Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corp.

Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corp.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-AS-MOOT-IN-PART INTEL CORPORATION'S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF No. 12]

Came on for consideration this date is Intel Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion"), filed October 19, 2020. ECF No. 12. Health Discovery Corporation ("Plaintiff" or "HDC") filed a response on November 23, 2020, ECF [*2]  No. 21, to which Intel Corporation ("Defendant" or "Intel") replied on December 7, 2020, ECF No. 25. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on September 28, 2021. See ECF No. 57. After careful consideration of the Motion, the Parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-AS-MOOT-IN-PART Intel's Motion to Dismiss. The Court GRANTS Intel's Motion to the extent it moves to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and DENIES-AS-MOOT Intel's Motion to the extent it moves to dismiss for a failure to sufficiently plead direct and indirect infringement under Rule 12(b)(6).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On July 23, 2020, HDC filed a complaint accusing Intel of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,188 (the "'188 patent"), 7,542,959, 8,095,483, and 10,402,685 (collectively, the "Asserted Patents"). See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 15-18. (HDC states that these patents share a "substantially common specification," ECF No. 21 at 1 n.1, so this Order's reference to the '188 patent's written description refers to that shared specification.) The complaint states that each of HDC's asserted patents "relate[s] to innovative technology for using learning machines (e.g., Support Vector Machines) to identify relevant patterns in datasets, and more specifically, to a selection of features within [*3]  the datasets that best enable classification of the data (e.g., Recursive Feature Elimination)." ECF No. 1 ¶ 27. HDC accuses Intel of infringing its patents directly and indirectly through, for example, the use, sale, and marketing of "Intel AI-optimizing/machine learning processors," field programmable gate arrays, system on chips, and software deployed on "Intel/Intel-partnered computers" and other architectures. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 51, 74, 78.

On October 19, 2020, Intel moved to dismiss HDC's complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for asserting claims that are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and failing to sufficiently plead direct and indirect infringement. See ECF No. 12 at 1-2. That Motion is now fully briefed and ripe for judgment.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.