Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

54 Citing briefs

  1. eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed July 7, 2015

    “With the approach to this kind of section 101 issue clarified by Alice, it is a straightforward matter to conclude that the claims in this case are invalid.” buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355. Case 2:15-cv-00541-JRG Document 18 Filed 07/07/15 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 138 19 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Balsam respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to dismiss. Dated: July 7, 2015 Jennifer P. Ainsworth WILSON, ROBERSTON & CORNELIUS, PC 909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400 Tyler, TX 75701 Tel.: (903) 509–5000 Fax: (903) 509–5092 jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com /s/ David Swetnam–Burland Peter J. Brann David Swetnam–Burland Stacy O. Stitham BRANN & ISAACSON 184 Main Street, 4th Floor Lewiston, ME 04243−3070 Tel: (207) 786−3566 Fax: (207) 783–9325 pbrann@brannlaw.com dsb@brannlaw.com sstitham@brannlaw.com Attorneys for Balsam Hill LLC Case 2:15-cv-00541-JRG Document 18 Filed 07/07/15 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 139 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 7, 2015, I filed the foregoing Balsam’s Motion to Dismiss with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice

  2. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

    Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed November 18, 2015

    The Federal Circuit has expressly held that sending and receiving data over the Internet “is not even arguably inventive.” See, e.g., buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus these steps, standing alone, are not inventive.

  3. Mantissa Coporation v. Ondot Systems, Inc. et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed October 23, 2015

    This unremarkable and conventional function of computer have consistently been found insufficient to meet the threshold requirement of § 101. See, e.g., buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355; see also Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 717 (holding that “adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible.”).

  4. Dialware Communications, Llc v. Hasbro, Inc.

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed January 13, 2017

    See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 602; buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1352-53. Further, the Asserted Claims disclose no “inventive concept” because they employ only commonplace computing equipment which, as a matter of law, does not convert abstract claims into patent-eligible subject matter.

  5. Blackbird Tech Llc v. Kcura Llc

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed October 13, 2016

    The sending and receiving computers can be generic—they perform only sending and receiving functions. See buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1352, 1355. The virus screening computer fares no better.

  6. Proxyconn, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Memorandum in Support Thereof

    Filed August 11, 2016

    But this “inventive concept” in an application of the idea must be “in the physical realm of things and acts—a ‘new and useful application’ of the ineligible matter in the physical realm—that ensures that the patent is on something ‘significantly more than’ the ineligible matter itself.” buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353 (citation omitted). Routine, conventional elements or combinations of elements do not suffice under step two.

  7. A PTY Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

    MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings

    Filed November 18, 2015

    Merely limiting the claim with field-of-use restrictions, or merely adding a conventional combination of elements in that field, is insufficient. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59; buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Case 1:15-cv-00154-RP Document 44 Filed 11/18/15 Page 13 of 25 9 Here, the asserted claims of the ’572 patent disclose nothing more than the abstract idea of using information in a message’s destination address to look up an address in a directory, and apply that idea using standard computer technology. That is not enough to support a “patent- eligible application” of the abstract idea disclosed in the asserted claims.

  8. Loramax LLC v. The Dreyfus Corporation

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed August 31, 2015

    “That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir.

  9. Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al

    MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings

    Filed April 21, 2015

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- SAMSUNG’S MOT FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED ON 35 U.S.C. § 101; CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00539-EDL on the pleadings.” Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2015 WL 269036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2015); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming a Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under Section 101); Shortridge v. Found. Constr.

  10. Azure Networks LLC v. Broadcom Corporation

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff Azure Networks LLC's First Amended Complaint

    Filed April 13, 2015

    Aside from mischaracterizing the file history of that patent,8 Azure has made no attempt to explain how the specific limitations it identifies are novel or how their functions amount to more than components exchanging messages. buySAFE, Inc., 765 F.3d at 1355 (computer components exchanging messages over a network is not even “arguably inventive”); Money Suite, 2015 WL 436160, at *4 (dependent claims not inventive because although they “ostensibly narrow the scope of the claims by adding elements,” plaintiff did “not contend that it ‘invented’ any of these limitations”).9 Azure argues that certain terms in certain dependent claims “ha[ve] specific meaning in the computer arts,” Response at 12, but those limitations “add nothing of practical significance” to the underlying abstract idea. Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716.