Insights

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 ptablitigationblog.com.

We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.