Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:21-cv-01360-JWH-MRW |
| Citation | 562 F.Supp.3d 770 |
| Parties | TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. COVALENT, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
Ashley D. Posner, Posner Law Corporation, Sherman Oaks, CA, Gregory L. Hillyer, Pro Hac Vice, Hillyer Legal PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Thomas E. Dietrich, Stephen Charles McArthur, McArthur Law Firm PC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendant.
Before the Court is the motion of Defendant Covalent, Inc. to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Trinity Info Media, LLC, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 After considering the papers filed in support and in opposition,2 as well as the oral argument of counsel at the hearing on the Motion, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
On February 15, 2021,3 Trinity filed its Complaint, thereby commencing this action. On April 28, Trinity filed the operative Amended Complaint. In that pleading, Trinity asserts that Covalent's activities infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 9,087,321 (the "’321 Patent") and 10,936,685 (the "’685 Patent") (jointly, the "Patents-in-Suit").4
On May 12, Covalent filed the instant Motion, which seeks the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on the ground that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter. Trinity timely filed its Opposition, and Covalent timely filed its Reply.
On July 2, the Court conducted a hearing to address a tentative order that the Court provided to the parties the previous day.5 At that hearing, the Court directed the parties to file simultaneous supplemental briefing.6
Trinity is the assignee of the Patents-in-Suit, both entitled "Poll-based Networking System."7 David Shaun Neal and Timothy Beggy are the named inventors on both patents.8 The application that issued as the ’321 Patent was filed on November 22, 2010, and the patent issued on July 21, 2015.9 The ’321 Patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 61/309,038 (the "Provisional Application"), which was filed on March 1, 2010.10
The continuation-in-part application that issued as the ’685 Patent was filed on July 2, 2018, and it claims priority to both the ’321 Patent and the Provisional Application.11 The ’685 Patent issued on March 2.12
The ’321 Patent's specification discloses that the invention "relates to ... a networking system that connects users based on similarities as determined through poll answering and provides real-time results to the users."13 Similarly, the ’685 Patent ’s specification states that the invention "relates to ... a networking system that matches users to people, products, good [sic ], and services based on similarities as determined through poll answering and provides real-time results in the form of a matching number to the users."14 The flow chart reproduced below depicts "a process for poll-based networking according to" the claimed invention of the ’321 Patent :15
The ’685 Patent discloses a similar "process for poll-based networking," but it further discloses comparing the user's answers to "the profile descriptors of the products, goods, and services" and displaying those products, goods, and services "that have a likelihood of match within a predetermined threshold."16
According to the Patents-in-Suit, that "poll-based networking" provides "real-time polling and matching" through "a unique matching logic that enables the system to efficiently manage a large number of members/users [and products/goods/services in the case of the ’685 Patent ]."17 Using that logic, "the system progressively updates the matching and presentation of similar users[, products, goods, and/or services]."18
Trinity accuses Covalent of engaging in activities that infringe Claims 1-3, 8, and 20 of the ’321 Patent (the "Asserted ’321 Patent Claims") and Claims 2, 3, 12-14, 16, 17, 20-22, 24, and 25 of the ’685 Patent (the "Asserted ’685 Patent Claims") (collectively, the "Asserted Claims").19 Claim 1 of the ’321 Patent discloses:
The remaining Asserted ’321 Patent Claims expand upon certain features of the poll-based networking system, as discussed further in Section IV infra.21 Claim 2 of the ’685 Patent discloses a "computer-implemented" method for creating a poll-based network similar to the one recited in Claim 1 of the ’321 Patent, but it also includes the limitation "wherein one or more of the operations are carried out on a hand-held device; and wherein two or more results based on the likelihood of match are displayed in a list reviewable by swiping from one result to another."22 Claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’685 Patent depend directly from that method claim, further disclosing specifics related to a poll-based network.23 Claim 3 of the ’685 Patent discloses a "computer program product for creating" the poll-based network identical to the one recited in Claim 2.24 Claims 20-22, 24, and 25 of the ’685 Patent depend directly from Claim 3, further disclosing specifics related to a poll-based network.25
The Court's analysis below addresses only the Asserted Claims.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in a complaint. Navarro v. Block , 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "[a]ll allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Am. Family Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco , 277 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2002). Although a complaint attacked through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion "does not need detailed factual allegations," a plaintiff must provide "more than labels and conclusions." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).
To state a plausible claim for relief, the complaint "must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts" to support its legal conclusions. Starr v. Baca , 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)...." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations and footnote omitted). Accordingly, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," which means that a plaintiff must plead sufficient factual content to "allow[ ] the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A complaint must contain "well-pleaded facts" from which the Court can "infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
Covalent moves to dismiss on the grounds that the Asserted Claims of the ’321 Patent and the ’685 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An invention or a discovery is patentable if it is a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." Id. "In choosing such expansive terms ... Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope." Diamond v. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. 303, 308, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 65 L.Ed.2d 144 (1980). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has identified exceptions to this wide scope to distinguish patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity—which are ineligible for patent protection—from those that "integrate the building blocks into something more." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 89, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Supreme Court has identified the following exceptions to patent eligibility: "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas." Diamond v. Diehr , 450 U.S. 175, 185, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981). The purpose of these exceptions is to prevent patents that "too broadly preempt the use of a natural law[, natural phenomena, or abstract idea]," so as "not [to] inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of [those exceptions]." Mayo , 566 U.S. at 73, 86, 132 S.Ct. 1289.
In Mayo , the Supreme Court "set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice , 573 U.S. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347. The first step is to ask "whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. If not, the claims fall within the scope of § 101 and are patent-eligible. If the claims are directed...
To continue reading
Request your trial