CALAMP WIRELESS NETWORKS CORPORATION v. ORBCOMM INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 02/09/2017. (nbrow)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CALAMP WIRELESS NETWORKS
Civil Action No. 3:16cv906-HEH
(Granting Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant ORBCOMM, Inc.'s Motion to
Dismiss Count Two of Plaintiff CalAmp Wireless Network Corporation's two-count
patent infringement Complaint. (ECF No. 23.) At issue in Count Two is U.S. Patent No.
6,850,839 ("the '839 Patent"), entitled "Time Sensitive Article Tracking Device." It
claims a system and method for tracking an object by determining whether the object is
presently located within a prescribed geographic area and taking appropriate action
depending on whether the object is or is not within that area. ORBCOMM alleges that
the '839 Patent is an abstract idea and therefore unpatentable subject matter pursuant to
35U.S.C. § 101.
Both parties have filed memoranda of law outlining their respective positions. In
its opening brief, ORBCOMM took the position that Count Two should be dismissed in
its entirety. Count Two alleges infringement of Claims 1, 2,4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16, 18, and 19 of the '839 Patent. However, ORBCOMM conceded in its reply brief that
Claims 4 and 5 are patent-eligible. Thus, the Courtwill not consider those claims in its
analysis. The Court will dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court, and oral argument
would not aid in the decisional process. E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 7(J). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will grant ORBCOMM's Motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"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.
MerialLLC., 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
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?