, Defendants filed the present motion as an amended motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. #122). Plaintiff filed a response on July 27, 2015 (Dkt. #137).
On August 7, 2015, Defendants filed a reply brief (Dkt. #142), and on August 17, 2015, Plaintiff
filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #144).

1

LEGAL STANDARD
Defendant brings its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The standard
for deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss. Guidry v. American Public Life Ins. Co., 512 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 2007).
In examining a motion for judgment on the pleadings, therefore, the court must accept as true all
well-pleaded facts contained in the plaintiff‟s complaint and view them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996).
A claim will survive if it “may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with
the allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 1969, 167 L. Ed.2d 929 (2007). In other words, a claim may not be dismissed based solely
on a court‟s supposition that the pleader is unlikely “to find evidentiary support for his
allegations or prove his claim to the satisfaction of the factfinder.” Id. at 563 n.8.
Although detailed factual allegations are not required, a plaintiff must provide the
grounds of his entitlement to relief beyond mere “labels and conclusions,” and “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. The complaint must be
factually suggestive, so as to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and into the
“realm of plausible liability.” Id. at 555, 557 n.5. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed.2d 868 (2009)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955). For a claim to have facial plausibility, a
plaintiff must plead facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the alleged misconduct. Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009).
Therefore, “where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere

2

possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged – but it has not shown – that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
A district court may consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss only if the
documents are referred to in the plaintiff‟s complaint and are central to the plaintiff‟s claims.
Scanlan v. Texas A & M Univ., 343 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Collins v. Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000)); see also Causey v. Sewell CadillacChevrolet, 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004). The Fifth Circuit has also held that courts are
permitted to refer to matters of public record when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 n.6 (5th Cir. 1996). “[T]aking judicial notice of
public records directly relevant to the issue in dispute is proper on a Rule 12(b)(6) review and
does not transform the motion into one for summary judgment.” Motten v. Chase Home Fin.,
2011 WL 2566092 at *2 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (citing Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 780 (5th
Cir. 2011)).
ANALYSIS
After reviewing the current complaint, the motion for judgment, the response, the reply,
and the sur-reply, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated plausible claims for purposes of
defeating a Rule 12(c) motion.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants‟ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Due
to Failure to Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. #122) is hereby
DENIED.

3

SIGNED this 8th day of January, 2016.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE