Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

Good Law
56 F. Supp. 3d 1167·2014 WL 5661456·113 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 2082·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156760
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 3, 2014Case No. 2:12-cv-07360-MRP-MRWCalifornia7,241 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pfaelzer, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INELIGIBILITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Enfish, LLC (“Enfish”) has sued Defendants Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), Fiserv, Inc., Intuit, Inc., Sage Software, Inc., and Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. (collectively,. “Defendants”) for infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,151,604 (“the '604 Patent”) and 6,163,775 (“the '775 Patent”). 1 In an order issued March 31, 2014, the Court invalidated claims 1, 2, and 16 of the '604 patent as single means claims prohibited by 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a). See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 9 F.Supp.3d 1126 (C.D.Cal.2014). In a separate order issued March 31, 2014, the Court invalidated claims 31, 32, 46, and 47 of the '604 patent and claims 31, 32, and 47 of the '775 patent as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 . See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-07360, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46523 (C.D.Cal. Mar. 31, 2014).

Defendants move for summary judgment on the basis that all asserted claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . 2 For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court grants the motion.

II. Background

The abstract of the patents…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.