IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP, INC. AND MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, GOOGLE INC., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 13-cv-0900-JRG
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6) AND 12(b)(1)
Case 2:13-cv-00900-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/10/14 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 163
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................3
A.
Plaintiff Rockstar Arises From the Nortel Bankruptcy Auction ..............................3
B.
Rockstar Forms MobileStar in Delaware, But Fails to Register it in Texas ............3
C.
Plaintiffs Assert Claim 5 of the ’131 Patent Against Defendants ............................4
LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................4
A.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) .........................................4
B.
Invalidity under § 101 is Routinely Decided at the Pleading Stage and Prior to Claim Construction .....................................................................................5
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................7
I.
The Court Should Dismiss Claim 5 of the ’131 Patent For Failure to State a Claim ..........7
A.
Claim 5 of the ’131 Patent Does Not Claim Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ...........7
B.
Claim 5 of the ’131 Patent Claims a Method for the Abstract Idea of Notifying a User of an Incoming Communication ..................................................7
C.
The Claim Language Does Not Meaningfully Limit the Abstract Idea to a Concrete Application ...............................................................................................9
D.
Claim 5 of the ’131 Patent Also Fails the Machine-or-Transformation Test ........11
II.
The Court Should Dismiss This Action for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction .............12
A.
MobileStar Had No Standing To File This Action ................................................12
B.
Without MobileStar, this Action Should Be Dismissed ........................................14
C.
MobileStar’s Post-Litigation Registration Cannot Confer Standing, And Its Amended Complaint Cannot Cure Jurisdictional Defects ................................15
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................16
Case 2:13-cv-00900-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/10/14 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 164
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases
Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC
, 625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................4, 15, 16
Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.
, 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................9
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l
, 134 S. Ct. 73 (2013) ...................................................................................................................9
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l
, 2013 WL 4768483 (U.S. Sept. 4, 2013) ....................................................................................9
Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus., Inc.
, 939 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................15
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................5
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc.
, 434 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................15
Atrium Companies, Inc. v. ESR Associates, Inc.
, No. 11 Civ. 1288, 2012 WL 4215103 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2012)...........................................13
Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.)
, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................6, 11
Bilski v. Kappos
, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010) ...............................................................................................6, 8, 10, 11
CLS Bank Intern. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................9
Cardpool, Inc. v. Plastic Jungle, Inc.
, No. C 12-04182 WHA, 2013 WL 245026 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2013)........................................6
Clear With Computers v. Dick's Sporting Goods
, No. 12-cv-00674-LED, Dkt. No. 116 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 21, 2014)T ...........................................2
CyberFone Sys., LLC v. Cellco P'ship
, 885 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2012) ...........................................................................................6
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
, 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................11, 12
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber
, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................5, 8
Case 2:13-cv-00900-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/10/14 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 165