Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

May 24, 2019, Decided

2018-1132, 2018-1346, 2018-1448

Opinion

 [*892]  Linn, Circuit Judge.

Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. appeal the dismissal by the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas of [**2]  their complaints of infringement of U.S. Patents No. 7,069,293 ("'293 patent"), No. 6,324,578 ("'578 patent"), No. 6,510,466 ("'466 patent") and No. 6,728,766 ("'766 patent") in related cases against Appellees ADP, LLC; Kaspersky Lab, Inc.; Big Fish Games, Inc.; and Bitdefender, Inc. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. AVG Techs. USA, Inc. ("AVG Decision"), No. 2:16-cv-00393, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45125 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2017) (dismissing, inter alia, claims against AVG, Kaspersky, and BitDefender); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC ("ADP Decision"), 279 F. Supp. 3d 736 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (dismissing claims against ADP and Big Fish). Appellants also appeal the district court's denial of Uniloc and ADP's joint motion to vacate the ADP decision with respect to ADP only. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC ("Vacatur Order"), No. 2:16-cv-741 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2017).

We reverse and remand the district court's dismissal based on patent ineligibility of the invention claimed in the '293 and '578 patents, and affirm the district court's dismissal with respect to the '466 and '766 patents. We reverse and remand the district court's order denying vacatur. Because we write for the parties, we rely on the district court's exposition of the facts of the case.

 [*893]  I. Standing and Jurisdiction

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

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

772 Fed. Appx. 890 *; 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15507 **; 2019 WL 2245938

UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., UNILOC 2017 LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ADP, LLC, Defendant, BIG FISH GAMES, INC., Defendants-Appellees;UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A., UNILOC 2017 LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BITDEFENDER, INC., KASPERSKY LAB, INC., 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Notice: THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Subsequent History: As Corrected May 29, 2019.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:16-cv-00741-RWS, 2:16-cv-00858-RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:16-cv-00393-RWS, 2:16-cv-00394-RWS, 2:16-cv-00871-RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 279 F. Supp. 3d 736, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213748 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2017)

Disposition: AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART AND REMANDED.

CORE TERMS

patent, user, server, conventional, network, license, inventive, functionality, eligible, district court, software, argues, abstract idea, prior art, interface, mootness, packet, specification, display, architecture, installation, desktop, joinder, parties, vacatur, unconventional, authorization, configurable, preferences, ineligible

Civil Procedure, Parties, Substitution, Transfer of Interests, Joinder of Parties, Preliminary Considerations, Justiciability, Mootness, Patent Law, Subject Matter, Evidence, Judicial Notice, Adjudicative Facts, Public Records, Infringement Actions, Prosecution History Estoppel, Utility Patents, Process Patents, Computer Software & Mental Steps, Subject Matter, Process Patents