United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division
UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A., Plaintiffs,
AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., Defendant. BITDEFENDER LLC, Defendant. PIRIFORM, INC. Defendant. UBISOFT, INC. Defendant. KASPERSKY LAB, INC., Defendant. SQUARE ENIX, INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W. SCHROEDER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant BitDefender LLC's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Docket No. 23 in Case
No. 2:16-cv-394), which is joined by Defendant Piriform,
Inc. (collectively with BitDefender LLC,
“Defendants”). Docket No. 20 in Case No. 2:16-cv-396.
The Motion was fully briefed (see Docket Nos. 26, 29
and 32), and the Court held a hearing on Friday, December 2,
2016. See Docket No. 91 in Case No. 2:16-cv-393
(“Tr.”) at 2:1. Defendants' Motion alleges
that the asserted patent claims are drawn to ineligible
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp.
v. CLS Bank, Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014). For the
reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion is
GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
a consolidation of six patent-infringement actions in which
Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
(collectively, “Uniloc”) assert infringement of
U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 510, 466 (“the '466
Patent”), entitled “Methods, Systems and Computer
Program Products for Centralized Management of Application
Programs on a Network, ” and 6, 728, 766 (“the
'766 Patent”), entitled “Methods, Systems and
Computer Program Products for License Use management on a
Network” (collectively, the “Asserted
Patents”). See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶
10, 22, 27, 29; Docket No. 39. The Defendants are providers
of software, and the accused products are Defendants'
software licensing and delivery systems. Docket No. 23 at 2.
Asserted Patents relate to “application program
management on a computer network.” '466 Patent,
col. 1:21-23; '766 Patent, col. 1:21-23. The computer
network includes a server supporting client stations and can
be called a “client-server environment.” Docket
No. 26 at 2 (citations omitted). The client-server
environment is characterized by the possibility than any
given user may use different clients at different times.
See '466 Patent at col. 1:44-56. In the context
of the client-server environment, the claimed inventions of
the Asserted Patents seek to centralize application
management so that “the entire process [can] be
controlled from a single point for an entire managed network
environment.” Id. at col. 3:35-36; '766
Patent, col: 3:35-36.
management” is not explicitly defined in the Asserted
Patents. However, the '466 Patent specification describes
“an application management system for managing
configurable application programs using both user and
administrative preferences for various application
programs.” '466 Patent, col. 7:25-28. The
specification further explains that “application
management information may include configurable user
preference information for the plurality of application
programs, ” id. at col. 4:53-55, or may
include “user, software, device, preference and access
control information.” Id. at col. 7:62-64.
Application management thus includes many aspects of
providing software to users in the context of a client-server
environment. See Id. at col 1:44-56.
of the '466 Patent provides:
1. A method for management of application
programs on a network including a server and a client
comprising the steps of:
installing a plurality of application programs at the server;
receiving at the server a login request from a user at the
establishing a user desktop interface at the client
associated with the user responsive to the login request from
the user, the desktop interface including a plurality of
display regions associated with a set of the plurality of
application programs installed at the server for which the
user is authorized; receiving at the server a selection of
one of the plurality of application programs from the user
desktop interface; and
providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of
application programs to the client for execution responsive
to the selection.
of the '766 Patent provides:
1. A method for management of license use for a network
comprising the steps of:
maintaining license management policy information for a
plurality of application programs at a license management
server, the license management policy information including
at least one of a user identity based policy, an
administrator policy override definition or a user policy
receiving at the license management server a request for a
license availability of a selected one of the plurality of
application programs from a user at a client;
determining the license availability for the selected one of
the plurality of application programs for the user based on
the maintained license management policy information; and
providing an unavailability indication to the client
responsive to the selection if the license availability
indicates that a license is not available for the user or an
availability indication if the licensed availability
indicates that a license is available for the user.
'466 and '766 Patents address different aspects of
application management in the client-server environment. The
'466 Patent addresses installing application software on
the server and providing instances of that software to the
clients for execution. '466 Patent, col. 3:48-50. The
'466 Patent further addresses establishing a
user-specific desktop interface for clients from which users
may select display regions associated with the application
software. See Id. at col. 4:39-44. By contrast, the
'766 Patent addresses the management of licenses for the
application software, including maintaining license-related
policies and information in the client-server environment
such that license availability can be communicated to clients
on a user-specific basis. '766 Patent, col. 3:24-28,
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must
dismiss a complaint that does not state a claim for relief
that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To state a
plausible claim, Plaintiffs must plead facts sufficient to
allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that
Defendants are liable for the alleged patent infringement.
See Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
At this stage, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as
true and views those facts in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs. Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d
458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010).
Under 35 ...