District Court Considers IPR In Deciding Alice Motion, 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.