Post-Alice §101 Challenge Denied in Gonzalez v InfoStream

marshall-courthouse(Tyler, Texas – February 6, 2016) Judge Roy Payne today sent down a recommendation in Gonzalez v. InfoStream Group et al. (TXED 2:14-cv-00906-JRG, Docket No. 60) that producing “digital labels” is patent eligible under §101. He thus denied defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on those grounds.

A granting of a Motion for Summary Judgment is what the public sometimes refers as the case being “thrown out.” These Motions for Summary Judgment argue that “there is no genuine issue of material fact.” The Eastern District of Texas therefore considers it a hard-and-fast rule to not throw out a case where a jury could see a reasonable dispute involving the facts of the case.

In this case, plaintiff Gonzalez has two patents involving methods of digitally labeling websites for the purpose of increasing visibility/searchability. Defense argued that labeling websites for categorization is basically just a card catalog. Judge Payne held that upon reading the actual claims and their details, this system was not too abstract to be patented. Referencing Alice, the court also held that “even if the claims are directed to abstract ideas, the additional elements of the claims ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into patent-eligible subject matter.”

Plaintiff here is represented by Locke Lord of Dallas, who put forth Darrian Campbell, Jason Mueller, Paul Lein, and Scott Fuller.

Defendants are represented by Greenberg Traurig’s Nick Brown and Stephen Ullmer; LeClairRyan’s Andrew Zappia and Wendell Harris; Turner Boyd’s Josh Masur, Gu Zhuanjia, and Esha Bandyopadhyay; Venable’s Frank Gasparo and Todd Mosher; Siebman Burg Phillips & Smith’s Michael Smith; Ramey & Flock’s Andrew Stinson; Bryn’s Jason Fischer; and Lawrence Caplan.




Comments


Leave a Reply