District of Delaware Continues Experimental Practice of Resolving Unrelated Section 101 Motions in a Single Hearing, Denying One Motion and Granting-in-Part Another Motion

Jan 17, 2020

Reading Time : 3 min

Smart Locking Technologies, LLC v. Igloohome Inc.

Plaintiff Smart Locking Technologies, LLC sued defendants Igloohome Inc. and LockState, Inc. for infringing two patents over locking mechanisms that use temporary or single-use access codes. The court analyzed a representative claim from Patent No. 6,300,873, which includes a locking mechanism comprising an access code entry unit configured to accept access codes and an actuator configured to unlock upon entry of authorized access codes. Defendants filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

To determine whether the representative claim was directed to non-patentable subject matter, the court applied the two-step test of Alice v. CLS Bank International. Under step one, the court found that the claim was directed not toward an underlying abstract idea, but toward a device, specifically the two components of an actuator and an access code entry unit. The court agreed with defendants that a tangible product alone does not necessarily render an abstract idea patent-eligible. But here, there was sufficient specificity to limit the invention to embodiments configured to accept a one-time use access code, thus this claim was not directed to an abstract idea.

The court also analyzed the claim under the second step of the Alice test, finding that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded facts to support the conclusion that the claimed invention was not routine, conventional or well understood at the priority date. Plaintiff bolstered its complaint by specifically describing a problem in the prior art and the solution presented by its patented technology.

Plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to support a conclusion that its patents covering locking mechanisms with temporary access codes were not invalid under § 101, and the court denied Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics., Inc.

Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L. sued several telecom giants for infringing four patents that claim methods of information handling between computer programs, such as displaying a document in a first program, analyzing information in the first program, conducting a corresponding search of the information in a second program and performing an action in the first program based on results of the search. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) on the ground that the four patents claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

The court first analyzed whether the claims recite an improvement in computer functionality or merely automation of an activity performed in a noncomputerized context. It concluded that the claims fell between these extremes, as retrieving data for a first document from a second document is a difficulty present in both human and computerized worlds.

Applying the Alice test to a representative claim of Patent No. 7,917,843, the court found that although the claim includes an abstract idea, it is directed to an improvement in computer functionality. The court relied on several Federal Circuit cases that found improvements in spreadsheet functionality, software operation under license, display interfaces for small screens and scans for computer security to be patent-eligible subject matter. Defendants failed to address the improvement that plaintiff’s patent claims, and the court denied defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion with respect to the ’843 patent.

However, the court found that the claims of the other asserted patents were directed only to an abstract idea and not an improvement in computer functionality. Specifically, those other patents failed to claim coordination between two programs or simultaneous operation of two programs. The court granted the Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion with respect to these other patents.

Practice tip: To manage dockets and conserve judicial resources, the District of Delaware appears to be doubling down on its practice of consolidating Section 101 motions in cases involving unrelated parties and technologies. The court also seems willing to grant a 12(b) or 12(c) § 101 motion if the facts of the case can be fit to existing Federal Circuit jurisprudence. Practitioners should closely tie their § 101 arguments to existing Federal Circuit case law whenever possible.

Case: Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics., Inc., C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS; C.A. No. 12-1596-LPS; C.A. No. 12-1599-LPS; C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS; C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS; C.A. No. 13-919-LPS; C.A. No. 13-920-LPS; C.A. No. 19-992-LPS; C.A. No. 19-993-LPS (D. Del. Jan. 2, 2020)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.