ARTICLE
11 August 2015

Court Recognizes Alice Decision Potentially Impacts Case by Allowing Late Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

WB
Womble Bond Dickinson

Contributor

Being different is our normal way of working. It's not just what we do, it's how we do it.

You'll benefit from more than just the skills and know-how you'd expect from a pioneering law firm; our technology specialists, process and project management leaders, accountants and tax advisers work alongside lawyers with specialist sector expertise – from business to government.

Working side by side, we'll find clever solutions to your age-old problems.

With 1,300 professionals across 39 offices in the US and UK, we're equipped to tackle mission-critical challenges, wherever you do business.

Want the proof? It's in our track record. With our straight-talking, entrepreneurial approach, we’ve set new industry precedents, achieved market firsts and delivered trailblazing work for our clients.

So, whatever your future holds, we're here for you with A Point of View Like No Other.

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC ("Mobile")[background on company], initiated a patent infringement case against United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), in 2012 on U.S. Patent No. 5,786,748 on a method and apparatus for giving notification of express mail delivery.
United States Intellectual Property
Womble Bond Dickinson are most popular:
  • within Insurance topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Automotive and Insurance industries

Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC ("Mobile")[background on company], initiated a patent infringement case against United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"), in 2012 on U.S. Patent No. 5,786,748 on a method and apparatus for giving notification of express mail delivery.

UPS filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 95], which was submitted to a Special Master for consideration.  The Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Dkt. 139] on July 8, 2015, recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.  Both parties filed objections to the R&R [Dkts. 142 and 143].  In addition to its objection, UPS filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings [Dkt. 145] arguing that the asserted patent should be found invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, et al., 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2350 (2014).  In Alice, the Supreme Court emphasized that "a patent-ineligible concept" or "abstract idea" is not made patentable by "generic computer implementation" described as a method claim. Id.

Judge Totenberg agreed with UPS that the resolution of this motion could obviate the need for deciding the summary judgment motion, and she therefore decided to allow the motion despite its lateness in the procedural timeline.  She ruled that it presented a threshold question of validity, which, "in the interest of judicial economy and efficiency," was not appropriately deferred to trial.

The Court removed the pending summary judgment motion from the docket by denying it without prejudice, but committed to reviving the motion herself if UPS's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.  This action achieved the removal of a decision on the summary judgment motion from the Court's time tracking requirements, while avoiding adding a burden on either party to resurrect the summary judgment motion.

The case is Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Docket No. 148, decided August 4, 2015, in 1:12-cv-032223-AT, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, assigned to Judge Amy Totenberg.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More