District Court Considers IPR In Deciding Alice Motion, <i>PTAB Litigation Blog</i>

District Court Considers IPR In Deciding Alice Motion, PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the Jones Day PTAB Litigation Blog.

On November 20, 2017, a district court denied a defendant’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ('Rule') 12(b)(6) motion that sought to dismiss the case on the ground that the asserted patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. TriPlay, Inc. v. WhatsApp, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-1703-LPS-CJB, ECF No. 145 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2017). In denying the defendant’s motion, the Court applied the Alice two-step test to the patent claims by making a determination as to whether the claims: (1) were directed to a 'patent-ineligible concept,' such as an abstract idea, and (2) included an 'inventive concept.' Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). In TriPlay, the court found enough evidence, in part by evaluating concurrent Inter Partes Review ('IPR') proceedings, to deny the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Read the full article at

Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.