Smartflash LLC et al v. Apple Inc, et al

Filing 484

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 423 Report and Recommendations, and denying Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (6:13CV447, 266 ; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 320). Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 2/13/15. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
SMARTFLASH LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
v.
§
§
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. §
et al.,
§
§
Defendants.
§
§

CASE NO. 6:13cv447-JRG-KNM

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SMARTFLASH LLC, et al.,

CASE NO. 6:13cv448-JRG-KNM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Invalidity
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 266; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 320) and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (6:13CV447, Doc. No. 423; 6:13CV448; Doc. No.
454) recommending that the Motions be denied. Having considered Defendants’ Objections to the
Report and Recommendation Regarding Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
Regarding Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (6:13CV447, Doc. No. 457; 6:13CV448, Doc.
No. 477), and having conducted a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
Recommendation as to which objection was made, the Court finds no error therein.
Defendants assert that the Court’s claim construction that not all asserted claims require
“logically separate” memories for certain types of data directly contradicts the Court’s reliance on

the patents’ recitations of distinct memory types. However, in ruling on the instant motion, the
Court recognized that the patents recite several different memory types throughout the claims—as
opposed to simply generic computer memory. This is one element among the combination of
limitations that provides an inventive concept. Recognizing that the claims do more than recite
.
generic computer memory does not contradict a finding that some claims require “logically
separate” storage of certain data types.
The Court hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Invalidity
Pursuant to § 101 (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 266; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 320) are DENIED.

SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of February, 2015.

____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2