Orbcomm Inc. v. Calamp Corp.
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/19/2016. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
ORBCOMM INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
CALAMP CORP.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No.: 3:16CV208-HEH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant CalAmp Corp.'s ("Defendant")
Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion to Dismiss, filed on August 4,2016.
(ECF No. 35.) On May 27, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss this patent infringement
suit filed by PlaintiffORBCOMM, Inc. ("Plaintiff). (ECF No. 16.) On July 22, 2016,
the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, finding that all five patents at issue
constitute patent-eligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. (ECF Nos. 29, 30.)
In its Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant relies on a case recently decided by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Electric Power Group, LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Each side has filed memoranda supporting
their respective positions. The Court heard oral argument on October 13,2016. In light
of Electric Power Group, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant in part
and deny in part Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.
I. BACKGROUND
This lawsuit concerns five separate but interrelated patents. They all involve
machine-to-machinecommunication platforms designed for tracking and monitoring the
location and status of widely dispersed fleet vehicles and related mobile assets. The
specific patents-in-suit include the following:
1.
U.S. Patent No. 6,292,724 ("the '724 Patent") (entitled "Method Of And
System And Apparatus For Remotely Monitoring The Location, Status, UtilizationAnd
Condition Of Widely Geographically [Dispersed] Fleets of Vehicular Construction
Equipment And The Like And ProvidingAnd Displaying Such Information") (Compl. ^
21,ECFNo. 1);
2.
U.S. Patent No. 6,611,686 ("the '686 Patent") (entitled "Tracking Control
And Logistics System And Method") (Compl. f 27);
3.
U.S. Patent No. 6,651,001 ("the '001 Patent") (entitled "Method Of And
System And Apparatus For Integrating Maintenance Vehicle And Service Personnel
Tracking Information With The Remote Monitoring Of The Location, Status, Utilization
And Condition Of Widely Geographically Dispersed Fleets Of Vehicular Construction
Equipment And The Like To Be Maintained, And Providing And Displaying Together
Both Construction And Maintenance Vehicle Information") (Compl. H38);
4.
U.S. Patent No. 6,735,150 ("the ' 150 Patent") (entitled "Method Of And
Apparatus For Distinguishing Engine Idling And Working Hours") (Compl. f 43); and
5.
U.S. Patent No. 8,855,626 ("the '626 Patent") (entitled "Wireless Control
For Creation Of, And Command Response To, Standard Freight Shipment Messages")
(Compl.1151).
Defendant maintains, as it did in its original Motion to Dismiss, that all five of the
patents-in-suit are invalid because they seek to patent abstract ideas, in contravention of
35U.S.C.§ 101.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The denial ofDefendant's Rule (12)(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss was an interlocutory
order. See Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.Sd 107, 115 (4th Cir. 2013). The proper
vehicle for requesting reconsideration of an interlocutory order is Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b).' Fayetteville Inv'rs v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1470
(4th Cir. 1991). Interlocutory orders are subject to reconsideration by the issuing court
any time prior to the entry of a final judgment. Am. CanoeAss'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc.,
326 F.3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2003).
It is clear that "[m]otions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders are not subject
to the strict standards applicable to motions for reconsideration of a final judgment"
under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Id. at 514. However, the Fourth Circuit has declined to
"thoroughly express [its] views on the interplay of Rules 60, 59 and 54." Fayetteville,
' Rule 54(b) states in pertinent part:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as
to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
936 F.2d at 1472. Typically, courts do not depart from a previous ruling unless "(1) a
subsequent trial produces substantially different evidence, (2) controlling authority has
since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue, or (3) the prior decision
was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice." Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at
515 (quoting Sejman v. Warner-Lambert Co., Inc., 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th Cir.1988)); see
also S. Coal Corp. v. lEG Ply. Ltd, No. 2:14CV617,2016 WL 393954, at *1 (E.D. Va.
Jan. 29,2016); Al Shimari v. CACIInt'l, Inc., 933 F. Supp. 2d 793, 798 (E.D. Va. 2013).
It is with this framework in mind that the Court reconsiders its denial of Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint;
importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or
the applicability of defenses." Republican Party ofN.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952
(4th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is an issue of
law; as such, it is suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. Genetic Techs. Ltd. v.
Merial LLC., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Court is permitted to make a
patent eligibility determination at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, so long as it has a "full
understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter." Content Extraction
& Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
2014). In considering such a motion, the Complaint and patents-in-suit must be viewed
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. As with all Rule 12(b)(6) motions, the
Court's analysis is "limited to the face of the complaint, materials incorporated into the
complaint by reference, and matters ofjudicial notice." OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com,
4
Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (applying Federal Circuit and Ninth Circuit
law).
III. DISCUSSION
Section 101 of the Patent Act describes the subject matter eligible for patent
protection. It provides: "[wjhoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new or useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101 also "contains an important implicit exception:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. V. CLSBankInt'h 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citing Ass'nfor Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107,2116 (2013)). However, a patent is
notrendered ineligible "simply because it involves an abstract concept." Id. (citing
Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981)). "[A]pplication[s] of such concepts 'to a
new and useful end'... remain eligible for patent protection." Id. (citing Gottschalk v.
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reiterated the two-step analytical framework "for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Id. at 2355 (citing
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)). The
first step is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
ineligible concepts." Id. If so, the analysis moves to the secondstep, asking"what else
is there in the claims before us?" Id. The 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" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citations omitted).
In Electric Power Group, the impetus for this Motion for Reconsideration, the
Federal Circuit held that the patents in that case failed to meet the eligibility requirements
of §101. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356. Thosepatents all claimed "systems and
methods for performing real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid by
collecting data from multiple data sources, analyzing the data, and displaying the results."
M at 1351. At the first step of the Alice analysis, the court determined that the patents
were "'directed to' a patent-ineligible concepf because the claims focused merely on
collecting, analyzing, and displaying information. Id. at 1353. Proceeding to step two,
the court determined that the patents contained no inventive concept to remove the claims
from the class of ineligible subject matter. Id. at 1354. The patents were invalid because
the claims merely required the collection, analysis, and display of information "without
limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an
advance over conventional computer and network technology." M at 1351. Importantly,
the court determined that the patents were not saved by the inclusion of language
"enumerating types of information and information sources available within the powergrid environment." /c/. at 1355.
This Court's reconsideration of the validity of the five patents-in-suit is informed
by developments in the law brought about by Electric Power Group. Through that lens,
each patent will be discussed in turn.
6
a. The '626 Patent
The Court's initial determination that the '626 Patent comported with §101 relied
primarily on "the specialized monitoring features described in Claim 4 ... coupled with
the format translation." (Op. Den. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 14-15, ECF No. 29.) In the
Court's view, these factors transformed the '626 Patent from an abstract idea into "an
innovative technological advancement." {Id. at 15.) However, in Electric Power Group,
the Federal Circuit explicitly stated that"merely selecting information, by content or by
source, for collection analysis and display does nothing" to elevate a patent beyond a
mere abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. The teachings of Electric Power
Group squarely apply to the '626 Patent and are contrary to this Court's prior analysis.
As a result, the determination that the '626 Patent is patent-eligible rests on infirm terrain.
With this in mind, the Court is now constrained to revisit the validity of the '626 Patent
and reason whether it is an unpatentable abstract idea.
Claim 1, the only independent claim of the '626 Patent, states:
A centralized freight asset monitoring system comprising:
a first receiver comprising an interface that inputs communication
signals, the receiver receiving in real time a plurality of wireless
messages, in a plurality of differing first formats that are not an
industry standard freight message format and are encoded particularly
for bandwidth restrictions of wireless communication links over which
the wireless messages are sent, from a plurality of intelligent electronic
devices associated with a plurality of freight assets, the wireless
messages containing information of a monitored event or condition of
the respective freight asset, wherein the receiver stores the information
in a memory that holds a database of the wireless monitoring system;
a translator of the wireless monitoring system that translates in real time,
utilizing a processor, the received wireless messages based upon the
receipt in the respective first format into a message in a second format
that is an industry standard freight message format used in an
information system of a user of the freight asset;
a transmitter comprising an interface over which the messages in the
second format are transmitted for delivery into the user information
system based upon the translation;
a second receiver comprising an interface via which a message is
received from the user containing a first command message to change a
condition of a first freight asset associated with a first of the intelligent
electronic devices and a second command message to change a
condition of second freight asset associated with a second of the
intelligent electronic devices; and
a second transmitter comprising an interface that:
responsive to receiving the first command message from the user,
transmits, over the interface, the first command message to the first
intelligent electronic device in the respective first format associated
with the first intelligent electronic device; and
responsive to receiving the second command message from the user,
transmits, over the interface, the second command message to the
second intelligent electronic device in the respective first format
associated with the second intelligent electronic device that differs
from the first format associated with the first intelligent electronic
device.
'626 Patent col. 5 1. 22-col. 6 1. 7. Distilled to its essence, the '626 Patent claims a
system that 1) receives wireless messages from a freight asset in a non-"industry standard
freight message format"; 2) translates the wireless messages into an"industry standard
freight message format"; 3) transmits the translated message to a user; and 4) allows the
user to send a translated message back to the freight asset. Dependent Claims 2, 3,4, and
7 add additional limitations regarding the system's memory storage functionality, the
specific variables to be monitored, and the system's ability to simultaneously monitor
multiple assets for multiple users.^ Evaluating these claims within the two-step Alice
^Plaintiffhas not alleged infringement of Claims 5,6,8,9,10 or 11. Therefore, the Court will
not address the validity of those claims.
8
framework, and in light ofElectric Power, the Court concludes that the '626 Patent
constitutes unpatentable subject matter under §101.
1. Abstract Idea
Beginning at Alice step one, the claims at issue in the '626 Patent fall squarely into
a well-recognized category of claims "directed to" abstract ideas. Specifically, the claims
describe a process of gathering information and translating it between two or more
incompatible formats. Simply stated, they are directed to the wholly abstract idea of
translation.
The Federal Circuit explicitly recognizes that information is an intangible and that
"collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not
change its character as information), [is] within the realm of abstract ideas." Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. District courts have consistently held that the mere concept of
translating information also constitutes an abstract idea. SeeImproved SearchLLC v.
AOL Inc., No. 15-262-SLR, 2016 WL 1129213 at *9 (D. Del. Mar. 22,2016) (finding
patent capable of translating Internet searches and results between multiple languages
was directed to abstract idea); Novo Transforma Techs., LLCv. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No.
14-612-RGA, 2015 WL 5156526 at *3 (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2015) (holding patent that
translated between different computer formats for electronic delivery of messages was
directed to abstract idea of translation); Messaging Gateway Sols., LLC v. Amdocs, Inc.,
No. 14-732-RGA, 2015 WL 1744343 at *4 (D. Del. Apr. 5, 2015) (holding patent that
translated messages between SMS text message format and Internet Protocol format was
directed to abstract idea of translation); Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines,
9
Inc., 66 F.Supp.3d 829, 846 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2014) (finding technology for converting
loyalty award points between multiple vendors was directed to abstract idea). Here, the
'626 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of translation. Therefore, the Court's
invalidity analysis must proceed to Alice step two.
2. Inventive Concept
Turning to the second stage of theAlice framework, the Court finds that the '626
Patent does not add the requisite inventive material to transform the patent into more than
an attempt to claim dominion over an abstract idea.
Determining whether a patent contains an inventive concept requires an evaluation
of the particular combination of elements claimed in thepatent. The Supreme Court has
been clearthat"the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented
by attempting to limit the use of the [system] to a particular environment." Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010). Additionally, "the mere recitation of a generic
computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358. Most recently, the Federal Circuit, in Electric
Power Group, has clarified that"enumerating types of information and information
sources" will not turn an abstract idea into one that is patent-eligible. Elec. Power Grp.
830 F.3d at 1355.
In this case, the fact that the scope of the '626 Patent is limited to fi-eight assets
provides no inventive concept. Moreover, the '626 Patent does not require any
components that could be considered an "advanceover conventional computer and
network technology." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351. Rather, the claims use only
10
generic components—^"receiver," "electronic devices," "translator," "processor,"
"transmitter"—to describe how the abstract idea of translation is carried out.
Additionally, while in its initial assessment of the '626 Patent, the Court expressly relied
on "thespecialized monitoring features described in Claim 4 of the'626 Patent, coupled
with the format translation," (Op. Den. Def's Mot. Dismiss 14-15) Electric Power
Group is clear that identifying parameters for monitoring does notconstitute an inventive
concept. Thus, the Court is left with "format translation" as the only putative means to
satisfy the inventive concept requirement.
The Federal Circuit has established that an inventive concept can be found where
"the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome
a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR Holdings, LLC
V. Hotels.com. L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Plaintiff urges the Court to
find that translating wireless messages into an industry standard freight message format is
just such a solution. (Pi's Mem. 0pp. Def.'s Mot. Recons. 24-25, ECF. No. 46.)
However, the claimed invention does not solve a problem deeply rooted in the context of
"computer networks." The issue of incompatibility in communication has existed as long
as language itself. Translation has always beenthe solution. The patent specifications
indicate that the claimed system performs functions previously conducted by humans.
'626 Patent col. 3 1. 34-21 (stating that the system "provides information that is normally
derived from other sources (i.e.... human creation of events that occur under specific
conditions)"). Where, in the past, humans would manually input information into
standardized freight messages, this system merely automates that process. Reformatting
11
information does not solve a problem arising in the realm of computer networks and is
not an inventive concept.
Plaintiff relies heavily on Messaging Gateway Solutions, a case from the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, to support its proposition that
translating a wireless message into an industry standard freight message format is an
inventive concept. The patent at issue in Messaging Gateway Solutions described "[a]
method of using a computer system to facilitate two-way communication between a
mobile device and an Internet server." Messaging Gateway Sols., 2015 WL 1744343 at
*2. However, the holding in Messaging Gateway Solutions can be distinguished from the
instant invention. In Messaging Gateway Solutions, the court based its holding largely on
the fact that the claims were "limited to SMS text messages between a mobile device and
the Internet." Id. at *5-6. Plaintiffs claimed invention contains no such explicit
limitation. Instead, it applies to "a plurality of wireless messages" and "industry standard
freight messages." As written, the '626 Patent would preempt any method oftranslating
any type ofwireless message sent from a freight asset into any format considered to bean
industry standard, regardless ofhow that industry standard may change.^
In this case, the claimed invention is much more akin to the challenged invention
in Novo Transforma, wherein the invention generated a message in one media format,
converted it to another format upon delivery, and provided the sender with a receipt upon
^Claim 9 of the '626 Patent purports to limit the patent to apply only where a wireless message
is translated into one of two specific formats—Electronic Data Exchange (EDI) and Extensible
Mark-up Language (XML). Plaintiffhas not alleged infringement of Claim 9. Therefore, its
validity is not in issue.
12
arrival. 2015 WL 5156526 at *3. The opinion in that case—authored by the same Judge
who decided Messaging GatewaySolutions—distinguished Messaging Gateway
Solutions by concluding that the Nova Transforma claims "merely recite[d] the pre-
Intemet practice of 'translation' performed over the Internet." Id. Similarly, the '626
Patent merely recites the existing practice of translation applied to wireless messages
transmitted from freight assets.
As noted by theFederal Circuit, claims that do no "more thansimply describe
[the] abstract method" but instead merely recite "conventional steps, specified at a high
level of generality," cannot pass muster under the second step of theAlice test.
Ultramercial. Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. Ill F.3d 709, 715, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014). At this level of
generality, the '626 Patent is emblematic of the "essentially result-focused, functional
character of claim language [that] has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible
under §101." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356. Patents such as these are properly
invalidated because they are "so result-focused, so functional, as to effectivelycover any
solution to [the] identified problem." Id. In this case, the '626 Patent does not provide
enough inventive material to elevate it beyond an attempt to patent the abstract idea of
translation. Therefore, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the
'626 Patent is not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
b. The '724, '686, and '001 Patents
Defendant also asserts that the '724, '686, and '001 Patents should be held invalid
in light of Electric Power Group', because of their similarity, these patents will be
addressed together. All three patents pertain to the remote monitoring of fleet vehicles.
13
Defendant maintains that its claims "are indistinguishable from the claims in Electric
Power" (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Recons. 6, ECFNo. 36.) However, the same
reasoning that guided the Court's ruling in the original Motion to Dismiss compels the
denial of the Motion for Reconsideration as to these three patents. Constrained by the
four comers of the Complaint and patents, the Court is not convinced that these patents
pertain to abstract ideas under Alice step one. However, even assuming that they do,
when giving all reasonable inferences to Plaintiff at this Rule 12(b)(6) stage, they each
appear to have an inventive concept sufficient to survive Alice step two.
Electric Power Group reiterates the well-established rule that use of "entirely
conventional, generic technology" is itselfnot enough to establish an inventive concept.
Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356. However, finding that a patent fails Alice step two
"requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the
art.... [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known, conventional pieces." BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v.
AmTMobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, while "notthe
sole test for deciding whetheran invention is a patent-eligible 'process,'" Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604 (2010), the "machine-or-transformation test" can be used to
identify an inventive conceptwhen "the use of a specific machine ... impose[s]
meaningful limits on the claim's scope." SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601
F.3d 1319, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The claims of the '724, '686, and '001 Patents all refer to the use of GPS for
determining the location of a remote target or satellite communications for
14
communicating that location information to a central processing station. See '724 Patent
col. 6 1. 18-21 ("upon each equipment transponder receiving GPS signals, causing the
transponder to transmit to the satellite information regarding its location"); '686 Patent
col. 161. 10-11 ("comprising determining a global position"); '001 Patent col. 6 1.4-6
("upon receiving GPS signals, causing the transponder to transmit to the satellite,
information as to its location"). When considering only the four comers of the Complaint
and attached patents, the Court cannot find that the GPS and satellite communications
claimed in these patents constitute mere conventional, generic technology. Nothing in
Electric Power Group suggests the contrary. At this stage, withoutthe benefitof expert
testimony, tying the claims to specific machines—GPS and satellite communications—
makes these patents facially valid. SeeBilski, 561 U.S. at 1332 (finding that GPS is a
specific machine imposing meaningful limits on the claim's scope to impart patent
eligibility). Therefore, when affording all reasonable inferences to the Plaintiff, the Court
cannot, as a matter of law, find that the '724, '686, and '001 Patents constitute ineligible
subject matter under § 101.''
c. The '150 Patent
As with the other patents-in-suit. Defendant also asserts that the '150 Patent is
invalid in light of Electric Power Group. Defendant maintains that this patent contains
no inventive concept because it merely correlates engine component frequency with fuel
Defendant's arguments also integrate novelty and obviousness issues. These are separate
questions for another day. Cf. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,588,593 (1978) (stating that § 101
eligible subject matter analysis is independent of a determination of whether the invention is new
or obvious).
15
consumption. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Recons. 8.) However, Electric Power Group
provides no new basis for the Court to reconsider its initial decision that the ' 150 Patent
constitutes eligible subject matter at this Rule 12(b)(6) stage.
The '150 Patent claims a method of measuring engine run time by monitoring
engine frequency. See '150 Patent col. 2 1.48-55. The patent's background information
indicates that this is an unconventional method of determining engine run time,
something typically achieved by measuring fuel consumption. See '150 Patent col. 11.
23-24.
As with the '724, '686, and '001 Patents, even assuming that measuring engine
run time is an abstract idea, the '150 Patent is saved at^//ce step two. The Complaint
and attached patent clearly indicate thatusing engine frequency to measure run time is
innovative technology. While an alternator is certainly a known, conventional machine,
monitoring alternator frequency to measure engine run time is a non-conventional and
non-generic use for that machine. See BASCOM, 827 F.3dat 1350. Thus, viewed in the
light most favorable to Plaintiff, the technology claimed in the ' 150 Patent is eligible
subject matter under §101.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration will be granted
as to the '626 Patent and denied as to the '724, '686, '001, and '150 Patents. The
asserted claims of the '626 Patent will be invalidated as an unpatentable abstract idea.
16
An appropriate Order willaccompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Is/
Henry E. Hudson
United States District Judge
Date: -
Richmond, VA
17
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?