Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
November 3, 2017, Decided
[*1013] Wallach, Circuit Judge.
Appellants Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (together, "IV") sued Appellees Erie Indemnity Company et al. (collectively, "Erie") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("District Court"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,298 ("the '298 patent"). Erie responded by filing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting that all claims of the '298 patent are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).1 The District Court granted Erie's Motion to Dismiss. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 200 F. Supp. 3d 565, 577 (W.D. Pa. 2016).
IV appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.
I. Standards of Review
] We review a district [**2] court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) according to the law of the regional circuit, Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014), here, the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit reviews de novo a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 267 (3d Cir. 2007).
] We review issues "unique to patent law," including patent eligibility under § 101, consistent with our circuit's precedent. Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reviewing a § 101 question under Federal Circuit precedent). A district court's determination of patent eligibility under § 101 is an issue of law that we review de novo. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
II. The Claims of the '298 Patent Are Patent Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
711 Fed. Appx. 1012 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22060 **; 2017 WL 5041460
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC, INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, ERIE INSURANCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, FLAGSHIP CITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ERIE FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees
Notice: THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in No. 1:14-cv-00220-MRH, Judge Mark R. Hornak.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 200 F. Supp. 3d 565, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102289 (W.D. Pa., Aug. 4, 2016)
files, abstract idea, patent, identification, inventive, marks, unauthorized, eligibility, quotation, generating, selecting, recite, selection criteria, patent-eligible, characterizing, plurality, errant, manual, collection, disclose, teaches, subject matter, apparatus, comprises, matches, marker
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Subject Matter