Ghaly Devices LLC v. Humor Rainbow, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 March 2020
• Docket Number: 1:19-cv-2318-GHW
• Citation: 443 F.Supp.3d 421
• Parties: GHALY DEVICES LLC, Plaintiff, v. HUMOR RAINBOW, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

443 F.Supp.3d 421

GHALY DEVICES LLC, Plaintiff,

v.HUMOR RAINBOW, INC., Defendant.

1:19-cv-2318-GHW

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed March 6, 2020

Steven G. Hill, Vivek Ganti, Hill Kertscher & Wharton, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Roberto Legaspi Gomez, Joshua Seth Broitman, Ostrager, Chong, Flaherty & Broitman, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Robert Greeson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Dallas, TX, Erik Owen Janitens, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX, Michelle Erica Wang, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge:

Matchmaking is a timeless art. Nowadays, as with most everything else, there is an app for that. This case is about just such an app. Plaintiff Ghaly Devices, LLC alleges that the mobile application created by OkCupid—a popular dating website owned by Defendant Humor Rainbow, Inc.—infringes claim 42 ("Claim 42") of United States Patent Number 6,685,479 (the "479 Patent"). Claim 42 recites a device that requires a user to answer a series of questions, uses an algorithm to apply a personality profile system—such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator—to the user's answers, matches this data with data corresponding to another user of a similar device, and calculates a degree of compatibility between the two users. Ghaly alleges that Humor's employees have infringed Claim 42 by using the OkCupid mobile application on a smartphone. Because the 479 Patent is directed to the abstract idea of a matchmaking algorithm and does not involve the application of an inventive concept, Humor's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts¹

1. The 479 Patent

Ghaly Devices, LLC ("Ghaly") owns the " 479 Patent." FAC ¶ 2. Ghaly alleges that Humor Rainbow, Inc. ("Humor") has infringed Claim 42 of that patent. Claim 42 states:

42. A device for determining a degree of compatibility between a first set of data corresponding to a first person and a second set of data corresponding to a second person comprising:

a. a housing;

b. a plurality of entry control mechanisms to operate the device, c. computer memory to store user's data,

d. means to communicate data to and from another device,

e. a microprocessor to control the operation of the device,

f. a control program to produce user's personality attributes, or behavioral pattern parameters, using a personality profile system to process stored user's data, and to match stored and processed data with data corresponding to a second user and received from another device, and to calculate a degree of compatibility between the two users, based in part on the number of common items between desired and calculated attributes or parameters, and

g. a liquid crystal display, or light emitting diodes display, to indicate said degree of compatibility between the two users.

479 Patent, Ex. A to FAC, Dkt No. 43-1, at 22.

2. The Device and the OKCupid Mobile Application

Humor provides online dating services under the brand "OKCupid," including the OKCupid mobile application. FAC ¶ 4; Ex. J to FAC, Dkt No. 43-10. The OKCupid mobile application collects answers to questions from its users that are designed to determine if the users are compatible. FAC ¶¶ 68-70. The FAC alleges that "[o]n information and belief, Humor ... installed the OKCupid mobile application on a device [the "Device"] for the purpose of developing, designing, testing, evaluating, debugging, qualifying, demonstrating, or preparing educational materials for the OKCupid mobile application." Id. ¶ 44.

The FAC alleges that Humor infringed Claim 42 by installing the OkCupid mobile application on the Device. Id. ¶¶ 54-75. Ghaly pleads that the Device is a mobile device, like an iPhone or other smartphone, so it has a housing. Id. ¶ 56; see Claim 42, subsection a. In addition, the Device includes several entry control mechanisms to operate the Device including a "power button, volume button, [and] touch points on a touch screen." FAC ¶¶ 57-59; see Claim 42, subsection b. Because it executes on the Device and the Device, like all smartphones, includes computer memory, the OKCupid mobile application "executes on a device that includes computer memory" to store users' data. FAC ¶¶ 60-61; see Claim 42, subsection c. Similarly, the Device includes a microprocessor to control its operation because the "OKCupid mobile application can only run if the device has a microprocessor to execute the OKCupid mobile application." FAC ¶¶ 65-66; see Claim 42, subsection e. And the Device includes a liquid crystal display (LCD) or light emitting diodes display (LEDD) to provide visual depiction of data to a user. FAC ¶¶ 73-74; see Claim 42, subsection g.

The "OKCupid mobile application is also designed to use the [D]evice's network capabilities to communicate with another device, such as another mobile device, via the OKCupid server application." FAC ¶ 64; see Claim 42, subsection d. Finally, the "OkCupid mobile application uses a personality profile system to process such stored user's data and determine, based on data associated with a second user, a degree of compatibility between such two users." FAC ¶ 72; see Ex. K to FAC, Dkt No. 43-11; Claim 42, subsection e.² Consequently, Ghaly alleges that the Device infringes every claim limitation in Claim 42.

B. Procedural History

Ghaly Devices filed the complaint that initiated this case on March 14, 2019. Dkt No. 1. Humor filed a motion to dismiss June 28, 2019. Dkt No. 38. In response, Ghaly filed the FAC on July 19, 2019. In the FAC, Ghaly asserts claims for direct patent infringement, FAC ¶¶ 40-90, and indirect patent infringement, FAC ¶¶ 91-104. Humor filed this motion to dismiss the FAC on August 9, 2019. Dkt Nos. 45-46. Ghaly subsequently filed its opposition, Dkt No. 48, and Humor filed its reply, Dkt No. 49.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). However, a defendant may move to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draws all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Palin v. N.Y. Times Co. , 933 F.3d 160, 165 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC , 872 F.3d 97, 104 (2d Cir. 2017) ); Chase Grp. Alliance LLC v. City of N.Y. Dep't of Fin. , 620 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2010). To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff "pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).

"To survive dismissal, the plaintiff must provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.’ " ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd. , 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Although Rule 8 "does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ ... it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quotation omitted). "A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ " Id. (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim is a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

In determining the adequacy of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), a court is generally limited to "facts stated on the face of the complaint." Goel v. Bunge, Ltd. , 820 F.3d 554, 559 (2d Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). However, "extrinsic documents may be considered as part of the pleadings if they either are (1) attached to the complaint; (2) incorporated into the complaint by reference; or (3) integral to the complaint." DeLuca v. AccessIT Grp., Inc. , 695 F. Supp. 2d 54, 60 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Court has considered the exhibits attached to the FAC in deciding this motion.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Section 101

1. Legal Standard

Under section 101 of the Patent Act ("Section 101"), "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. Although the language of Section 101 is sweeping, the Supreme Court "ha[s] long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014) (quotation omitted). "This ‘exclusionary principle’ promotes innovation by not granting monopoly power over the universal concepts that provide the building blocks of ingenuity." iSentium, LLC v. Bloomberg Fin. L.P. , 343 F. Supp. 3d 379, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Alice , 573 U.S. at 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ). At the same time, "too broad an interpretation of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law. For all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 71, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012). Thus, an invention that embodies a law of nature or an abstract idea may be eligible...