Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, CIV 10–0433 JB/SCY
Decision Date | 30 August 2016 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 10–0433 JB/SCY, No. CIV 13–0636 JB/SCY, No. CIV 13–1153 JB/SCY, No. CIV 12–1309 JB/SCY,CIV 10–0433 JB/SCY |
Citation | 204 F.Supp.3d 1190 |
Parties | FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NBA MEDIA VENTURES, LLC, MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC, Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., & Premiere Radio Networks, Inc., Defendants. Front Row Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., d/b/a 'The Glen Beck Program, Inc.', & GBTV, LLC, Defendants. Front Row Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NBA Media Ventures, Turner Sports Interactive, Inc. & Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc., Defendants. Front Row Technologies, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Turner Sports Interactive, Inc., and Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Bryan J. Davis, William G. Gilchrist, Davis, Gilchrist & Lee, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Michael W. Shore, Alfonso G. Chan, Christopher L. Evans, Patrick J. Conroy, Ari Rafilson, Dustin Lo, Jennifer Rynell, Rajkumar Vinnakota, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys for Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC
John R. Cooney, Emil Kiehne, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Alan E. Littmann, Douglas J. Winnard, Brian P. O'Donoghue, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Cynthia J. Rigsby, Kevin J. Malaney, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Jason J. Keener, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Matthew B. Lowrie, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, Attorneys for Defendants Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. and MLB Advanced Media, L.P.
David B. Weaver, Baker Botts LLP, Austin, Texas,Andrew J. Allen, Hilary L. Preston, Temilola Sobowale, Vinson & Elkins LLP, New York, New York, Jeffrey Han, Stephen M. Hash, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, Texas, Attorneys for Defendant NBA Media Ventures, Turner Sports Interactive, Inc., and Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc.
Emil Kiehne, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Eleanor M. Lackman, Joshua S. Wolkoff, Cowan DeBaets Abrams & Sheppard LLP, New York, New York, Donna K. Schneider, San Antonio, Texas, Attorneys for Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC, and Premiere Radio Networks Inc.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), filed October 21, 2015 (Doc. 229)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on January 5, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) what evidentiary standard applies to patent eligibility disputes under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ; (ii) whether the Court must wait until a later stage to examine the subject-matter eligibility of Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC's patents; (iii) whether the Court may select representative claims, and what those claims should be; (iv) whether Front Row's patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas; and (v) if Front Row's patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, whether the claims' elements, as a whole, contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. First, the Court concludes that the clear-and-convincing evidence standard does not apply to patent eligibility disputes under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Second, the Court concludes that it may proceed to examine the patents' subject-matter eligibility before claim construction. Third, the Court concludes that it may select representative claims and adopts a modified set of the Defendants' proposed representative claims. Fourth, the Court concludes that all of Front Row's patents are directed to abstract ideas, because their claims describe these ideas in vague and broad terms. Finally, the Court determines that Front Row's claims do not contain an inventive concept or meaningful limitation in scope. The Court thus grants the Defendants' Motion in its entirety and dismisses this case with prejudice.
The Court takes its facts from the Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand, filed April 23, 2013 (Doc. 149) ("Fourth Amended Complaint").1
Front Row2 is a New Mexico limited liability company that holds patents related to streaming video on mobile devices. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 1–20, at 1–5. Front Row owns "all rights, title, and interest in and under" ten such patents:
Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 11–20, at 3–5. Front Row alleges that all of these patents are valid and enforceable. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 21–31, at 5–6.
Defendant and Counterclaimant MLB Advanced Media, L.P. ("MLB Media") is in the business of broadcasting sporting events through electronic and wireless means, and selling software to support that broadcasting. Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 2, at 1–2. Its primary product relevant to this litigation is "At Bat 13," Major League Baseball's official smartphone application. Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 33, at 6.
Defendants and Counterclaimants Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. and GBTV, LLC create and distribute multimedia content over the internet. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 3–4, at 2. They are both associated with talk show host and radio personality Glenn Beck. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 4–5, at 2.
Defendant and Counterclaimant Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. is a "national radio network that produces radio programming and services for radio stations, and distributes its own and various third-party radio programs to radio station affiliates throughout the world." Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 5, at 2.
Defendant and Counterclaimant NBA Media Ventures, LLC ("NBA Media"), like MLB Advanced Media, L.P., is in the business of broadcasting sporting events through electronic and wireless means, and of selling software to support that broadcasting. See Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 6, 37, at 2, 8. Its primary products relevant to this litigation are "NBA League Pass Mobile" and "NBA League Pass Broadband," which provide video of National Basketball Association games to consumers over the internet. Fourth Amended Complaint ¶¶ 37, at 8.
Front Row filed its Fourth Amended Complaint on April 23, 2013. See Fourth Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand, filed April 23, 2013 (Doc. 149)("Complaint"). The Complaint alleges that the Defendants infringed its patents by: (i) selling applications that capture live video of entertainment events and transmit it over a cellular communications network to hand held mobile devices; and (ii) knowingly inducing their customers to infringe on the patent by providing applications that those customers would use to access live video of entertainment events. See Complaint ¶¶ 33–37, at 6–8. They target in particular Major League Baseball's MLB.TV, At Bat 13, Postseason.TV, MiLB.TV, and MiLB applications; the National Basketball Association's NBA League Pass Mobile and NBA League Pass Broadband applications; and Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC, and Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.'s TheBlaze TV and TheBlaze TV Plus applications. See Complaint ¶¶ 33, 35, 37, at 6–8.
The current case consists of four consolidated cases. Front Row filed its first lawsuit in the District of New Mexico on May 5, 2010. See Plaintiff's Original Complaint for Patent Infringement and Jury Demand, filed May 5, 2010 (Doc. 1). Front Row filed its second lawsuit on May 25, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See Complaint, filed May 25, 2012 (Doc. 1 in Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. , No. 3:12–cv–01639–K (N.D.Tex.)(Kinkeade, J.)(the "Second Action")).
On December...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beteiro, LLC v. Betmgm, LLC
...to "authorizing handheld devices to receive streaming video based on a user's location" was also unpatentably abstract. 204 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1268, 1273-74 (D.N.M. 2016), aff'd sub nom., Front Row Techs., LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 697 F. App'x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017). All of these cases......
-
Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.
...concept." Alice , 573 U.S. at 222, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC , 204 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1274 (D.N.M. 2016), aff'd sub nom. Front Row Techs. LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. , 697 F. App'x 701 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (fi......
-
Skillz Platform Inc. v. Aviagames Inc.
...at 226 (“[T]he system claims are no different from the method claims in substance”); Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, 204 F.Supp.3d 1190, 1265 (D.N.M. 2016) (“After comparing the various independent system claims, the Court concludes that they are substantially similar[.]”)......
-
Atos, LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...absent the parties' agreement and in the face of the patentee's specific objections.” Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, 204 F.Supp.3d 1190, 1250-51 (D.N.M. 2016) (citing cases in which district courts, relying on Content Extraction, independently determine that certain claim......
-
Greasing the Wheels of Patent Law: Clarifying the Judicial Exceptions via American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings Llc
...Mayo Collaborative Servs., 566 U.S. at 87-88.36. Id. at 88-89.37. Id. at 88-89.38. Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, 204 F. Supp. 3d 1190, 1225 n.17 (D.N.M. 2016).39. Id. ("It compared the Alice test to Justice Potter Stewart's comments on pornography—that 'I know it when I ......