Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC et al
Filing
545
OPINION AND ORDER Denying 533 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's Judgment of Patent Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, ECF No. 533, is DENIED. As no pertinent issues remain f or resolution on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 55, and as the Court has previously entered judgment on Defendants' declaratory judgment counterclaim for inequitable conduct, see ECF No. 542, the Clerk is REQUESTED to enter final judgment in Defendants' favor on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 8/10/16. Copies distributed to all parties 8/10/16. (ldab, )
UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
CERTUSVIEW TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil No.
v.
2:13cv346
S&N LOCATING SERVICES, LLC, and
S&N COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On January 21,
ECF
No.
250,
Defendants
Inc.'s
197,
S&N
{"S&N")
and
2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order,
in
this
Locating
Motion
finding
subject
("Section 101
Technologies,
for
LLC
and
on
the
Judgment
each
of
the
case
S&N
matter
Pleadings,
asserted
pursuant
and
to
Order").
("CertusView")
now
1
of
United
States
Patent
was patent ineligible.
Mot.
Ineligibility
under
U.S.C.
asserts
reconsideration
that
appropriate
Circuit's
because:
recent
35
(1)
the
decision
and
Court
of
reversal
of
No.
finding
533.
of
LLC
such
for
v.
and
that
Patent")
of J. of
Appeals
Enfish,
§ 101
CertusView
(w,359
for Partial Recons.
ECF
the
reconsideration
8,340,359
§ 101,
of
U.S.C.
Plaintiff
No.
No.
claim patent-
reversal of the portion of such Opinion and Order
Claim
ECF
claims
35
seeks
granting
Communications,
invalid because they did not
Opinion
LLC
infringement
Services,
that
Patents-in-Suit were
eligible
patent
Patent
CertusView
finding
the
is
Federal
Microsoft
Corporation,
822
controlling
produced
F.3d
test
during
for
the
addressing
S&N's
inequitable
available
oral
is
at
argument
is
bench
time
judgment
the
Hearing,
record,
unnecessary
the
evidence
this
matter,
counterclaim
decided
Motion,
Mot.
(2)
in
CertusView has
for
alters
different
Court
this
the
and
trial
on
Request
2016),
substantially
the
examining the briefs and
oral
Cir.
eligibility;
Pleadings.
argument
CertusView's
patent
declaratory
for Judgment on the
for
(Fed.
subsequent
conduct,
evidence
1327
from
S&N's
the
Motion
filed
a request
S&N
opposes.
which
ECF
for
No.
228.
After
the Court determines
because
the
facts
and
that
legal
contentions are adequately presented and oral argument would not
aid in the decisional process.
Loc.
Civ.
R.
7 (J).
Fed. R.
For the reasons
Civ.
set
P.
78(b);
forth below,
E.D. Va.
the Court
DENIES CertusView's Motion.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
CertusView
technology
holds
for
the
five
prevention
related
of
damage
infrastructure,
at issue in this matter:
States
No.
Patent
Patent
No.
8,290,204
8,265,344
("x204
("'344
Patent"),
patents,
the
to
underground
'359 Patent,
Patent"),
United
involving
United
States
United
States
Patent
No.
1 The Court recites here only those facts which are pertinent to the
pending Motion.
For a more detailed factual and procedural history,
see the Court's August 2, 2016 Opinion and Order, ECF No. 542, May 22,
2015 Opinion and Order, ECF No. 325, and Section 101 Opinion and
Order,
ECF No.
250.
8,532,341
("'341
8,407,001
Patent"),
{W1001 Patent")
and
United
(collectively,
Court's
seminal
2014
2437
No.
542.
The Patents-in-
prior to the United States Supreme
patent-ineligibility
Corporation Priority Limited v.
Ct.
Patent
the "Patents-in-Suit").
August 2, 2016 Op. & Order, 17-18, ECF No.
Suit issued in 2012 and 2013,
States
CLS
Bank
decision
in
International,
Alice
134 S.
(2014).
CertusView's products were developed as a means to improve
record-keeping and documentation of "locate operations," id.
23,
that
marking
is,
object
underground
No.
"the
application
or
material
facility,"
101-2.
to
Joint
Specifically,
of
paint,
indicate
Claim
the
flags,
the
24.
Patents-in-Suit
Stated broadly,
locators to document
create
a
the
an
2,
ECF
claim inventions
technology allows
electronic
record
that
includes
to
such
regarding the locate
Id.
'359
Underground
Patent,
Chart,
of
August 2, 2016 Op.
e-Sketch
documentation and additional specific data
The
other
a locate operation more accurately and
searchable
operation.
some
presence
Construction
related to CertusView's e-Sketch technology.
& Order at
or
at
ECF
patent
Facility
No.
55-2
is
Locate
entitled
Marks."
[hereinafter
"Electronic
Am.
M,359
Manifest
Compl.
Ex.
Patent"].
of
C,
'359
The
'359
Patent claims methods and apparatus for generating a searchable
electronic
record
of
a
locate
operation.
The
only
asserted
claim from the
method claim,
'359 Patent is Claim 1.
Claim 1,
an
independent
recites:
A method for generating a searchable electronic record
of
a
locate
operation
performed
by
a
locate
technician,
the
locate
operation
comprising
identifying, using at least one physical locate mark,
a presence or an absence of at least one underground
facility within a dig area, wherein at least a portion
of the dig area may be excavated or disturbed during
excavation activities, the method comprising:
A) electronically receiving an aerial image of a
geographic area comprising the dig area, at least
a portion of the received aerial
image being
displayed on a display device;
B) adding to the displayed aerial image at least
one digital representation of the at least one
physical locate mark, applied to ground, pavement
or other surface by the locate technician during
the locate operation, so as to generate a markedup digital
image including the at
least one
digital
representation
of
the
at
least
one
physical locate mark; and
C)
electronically
transmitting
and/or
electronically storing the searchable electronic
record of
the
locate
operation,
wherein
the
searchable
electronic
record
comprises
the
marked-up digital
image and a
data
set,
and
wherein the data set comprises:
a set of geographic points along a marking
path
of
the
at
least
one
underground
facility,
the
set
of
geographic
points
including
geographical
coordinates
corresponding to the at least one physical
locate mark;
a
property
address
associated
with
least one physical locate mark;
a timestamp indicative of when
operation occurred;
the
the
at
locate
a name of the locate technician;
a
name
of
a
company
responsible
for
performing the locate operation; and
a
ticket
number
operation.
'359 Patent,
Col.
17:53-18:21.
associated
with
the
locate
On
May
29,
action against
2013,
S&N.
Compl.
CertusView filed an
the
five
23,
CertusView,
filed
infringement
seeking
invalidity
Answer,
S&N
See
and
Am.
an
Affirmative
On
infringement
December
6,
2013,
alleging infringement of
Compl.,
Answer
judgments
all
Defenses,
patent
ECF
No.
denying
55.
On
CertusView's
asserting counterclaims against
declaratory
regarding
a
1.
amended complaint,
2013,
allegations of
filed
ECF No.
Patents-in-Suit.
December
and
CertusView
five
of
non-infringement
Patents-in-Suit.
and Countercls.,
S&N's
ECF
No.
61.2
After the Supreme Court issued its June 2014 Alice decision,
October
claim
28,
2014,
following
construction
asserted patent
Pleadings,
order,
claims,
pursuant
to
S&N
a
and
Markman
a
hearing,
limitation
filed a Motion
Federal
Rule
of
on
issuance
the
Civil
of
number
for Judgment
on
Procedure
on
a
of
the
12(c),
contending that the Patents-in-Suit were invalid as they did not
claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
197.
On January 21,
Judgment
claims
of
on
the
the
2015,
Pleadings
the Court
and
found
Patents-in-Suit were
§ 101.
ECF No.
granted S&N's Motion
that
all
of
for
the
asserted
invalid for failure
to claim
patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, including Claim
1 of the '359 Patent.
Sect. 101 Op. & Order, ECF No. 250.
" S&N's Answer was amended two additional times after the Court issued
its
Section
101 Opinion
and
Order.
See
S&N's
First Am.
Affirmative Defenses, and Countercls., ECF No. 253; S&N's
Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Countercls., ECF No. 336.
Answer,
Second Am.
On March 8,
trial
on
2016,
S&N's
the matter proceeded to a five-day bench
declaratory
judgment
CertusView for inequitable conduct.
conclusion
Partial
of
35
filed
its
Partial
U.S.C.
trial,
of
§ 101.
Response
in
for
CertusView's
CertusView
No.
ECF
its
Reconsideration.
Motion
for
Partial
30,
Finally,
ECF
in
No.
after the
for
Ineligibility
June
Brief
against
Motion
2016,
S&N
Motion
CertusView's
536.
Rebuttal
its
Patent
On
to
No.
filed
of
533.
Opposition
filed
Partial
On June 15, 2016,
Judgment
ECF
Reconsideration.
CertusView
Motion
bench
Reconsideration
under
2016,
the
counterclaim
for
on
July
15,
of
its
Support
540.
Therefore,
Reconsideration
is
ripe
for
review.
II.
A.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)
CertusView
Civil
STANDARD OF REVIEW
moves
Procedure
for
54(b),
reconsideration
which
governs
interlocutory orders or decisions.3
court
"'retains
interlocutory
judgment.'"
3 The
the
power
to
orders ... at
TomTom,
Court's
under
101
reconsideration
reconsider
any
Opinion
Rule
of
of
Under Rule 54(b), a district
time
Inc. v. APT Sys. GmbH,
Section
Federal
and
and
modify
prior
17 F.
Order
is
to
its
final
Supp. 3d 54 5,
considered
an
interlocutory order in this matter because it did not address S&N's
declaratory judgment counterclaim for inequitable conduct and was not
a "final decision."
See CertusView Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating
Servs., LLC, Order, No. 15-1404, Doc. No. 15 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015)
(citing
2003)) .
Nystrom
v.
TREX
Co.,
Inc.,
339*
F.3d
1347,
1350
(Fed.
Cir.
546
(E.D. Va.
2014)
(quoting Am.
Canoe Ass'n
Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2003) ).'1
relief
under Rule
district court."
H.
Cone
Mem.
(1983)).
54(b)
"is
committed
Am. Canoe Ass'n,
Hosp.
However
v.
Mercury
the
law of
to
Murphy
the
discretion
326 F.3d at 515
Const.
Corp.,
the case
Court
of Appeals
applying the law of the case doctrine,
has
substantially
authority has
the
different
460
U.S.
among
or
(3)
the
and would work manifest
Co.,
845
F.2d
Longshoremen's
Am.
Canoe
69);
(E.D.
66,
Va.
326
623
F.3d
F.2d
at
Trinity Indus.,
2015)
decision
(4th Cir.
(listing
1054
was
found that,
when
(2)
(5th
cases
v.
Cir.
in
law applicable
erroneous
Warner-Lambert
EEOC
v.
1980));
Sejman,
148 F.
controlling
clearly
(quoting
(citing
Inc.,
others,
a subsequent trial
Sejman
1988)
515
12
The
evidence,
injustice.'"
Assoc.,
Ass'n,
Evans v.
69
prior
1,
Id.
since made a contrary decision of
issue,
the
a court generally may not
depart from its previous ruling unless "'(1)
produces
of
(citing Moses
doctrine,
for the Fourth Circuit
Farms,
The power to grant
"evolved as a means of guiding that discretion."
has
to
v.
Supp.
845
Int'1
accord
F.3d
3d 542,
support).
at
544
"Absent
a
A On procedural issues not unique to the Federal Circuit's exclusive
jurisdiction,
the Federal
regional circuit,
which in
Valley Floral Grp.,
(Fed.
Cir.
2010)
Inc.
("We
Circuit will
this case is
apply the precedent of
the
v. Shaw Rose Nets,
review
a
district
Fourth Circuit.
LLC,
court's
597
the
See
Del.
F.3d 1374,
1379
decision
to
exclude
evidence and to deny a motion for reconsideration under the law of the
pertinent regional circuit."
(citing Minton v.
Nat'l Ass'n Sec.
Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Micro Chem., Inc.
v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir. 2003))).
significant
change
submission
in the
to the
court,
law or
granting
is only appropriate where,
misunderstood
a
the
party,
facts
a motion
for example,
or
has
since the
for
reconsideration
the court
made
a
original
'has patently
decision
outside
the
adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties,
or has
made
Evans,
148
an
'rarely
rare.'"
not
Supp.
F.
error
3d
arise
and
TomTom,
Belt,
Inc.
(E.D.
v.
Va.
wrongly'
Belt,
544
the
Inc.,
Mel
motion
17 F.
to
of
omitted).
Inc.,
had
not
granted."
99 F.R.D.
be
already
be
F.R.D.
asking
thought
Id.
problems
equally
(quoting Above the
99
reconsider
[c]ourt
"Such
should
3d at 546
Roofing,
to
apprehension.'"
reconsider
Supp.
Motions
the
but
(citation
Bohannan
should
Inc.,
reasoning
at
1983)).
"'rethink what
or
of
a
99,
101
court
to
through-rightly
(quoting
Above
the
at 101).
B. Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Congress has defined the subject matter eligible for patent
protection by providing that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any
new and useful process,
machine,
manufacture,
or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a
patent therefor, subject
this title."
stated
in
Alice
International,
contains
35 U.S.C.
an
to the conditions
§ 101.
Corporation
"'[w]e
implicit
have
However,
and requirements
as the Supreme Court
Proprietary
Limited
long
held
that
this
(l]aws
of
nature,
exception:
8
of
v.
CLS
Bank
provision
natural
phenomena,
2347,
and abstract ideas are not patentable.'"
2354
(2014)
Myriad Genetics,
invention
(quoting
133 S. Ct.
claims
and does
2107,
for
2116
patent-eligible
directed to a "process,
matter"
Ass'n
not
machine,
constitute
Molecular
v.
an
matter
manufacture,
an
Pathology
Accordingly,
(2013)).
subject
134 S. Ct.
attempt
if
it
is
or composition of
to
patent
a
law of
nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
In
other
determining
asserted
that
claims
Claim
of
the
patent-eligible subject matter,
1
of
the
'359
Patents-in-Suit,
this Court
framework that the Supreme Court set
Patent,
did
and
not
applied the
forth in Alice.
claim
two-step
See Sect.
101 Op. & Order at 34-37.
First, the Court must "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of [the] patent-ineligible
concepts," that is, laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas.
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
132
S.
Ct.
1289,
1296-97
(2012)).
To determine
whether
a
claim
abstract idea,
is
directed
to
a
patent-ineligible
"a court must evaluate the claims
their face' to determine to which
'concept'
'[o]n
the claims
are
'drawn.'"
[Amdocs
(Israel)
Ltd.
V.
Openet
Telecom, Inc., 56 F. Supp. 3d 813, 817 (E.D. Va. 2014)
(quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356) (citing Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609 (2010))].
In other words, a
court "must identify the purpose of the claim . . .
what the claimed invention is trying to achieve . . .
and ask whether the purpose is abstract."
[Cal. Inst,
of Tech. v.
Hughes Commc'ns Inc.,
991 (CD. Cal. 2014)
2359; Mayo, 132 S. Ct.
59 F.
(citing Alice,
at 1296)].
Supp. 3d 974,
134
S.
all
Ct.
at
Importantly,
though
the
Supreme
Court
has
not
the precise contours of the
'abstract
"delimit[ed]
ideas' category" of patent ineligible subject matter,
Alice,
134
S.
Ct.
at
2357,
the
Court
has
indicated
that
such
category
is
not
limited
simply
to
"preexisting,
fundamental
truth[s]
that
exist
in
principle apart from any human action," id. at 2356
(alteration
in
original)
(citation
and
internal
quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the Supreme Court
has suggested that a "method of organizing human
activity" or "fundamental economic practice" can fall
within
the
patent-ineligible
category
of
abstract
ideas. See id.
Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has
rejected the notion that "the addition of merely novel
or
non-routine
components
to
the
claimed
idea
necessarily
turns
an
abstraction
into
something
concrete."
709,
715
[Ultramercial,
(Fed.
Cir.
Inc.
2014)].
plays no role
in a court's
Enfish,
Microsoft
LLC v.
v.
At
Hulu,
LLC,
step one,
analysis.151
Corp.,
56
F.
772 F.3d
prior
[See,
Supp.
art
e.g.,
3d
1167,
1173-74 (CD. Cal. 2014), aff'd in part, vacated in
part, rev'd in part, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
But see McRO, Inc. v. Valve Corp., No. 13-1874, 2014
WL
4772200,
at
*9
(CD.
Cal.
Sept.
22,
2014)
(unpublished)].
If an invention is directed toward a patent-ineligible
abstract
idea,
elements
of
ordered
second,
each
claim
combination'
additional
elements
the
both
to
Court
must
"consider
individually
determine
'transform
the
and
whether
nature
the
'as
of
an
the
the
claim' into a patent eligible application."
Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 129798).
Those
additional
'well-understood,
elements
routine,
"must
be
conventional
more
than
activity.'"
b The Enfish district court's statement that "[a]t step one, prior art
plays no role in the analysis," must be read in light of the following
sentences in the same paragraph of that opinion: "At step one, prior
art plays no role in the analysis. The court does not filter out claim
elements found in prior art and evaluate the remaining elements for
abstractness [(citations omitted)]. Using prior art to filter out
elements revives the point-of-novelty approach of Parker v. Flook, 437
U.S. 584 (1978), which was rejected by [Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175
(1981)]."
Enfish, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 1173-74 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S.
at 189, for the proposition that "novelty 'is of no relevance' when
determining patentability").
Thus, the Court understands the Enfish
district court opinion to stand for the proposition that review of
prior art, and the distinctions between prior art and the claimed
inventions, is not necessary in determining whether a claim is
"directed to" patent-eligible subject matter.
10
Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.
Ct. at 1298). This second step is "a search for an
'inventive concept'—i.e., an element or combination of
elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent
in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.'"
Id.
(alteration and emphasis in original)
(quoting Mayo,
132
S.
Ct.
at
1294).
Yet,
"transformation
into
a
patent-eligible application requires 'more than simply
statfing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words
'apply it.'"
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (alterations
in original)
(quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
Moreover, "the prohibition against patenting abstract
ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit
the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment'
or
adding
'insignificant
postsolution
activity,"'
Bilski,
561 U.S. at 610-11
(quoting
Diamond
the
v.
Diehr,
narrowness
patentable
an
of
450
U.S.
an
175,
abstract
otherwise
191-92
idea
(1981)),
does
patent-ineligible
not
and
render
idea,
[see
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350,
1353
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303)].
Nor does "the mere recitation of a generic computer
. . . transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention."7 Alice,
134
S.
Ct.
at
2358.
Sect.
101 Op. & Order at 34-37 (internal footnotes omitted).
III.
CertusView
asserts
that
DISCUSSION
reconsideration
Court's patent ineligibility judgment,
Patent,
recently
step
of
is
issued
the
Corporation,
evidence
appropriate
new
test
822
because:
controlling
for
patent
F.3d 1327
produced
(1)
during
substantially different
the
eligibility,
the
Cir.
11
Federal
of
Circuit
regarding
Enfish
2016);
inequitable
than the
reversal
the
as to Claim 1 of the '359
authority
(Fed.
and
and
v.
(2)
conduct
the
has
first
Microsoft
subsequent
trial
was
evidence available at the time
the Court considered S&N's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
CertusView's Br.
No.
534.
With
in Supp.
respect
of Mot.
to
the
for
Partial Recons.,
Enfish decision,
S&N
1-2,
ECF
argues
in
response that CertusView has not demonstrated that such decision
constitutes
a
"contrary
reconsideration
to
is
reconsider its
decision
warranted,
ruling
and
of
that,
law,"
even
if
regarding Claim 1 of
such
the
the
that
Court
'359
were
Patent,
Enfish does not compel the Court to reach a different resolution
of
S&N's
Motion
CertusView's
Further,
that
Mot.
with
such
for
Judgment
for
respect
evidence
Partial
to
is
on
the
the
Pleadings.
Recons.,
bench
irrelevant
8-12,
trial
to
See
ECF
evidence,
Resp.
No.
S&N
reconsideration
to
536.
argues
of
S&N's
prior Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and that the evidence
presented
evidence
Id.
at
at
trial
available
20-22.
is
at
The
not
the
"substantially
time
Court
the
will
Court
different"
considered
consider
each
of
from
such
the
Motion.
CertusView's
arguments in favor of reconsideration in turn.
A. New Legal Authority
As
noted
above,
CertusView
argues
that
reconsideration
of
the Court's judgment of patent ineligibility for Claim 1 of the
'359
Patent
decision
that
in
is
warranted
Enfish.
reconsideration
authority has
[]
due
to
CertusView,
is
the
Federal
however,
warranted
has
because
Circuit's
recent
not
demonstrated
a
"controlling
made a contrary decision of law applicable
12
to
the issue."
Sejman,
845 F.2d at 69.
Further,
even if the Court
were to reconsider its patent ineligibility ruling on Claim 1 of
the
'359 Patent,
CertusView has not demonstrated that the Enfish
decision dictates a
different
result.
The Federal Circuit issued its
ruling in Enfish on May 12,
2016, finding that Enfish's patent claiming a "self-referential"
database,
a logical model database that can store and define the
relevant
information
patenting.
within
a
single
table,
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1332, 1339.
was
eligible
In determining that
such patent claimed patent-eligible subject matter,
Circuit
applied
discussing
step
the
two-step
one,
Alice framework.
the
Federal
for
Circuit
the Federal
However,
clarifies
in
the
distinction between patent claims which are directed to patenteligible subject matter,
that
is, claims which are
"directed to
a specific improvement to the way computers operate," and patent
claims
which
are
directed
to
an
"abstract
computers are invoked merely as a tool.
With
respect
to
such
"directed
idea"
"for
which
Id. at 1336.
to"
inquiry,
the
Federal
Circuit stated:
The "directed to" inquiry, therefore, cannot simply
ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible
concept, because essentially every routinely patenteligible claim involving physical products and actions
involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenonafter all, they take place in the physical world.
Rather, the "directed to" inquiry applies a stage-one
filter
to
claims,
considered
in
light
of
the
specification, based on whether "their character as a
13
whole
is
directed
to
excluded
subject
matter."
[(quoting Internet Patents Corp.
v. Active Network,
Inc., 790 F.3d 1343,
1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) (citing
Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C, 818 F.3d 1369,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016))].
The
Supreme
Court
has
suggested
that
claims
"purport[ing]
to
improve
the
functioning
of
the
computer
itself,"
or
"improv[ing]
an
existing
process"
might
not
succumb
to
the
technological
abstract idea exception, [citing (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2358-59)].
. . .
We
do
not
read Alice
to
broadly
hold
that
all
improvements
in
computer-related
technology
are
inherently abstract and, therefore, must be considered
at step two. Indeed, some improvements in computerrelated
technology
when
appropriately
claimed
are
undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture,
an LED display, and the like. Nor do we think that
claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware,
are inherently abstract and therefore only properly
analyzed at the second step of the Alice analysis.
Software
can
make
non-abstract
improvements
to
computer technology just as hardware improvements can,
and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished
through either
route.
We
thus
see
no
reason
to
conclude that all claims directed to improvements in
computer-related technology, including those directed
to software, are abstract and necessarily analyzed at
the second step of Alice/ nor do we believe that Alice
so
directs.
Therefore,
we
find
it
relevant
to
ask
whether the claims are directed to an improvement to
computer functionality versus being directed to an
abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice
analysis.
For that reason,
in
this
case
the
asks
first
whether
step in the Alice
the
focus
of
on the specific asserted improvement
capabilities (i.e., the self-referential
computer
database)
qualifies
are
as
invoked
an
or,
instead,
"abstract
merely
as
idea"
a
tool.
on
for
As
a
the
inquiry
claims
is
in computer
table for a
process
which
noted
that
computers
infra,
in
Bilski and Alice and virtually all of the computerrelated § 101 cases we have issued in light of those
Supreme
Court
decisions,
it
14
was
clear
that
the
claims
were of the latter type-requiring that the analysis
proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry, which
asks
in
if
nevertheless
the
application
there
of
is
the
some
inventive
abstract
concept
idea.
[(citing
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 2357-59)]. In this case,
however,
the plain focus of the claims is on an
improvement to computer functionality itself, not on
economic or other tasks for which a computer is used
in its ordinary capacity.
Id.
at
Alice
Based on
1335-36.
framework,
the
this
Federal
application
Circuit
of
found
step one of
that
claims
did
not
present
computer
components
economic
practice
Instead,
the
were
or
Federal
a
"situation where
added
post-hoc
mathematical
Circuit
that
Enfish
because
general-purpose
to
a
fundamental
Id.
equation."
found
the
idea,
patent claims were not "directed to" an abstract
such
the
the
at
Enfish
1339.
patent
claimed patent-eligible subject matter because it was "directed
to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied
in the self-referential table."6
6 CertusView argues
that
Id. at 1336.
such language creates
a new standard
for
determining whether a patent claim satisfies the first step of the
Alice framework.
That is, CertusView argues, a claim satisfies the
first step of the Alice framework if such claim "is 'directed to a
specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the [utility
industry]'" and "it 'improve[s] an existing technological process.'"
CertusView's Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Recons. at 9 (quoting
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335, 1339).
CertusView's argument captures part
of the Enfish holding, but only goes so far.
First, as discussed
below, while Enfish clarifies how a court should consider prior art,
the Enfish decision does not support the proposition that "improv[ing]
an existing technological process" is always sufficient to satisfy
step
one
of
the
Alice
framework.
See
Enfish,
822
F.3d
at
1339
(explaining that "there may be close calls about how to characterize
what the claims are directed to," and "[i]n such cases, an analysis of
whether there are arguably concrete improvements
in the
recited
computer
technology could
language "improving]
take
place
under
step two").
Further,
the
an existing technological process" is drawn from
15
The
Enfish
decision,
Federal Circuit,
and
other
step
one
of
the
Alice
this Court determined in its
review of prior art
claim
is
prior art
at
1337
Alice
from
the
improvement to prior art,
framework.
As
described
above,
Section 101 Opinion and Order that
not necessary for a determination that a
to"
patent-eligible
subject
matter.
the Federal Circuit stated in Enfish that review of
may
"bolster"
("[0]ur
improvement
the
is
"directed
Nonetheless,
decisions
have also clarified how a court might consider
prior art, and a claimed invention's
during
recent
such conclusion.
conclusion
of
an
decision,
that
existing
134
S.
Ct.
the
See
claims
technology
at
2358,
Enfish,
are
822
directed
is
and
bolstered
the
Diehr
F.3d
to
by
an
the
decision,
450
U.S. at 178, both of which the Court considered in determining that
the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit were directed to patentineligible subject matter.
Sect. 101 Op. & Order at 34-37.
Second,
the Enfish decision specifically addresses improvements to computer
functionality and
such
opinion
cannot
be
stretched to
support
CertusView's suggestion that patent claims "directed to a specific
implementation of a solution to a problem in [any industry]" are
sufficient to satisfy step one of the Alice framework.
See Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
F.3d
, No. 15-1778, 2016 WL
4073318, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) (explaining that the claims at
issue
in
Enfish
"focused
not
on
asserted
advances
existing computer capabilities could be put,
improvement-a particular database technique-in
in
uses
to
which
but on a specific
how computers could
carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of
data" (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36)); Visual Memory LLC v.
NVIDIA Corp., No. l:15-cv-789, 2016 WL 3041847, at *4 (D. Del. May 27,
2016) (unpublished) ("Enfish is thus best understood as a case which
cautions against oversimplification during step one of Mayo/Alice,
rather than a case which exempts from § 101 scrutiny all patents which
purport to improve the functioning of a computer." (citing In re TLI
Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016))).
As
discussed
limitations
below,
which
consideration
address
of
problems
prior
in
art,
prior
relevance during step one of the Alice framework.
16
and
art,
specific
are
of
claim
limited
specification's
other
teachings
benefits
that
the
conventional
faster
flexibility,
over
search
claimed
invention
databases,
times,
such
and
achieves
as
increased
smaller
memory
requirements.").
However, "'in other cases involving computer-
related
there
claims,
characterize
what
cases,
analysis
"'an
the
may
be
claims
of
close
are
calls
directed
whether
there
about
to,'"
are
how
and
in
arguably
to
such
concrete
improvements in the recited computer technology could take place
under step two.'"
Bascom Glob.
Mobility LLC,
(Fed.
Cir.
While
the
limitations
is
F.3d
June
into
be
claims
and
, No.
2016)
Federal
directed,"
should
27,
deferred
their
to
specific
themselves to a step[
nonabstract idea."
the
of
the
the
822
limitations
that
(citing Enfish,
AT&T
*5
1339).
incorporates
claim
idea
two
do
F.3d
to
which
claim
analysis
not
a
claim
limitations
when
"the
readily
lend
they are directed to a
822
F.3d at
1339,
example of a case that did not present a "close call[]
to characterize what the claims are
v.
at
specific
Alice step
]one finding
Id.
Enfish,
of
Inc.
2016 WL 3514158,
"sometimes
articulation
consideration
Servs.,
15-1763,
(quoting
Circuit
its
Internet
directed to").
as an
about how
Thus,
while
Enfish and other recent cases explain how consideration of prior
art and specific claim limitations may be part of the Alice step
one
analysis,
finding
of
such consideration
patent-eligibility.
17
is not
always
Further,
necessary
both
the
for
a
Federal
Circuit
and
compare
claims
directed
the
to
Supreme
at
an
issue
Ct.
1359,
2357;
1362
PIP
(Fed.
Cir.
Inc.,
it
sufficient
claims
already
previous
in
Inc.
2015));
F.3d
1,
cases"
v.
Amazon.com,
accord Elec.
, No.
2016);
F. App'x
found
to
to
to
15-1778,
Grp.
Inc.,
788
Power Group,
Tree,
LLC
v.
134
F.3d
LLC v.
2016 WL 4073318,
Lending
be
determine
M-5
Zillow,
, No. 14-1435, 2016 WL 3974203,
Cir. July 25, 2016)
Litig.,
"found
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1334 (citing Alice,
Cir.
Aug.
have
those
idea
Techs.,
Alstom S.A.,
(Fed.
to
abstract
patent eligibility.
S.
Court
*3 (Fed.
(unpublished); In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent
823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thus,
the
Court
"contrary decision
Court's
Section
decision
merely
finds
of
101
that
law,"
Enfish
warranting
Opinion
applies
the
and
step
of
is
reconsideration
Order.
one
decision
Instead,
the
the
Alice
not
of
a
the
Enfish
framework
to
patent claims addressing computer functionality and explains the
difference
between
patent-eligible
claims
directed
to
technological improvements of computer functionality and patentineligible
claims
directed
to
"abstract
ideas"
which
employ
computers as only a tool.
However,
ruling
even
regarding
if
the
patent
Court
were
eligibility,
to
the
reconsider
Enfish
not suggest the Court should alter such ruling.
its
earlier
decision
does
Claim 1 of the
'359 Patent is directed to a method for generating a "searchable
18
electronic record of a locate operation," that is, "one or more
computer-readable
files
information regarding
Order
at
Patent,
58,
Col.
that
17:53-55.
simplest form,
some
a locate operation,"
"performed
Opinion and Order,
include
the
by
As
a
locate
detailed
or
all
the
Markman Opinion
technician."
in
of
the Court's
elements in Claim 1,
See
and
'359
Section
distilled
to
101
their
recite:
A) electronically receiving an aerial image of the dig
area, with such image displayed, at least in part on a
display device; B) adding to such image a digital
representation of a physical locate mark;
and C)
electronically transmitting and/or storing a computer
readable
file
that
includes
some
or
all
of
the
information regarding a locate operation, with such
computer readable file comprising the aerial image to
which
at
least
one
digital
representation
of
a
physical locate mark has been added and a data set
including a set of geographic points, along a marking
path, including geographical coordinates responding to
physical locate marks, the property address associated
with the physical locate marks, a timestamp of when
the locate operation occurred, the name of the locate
technician, the name of the company that performed the
locate operation, and a ticket number associated with
such operation.
Sect.
101 Op. & Order at 71-72
(citing
18:21).
Considering
carefully
elements,
Claim
the
1 of
receiving information,
additional
information
representation
of
the
the
'359 Patent,
specific
'359 Patent
details
Col.
language
the
it,
physical
19
in
the
locate
form
mark,
of
and
of
"process
in the form of the aerial image,
to
17:53the
of
adding
the
digital
then
storing
such combined information in a computer readable file with other
information related to the locate operation."
In contrast
were
to
"directed
the
to
patent
a
claims
specific
at
Id. at 72.
issue in
Enfish,
improvement
to
that
computer
functionality," Claim 1 of the '359 Patent is closer to the kind
of
patent-ineligible
computer
claims
components
to
that
merely
well-known
"add
business
conventional
practices,"
and
"recite[s] generalized steps to be performed on a computer using
conventional
computer
activity."
(citations omitted).
Generally,
Enfish,
822
claims that
F.3d
at
1338
recite generalized
steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer
activity,
Enfish explains,
at 1337-38; accord Elec.
4
("Information as
information"
"merely
is
and
Power Grp.,
such
is
"within
the
presenting
collecting
are directed to abstract ideas.
the
an
2016 WL 4073318 at *3-
intangible,"
realm
results
analyzing
LLC,
of
thus,
abstract
of
ancillary
part
of
such
without
collection
citations and quotations omitted)).
eligible
claims
specific
implementation
software
Patent
is
arts,"
at
issue
Enfish,
directed
to
in
of
more
822
which
solution
F.3d
at
1339,
patent-ineligible
20
to
(such
of
as
is abstract as
analysis"
Further,
Enfish,
a
and
further
processes
identifying a particular tool for presentation),
an
"collecting
ideas";
abstract
information,
Id.
(internal
unlike the patentwere
a
problem
Claim
subject
"directed
1
of
matter
in
the
to
the
'359
because
the technological solution such claim purports to advance is the
process of gathering and saving information of a specified kind,
related
to
a
locate
operation,
and
"not
any
particular
assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions."
Elec.
Power
Grp.,
Commc'ns LLC
2016
WL
Patent Litig.,
4073318
823
at
F.3d
*4;
607,
accord
612
(Fed. Cir.
(finding patent claiming "a method for recording,
and
administering
[a]
digital
image"
to
In
be
re
TLI
2016)
communicating
directed
to
an
abstract concept because such claims are "directed to the use of
conventional
or
environment,
without
inventive
generic technology
solution
any
to
two" (citing Enfish,
claim
any
in a nascent
that
problem
the
invention
presented
822 F.3d at 1335)).
but
by
well-known
reflects
combining
Therefore,
an
the
the Court's
finding that Claim 1 of the '359 patent "is directed towards the
abstract
idea
information,
environment
of
as
of
creating
a
applied
in
conducting a
computer-readable
the
file
particular
locate operation,"
to
store
technological
Sect.
101
Op.
&
Order at 71, is unchanged by the Enfish decision.7
7 CertusView also argues that, as a result of the Enfish decision, the
Court should reconsider its patent-ineligibility ruling regarding
Claim 1 of the '359 Patent under step two of the Alice framework.
See
CertusView's Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Recons. at 19-25.
However,
as
Enfish
did
not
discuss
step
two
of
the
Alice
framework,
and CertusView cites no "controlling authority [that] has since made a
contrary decision of
law" applicable to step two of the Alice
framework, the Court need not revisit its ruling that Claim 1 of the
'359 Patent does not claim patent-eligible subject matter under step
two of the Alice framework.
See Evans, 148 F. Supp. 3d at 544 ("(T]he
court should not reevaluate the basis upon which it made a prior
21
B.
Trial Evidence
CertusView also argues that reconsideration of the Court's
ineligibility regarding Claim 1 of the
judgment of patent
Patent
is warranted due to
trial
of
S&N's
CertusView
to
has
on
that
of
the
demonstrated
conduct
demonstrated
reconsideration
Judgment
new evidence heard during the bench
inequitable
not
the
Court's
such
ruling
Further,
reconsideration
that
the
subsequent
that
was
trial
is
"substantially different"
at
counterclaim.
that
Pleadings.
bench
'359
in
evidence
on
However,
is
S&N's
relevant
Motion
CertusView
warranted
this
case
from
the
on
has
the
not
grounds
produced evidence
evidence
available
the time the Court resolved S&N's Motion for Judgment on
Pleadings.
S&N
pursuant
for
the
Sejman, 845 F.2d at 69.
filed
to
its
Federal
Motion
Rule
for
of
Judgment
Civil
on
Procedure
the
Pleadings,
12(c),
seeking
a
finding of patent ineligibility as to the asserted claims of the
Patents-in-Suit.
"On
a
motion
made pursuant to Rule 12(c),
for
judgment
on
the
only the pleadings are considered,"
and the exhibits which are part of such pleadings.
Co.
v.
Bait.
Cir.
1964);
Ins.
Co.
ruling,
of
Typographical Union No.
accord
Am.,
Thomas
122
F.
pleadings
Daniels
Supp.
12,
338
Agency,
3d
448,
A. S. Abe 11
F.2d 190,
Inc.
451
v.
193
(4th
Nationwide
(D.S.C
2015)
if the moving party merely seeks to reargue a previous claim,
(citation omitted)).
22
(citations omitted);
Dobson v. Cent.
240 F.
Supp.
2d 516,
As
Court
explained
the
519
"[s]ection 101 [patent]
Carolina Bank & Trust Co.,
(M.D.N.C
in
2003)
its Section
(citations omitted).
101
Opinion
eligibility is a question of law" that
"hinges on the claims of the Patents-in-Suit."
Order
at 28
Inst.
(Edinburgh),
(citing Alice,
750
resolution in
134 S.
F.3d
such Opinion and Order,
patent-eligibility
1333,
Ct. at
1335
Sect. 101 Op. &
2355;
(Fed.
In re Roslin
Cir.
2014)).
In
the Court also recognized that certain
determinations
a motion
and Order
for
may
not
judgment on
be
the
when a motion for judgment on the pleadings
appropriate
pleadings,
for
such
as
is raised prior to
claim construction or when such motion relies on resolution of a
factual dispute.
Life
Assurance
2012);
F.
Id. at 27
Co.
of
(citing Bancorp Servs.,
Can.,
687
F.3d
Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp.
Supp.
3d
829,
834
(E.D.
Tex.
v.
1266,
Am.
2014)).
LLC v.
1273
(Fed.
Airlines,
However,
Sun
Cir.
Inc.,
the
66
Court
found that because claim construction had already taken place in
this
case,
and because
"it
need not
rely on
any
factual matter
other than that presented in the specifications of the Patentsin-Suit,"
which
Complaint,
S&N's
appropriate
eligibility.
were
attached
Motion
vehicle
to
for
as
exhibits
Judgment
determine
on
the
to
the
legal
the
First
Pleadings
issue
Amended
was
of
the
patent
Id. at 29-30.
CertusView
has
not
demonstrated
23
that
the
bench
trial
produced
that
for
any
evidence,
would be relevant
Judgment
that
the
Motion.8
on
Court
regarding
to the
Court's
1
of
the
resolution
of
'359
Patent,
S&N's
Motion
the
Pleadings
regarding patent
eligibility and
did
not
at
considered
have
the
time
it
such
Instead, the trial evidence that CertusView relies upon
in support of
reconsideration addresses
CertusView's
e-Sketch
characterization
of
Court
Claim
specifically
the
the differences between
invention
prior
noted,
and
art--a
found
and
factual
to
be
CertusView's
dispute
irrelevant,
that
the
in
the
following discussion contained in its ruling on S&N's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings:
Importantly, the Court further concludes that there
are no factual disputes that could affect the Court's
analysis of the issue of section 101 validity.
The
only factual dispute that Plaintiff has brought to the
Court's attention in opposition to Defendants' motion
concerns
Defendants'
characterization
of
a
"conventional" locate operation, including Defendants'
chart comparing such an operation to Claim 1 of the
'204
Patent.
However,
the Court
need
not
resolve
the
factual dispute between the parties over how locate
technicians conduct "conventional" locate operations
As S&N notes in its Response to CertusView's Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, CertusView has not provided the Court with any case
where a court has granted a motion to reconsider a finding of patent
ineligibility due to the presentation of additional evidence at trial.
Resp. to CertusView's Mot. for Partial Recons. at 20-21.
Instead, the
primary case cited by CertusView recognizes merely, as the Court does
above, that claim construction can be helpful to understanding patent
claims prior to ruling on section 101 patent ineligibility.
See
Bancorp Servs.,
LLC,
687 F.3d at 1274.
However,
as the trial evidence
cited by CertusView was considered by the Court during resolution of
S&N's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, the Court need not address
whether any trial evidence may serve as the basis for reconsideration
of a determination of patent eligibility.
24
because
that
conclusion
dispute
that
does
the
not
affect
Patents-in-Suit
patent-eligible subject matter.
will
decline
to
exercise
its
the
do
Therefore,
discretion
Court's
not
claim
the Court
to
consider
matters outside the pleadings in resolving this Rule
12(c) motion.
The Court finds that such decision is
appropriate because the issue of section 101 validity
is adequately presented—and the Court can adequately
resolve
it—without
considering
the
disputed
facts
outside the pleadings.
To the extent that Defendants'
briefs
rely
on
factual
information
outside
the
pleadings,
including
the
chart
contained
in
Defendants' memorandum in support of its motion, the
Court will not consider such materials in resolving
this
motion.
Rather,
to
the
extent
the
Court
considers the matter at all, the Court will view the
facts regarding such "conventional" locate operations
in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff based on
the facts presented in Plaintiff's pleadings and the
specifications of the patents-in-suit that Plaintiff
has incorporated therein.
Sect.
101 Op.
& Order at
demonstrated that
new
evidence
bench
relevant
reconsideration,
Further,
the
29-30.
Therefore,
trial
to
in
the
this
even
Court's
if
the
Court
were
to
patenting.
adduced
at
presented
resolution,
consider
bench trial in this matter,
demonstrated that such trial "produce[d]
from
determined that
matter
or
any
its
of S&N's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
presented at the
evidence"
CertusView has not
that
which
Claim 1 of
was
the
new
evidence
CertusView has
not
substantially different
available
'359 Patent
when
was
the
Court
ineligible
for
CertusView highlights two particular factual issues
trial
that
it
argues
are
"substantially different"
from the evidence that
the
Court previously considered.
CertusView argues
the
evidence
that
25
presented during
the
First,
bench
trial
demonstrated
that
locate operation did
a
not
conventional
paper
include geographical
manifest
of
coordinates,
a
and
thus, such information is not, as the Court found in its Section
101
Opinion
and
Order,
ordinarily would be
Op. & Order at 76.
the
Court
absence
same
sort
of
information
included in a paper manifest."
that
Sect.
101
However, contrary to CertusView's assertion,
considered
of
"the
in
its
geographical
Opinion
and Order
coordinates
in
the
presence
conventional
or
paper
manifests of a locate operation and found that such evidence did
not affect the Court's decision.
that
"some
of
the
Specifically,
information,
for
the Court noted
example
the
coordinates corresponding to physical locate marks,
element C
in the data
set
geographic
included in
stored in the computer-readable
file
contains greater detail than, or might otherwise be absent from,
paper
manifests
documenting a
(emphasis
locate
added).
information that
and save,
created
during
the
operation."
However,
Sect.
even
CertusView's
Op.
considering
& Order
this
of
at
76
additional
document
the Court found that "such additional information does
to
claim
the
abstract
technological
such
environment
information
of
is
[of the
idea
readable file to store information,
because
101
method
e-Sketch invention might
not transform the method of Claim 1
attempt
conventional
of
creating
26
a
from an
computer-
as applied in the particular
conducting
the
'359 Patent]
same
sort
a
locate
of
operation,
information
that
ordinarily would be included in a paper manifest."
Thus,
evidence
regarding
introduced at trial,
a
conventional
is not
paper
Id.
at 76.
manifest,
"substantially different"
as
from the
evidence that the Court considered in resolving S&N's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.
Second,
during
CertusView
the bench
argues
trial
demonstrated
improved documentation and
Again,
CertusView
does
that
not
prove
different"
from
considered
resolving
S&N's
Pleadings.
In
its
that
evidence
Section
that
the
101
reviewed the state of conventional,
trial
evidence
for
Opinion
product
locate operations.
such
Motion
presented
the e-Sketch
record-keeping of
"substantially
in
the
and
prior art,
evidence
that
the
Judgment
Order,
is
Court
on
the
the
Court
locate operations
and the flaws of documenting and recording a conventional locate
operation,
as discussed in the specifications of the Patents-in-
Suit.
Sect.
101
during
the
locate
operation
Op.
bench
&
trial
Order
at
perhaps
procedures,
and
5-7.
The
elucidates
the
evidence
the
goals
adduced
conventional
of
the
e-Sketch
product in improving on such procedures,
but such evidence does
not
from
contradict
the Court
and Order.
nor differ
considered and discussed
Further,
Opinion and Order,
Suit
may
substantially
well
the
in its Section
that
101 Opinion
as the Court explained in a footnote of its
while the asserted claims of
have
evidence
value
as
an
27
improvement
the Patents-in-
to
the
locate
operation industry,
or
effect
of
invention
is
represents
problem
the
"this Court does not
claimed
invention
patent-eligible.
the
development
existing
in
the
at
a
art,
Id.
to
Even
of
eligible."
Amdocs,
new
the
evidence
to
the
CertusView
adduced
Court's
Patent is
at
the
prior
ineligible
reconsideration
of
does
demonstrated
bench
not
(emphasis
demonstrated
trial
in
determination
this
that
that
such
claimed
solves
not
render
such
ruling.
bench
that
bench
the
"substantially different"
were
trial
that
1
35 U.S.C.
Further,
trial
added)
matter
Claim
for patenting under
presented during the
not
has
n.ll
invention
process
alone
whether
a
it
56 F. Supp. 3d at 825).
Therefore,
50
determine
if
that,
patent
inquire into the value
even
relevant,
in
this
evidence such that
(citing
additional
is
relevant
of
the
'359
§ 101
if
or
to
evidence
CertusView has
matter
adduced
reconsideration of
the Court's § 101 ruling is warranted.
IV.
For
Partial
the
reasons
stated
Reconsideration
of
Ineligibility under 35 U.S.C.
As no pertinent
First
Amended
CONCLUSION
above,
the
Plaintiff's
Court's
§ 101,
Motion
Judgment
ECF No.
533,
of
for
Patent
is DENIED.
issues remain for resolution on Plaintiff's
Complaint,
ECF
No.
55,
and
previously entered judgment on Defendants'
counterclaim for inequitable conduct,
28
as
the
Court
has
declaratory judgment
see ECF No.
542,
the Clerk
is
REQUESTED
Plaintiff's
Federal
The
to
First
Rules
final
judgment
Amended Complaint
of Civil
in
Defendants'
pursuant
to Rule
favor
58 of
on
the
Procedure.
Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Opinion and
Order to all
IT
enter
IS
SO
counsel
of
record.
ORDERED.
fitif^
/s/i
Mark
S.
Davis
United States District Judge
Norfolk,
Virginia
August |Q , 2016
29
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?