United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Enforcement Video, LLC d/b/a WatchGuard
Video's (“WatchGuard”) Motion for Summary
Judgment for Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 211, 907 and
6, 950, 013 for Un-Patentable Subject Matter Under
Mayo/Alice (Dkt. #73). After considering the
relevant pleadings, the Court denies WatchGuard's motion.
International, Inc. (“Evicam”) filed its
complaint against WatchGuard, alleging infringement of U.S.
Patent Nos. 6, 211, 907 (the “'907 Patent”)
and 6, 950, 013 (the “'013 Patent”)
(collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). Evicam
asserts Claims 3, 8, 13, 18, 19, 22, 24, and 27 of the
'907 Patent and Claims 8 and 11 of the '013 Patent.
February 10, 2017, WatchGuard filed the present motion (Dkt.
#73). On March 24, 2017, Evicam filed a response (Dkt. #109).
On April 3, 2017, WatchGuard filed a reply (Dkt. #118). On
April 11, 2017, Evicam filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #123).
purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary
judgment is proper under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine when
“the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Substantive law identifies which facts are material.
Id. The trial court “must resolve all
reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion
for summary judgment.” Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am.
Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir.
party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of
informing the court of its motion and identifying
“depositions, documents, electronically stored
information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials”
that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A); Celotex, 477 U.S. at
323. If the movant bears the burden of proof on a claim or
defense for which it is moving for summary judgment, it must
come forward with evidence that establishes “beyond
peradventure all of the essential elements of the
claim or defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780
F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears
the burden of proof, the movant may discharge the burden by
showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmovant's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325;
Byers v. Dall. Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424
(5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the
nonmovant must “respond to the motion for summary
judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating there
is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d
at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49). A
nonmovant must present affirmative evidence to defeat a
properly supported motion for summary judgment.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. Mere denials of material
facts, unsworn allegations, or arguments and assertions in
briefs or legal memoranda will not suffice to carry this
burden. Rather, the Court requires ‘“significant
probative evidence'” from the nonmovant to dismiss
a request for summary judgment. In re Mun. Bond Reporting
Antitrust Litig., 672 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1982)
(quoting Ferguson v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d
111, 114 (5th Cir. 1978)). The Court must consider all of the
evidence but “refrain from making any credibility
determinations or weighing the evidence.” Turner v.
Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir.
moves for summary judgment, arguing the patents-in-suit are
invalid because they are directed to an abstract idea and
lack an inventive concept.
invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to
the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35
U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has “long held
that this provision contains an important implicit exception:
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank
Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting
Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,
Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). Monopolization of
these “basic tools of scientific and technological
work” through the grant of a patent “might tend
to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it,
thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent
laws.” Id. (first quoting Myriad, 133
S.Ct. at 2116; and then quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs.
v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1298, 1923 (2012)).
Supreme Court has set forth a framework for determining
patent eligibility. Id. at 2355. First, the court
determines whether the claims at issue are directed towards
one of the three patent-ineligible concepts. Id. If
so, then the court then asks “[w]hat else is there in
the claims before us?” Id. (alteration in
original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1296-97). In
answering the second question, the court considers “the
elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered
combination to determine whether the additional elements
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. The second step can be
characterized as a search for an “inventive
concept”-“an element or combination of elements
that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.'” Id.
(alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at
Court finds the patents-in-suit are broadly directed to the
abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and controlling
access to vehicle incident information. For the ‘907
Patent, Claim 1 is a representative claim because other
asserted claims of the '907 Patent ...