Filed: Sep. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge regarding the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement under 101 (Dkt. No. 259). T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, "T-Mobile"), object to the Report and Recommendation which recommends to this Court that it deny T-Mobile's motion for summary judgment that the '365 and '617 patents are invalid under 101. Having reviewed the Defendants' objections, and
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge regarding the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement under 101 (Dkt. No. 259). T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, "T-Mobile"), object to the Report and Recommendation which recommends to this Court that it deny T-Mobile's motion for summary judgment that the '365 and '617 patents are invalid under 101. Having reviewed the Defendants' objections, and h..
More
ORDER
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge regarding the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement under § 101 (Dkt. No. 259). T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, "T-Mobile"), object to the Report and Recommendation which recommends to this Court that it deny T-Mobile's motion for summary judgment that the '365 and '617 patents are invalid under § 101. Having reviewed the Defendants' objections, and having fully considered the Report and Recommendation de novo, the Court finds no reason to reject or modify the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Indeed, contrary to T-Mobile's objections, the conclusion of the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation that "the claims' character as a whole cannot be classified as an `abstract idea' under Alice's Step 1," (Dkt. No. 345 at 7), is correct.
"Precedent has recognized that specific technologic modifications to solve a problem or improve the functioning of a known system generally produce patent-eligible subject matter." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. Appx. 1001, 1004-05, 2017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., the court upheld the patent eligibility of claims "necessarily rooted in computer technology" that "overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Similarly, "claimed process[es] us[ing] a combined order of specific rules" that improved on existing technological processes were deemed patent-eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, claims that were "directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in [a] self-referential table," were deemed eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
"Abstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computerimplemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole." Trading Techs., 675 Fed. Appx. At 1005. (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336). The Magistrate's Report and Recommendation implemented a proper analysis under Federal Circuit law, and the Court finds no error in it.
Accordingly,
It is ORDERED:
(1) T-Mobile's objections, Dkt. 394, are OVERRULED.
(2) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 345, is ADOPTED.
(3) Accordingly, T-Mobile's motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 259, is DENIED.
