Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc.

Good Law
193 F. Supp. 3d 1069·2016 WL 3196657
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 9, 2016Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK, Case No. 16-CV-00926-LHKCalifornia13,049 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Koh, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 88 (Case No. 16-CV-00925); Dkt. No. 81 (Case No. 16-CV-00926)

Plaintiff Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (“Papst” or “Plaintiff’) filed patent infringement suits against Xilinx, Inc, (“Xi-linx”) and Altera Corporation (“Altera”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,57⅜759 and 6,704,891. On May 11, 20Í6, Defendants filed identical Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, contending .that the asserted claims of Papst’s patents are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . On May 25, 2016, Papst filed an opposition. On May 30, 2016, Defendants filed a reply. See ECF Nos. 88 (“Motion”), 92 (“Opposition”),' 94 (“Reply”) (Case No. 16-CV-00925-LHK); ECF Nos. 81, 82, 84 (Case No. 16-CV-00926-LHK).

*1072 Having considered the parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for the reasons set forth below.

1. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. The Parties

Plaintiff Papst is a German patent licensing company with its principal place of business in St. Georgen, Germany. No.…

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.