United States District Court, D. Delaware
Timothy Devlin, Esq., Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE; Barry J. Bumgardner, Esq., (argued), Brent N. Bumgardner, Esq., Christie B. Lindsey, Esq., Nelson Bumgardner Casto, P.C., Fort Worth, TX, attorneys for Plaintiff.
Steven J. Fineman, Esq., Katharine C. Lester, Esq., Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; S. Calvin Walden, Esq., Victor F. Souto, Esq., Martin E. Gilmore, Esq., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, attorneys for Defendants Amdocs, Inc. and Amdocs Limited.
David E. Moore, Esq., Richard L. Horwitz, Esq., Bindu A. Palapura, Esq., Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stefani E. Shanberg, Esq., Robin L. Brewer, Esq., Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San Francisco, CA, attorneys for Defendant Clickatell, Inc.
Richard D. Kirk, Esq., Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq., Vanessa R. Tiradentes, Esq., Sara E. Bussiere, Esq., Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE, attorneys for Defendant mGage, LLC.
Thomas C. Grimm, Esq., Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William J. Robinson, Esq., Jean-Paul Ciardullo, Esq., Justin Sobaje, Esq., (argued), Foley & Lardner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, attorneys for Defendant mBlox Incorporated.
Kelly E. Farnan, Esq., (argued), Anthony Flynn Jr., Esq., Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Keith E. Broyles, Esq., Kamran Jivani, Esq., Matthew J. McNeill, Esq., Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, attorneys for Defendant Syniverse Technologies, LLC.
Kenneth L. Dorsney, Esq., Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE; Edward L. Bishop, Esq., Nicholas S. Lee, Esq., Neil A. Benchell, Esq., Bishop Diehl & Lee, Ltd., Schaumburg, IL, attorneys for Defendant Vibes Media LLC.
RICHARD G. ANDREWS, District Judge.
Presently before the Court are several motions for judgment on the pleadings (C.A. 14-736 D.I. 21; C.A. 14-735 D.I. 24; C.A. 14-732 D.I. 24). On November 26, 2014, Defendants Syniverse Technologies LLC, Vibes Media LLC, and mGage LLC moved for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. (C.A. 14-736 D.I. 21). Defendant Clickatell, Inc. joined the motion on December 1, 2014. (C.A. 14-733 D.I. 22). Defendant mBlox, Inc. filed a separate motion for judgment on the pleadings on November 26, 2014. (C.A. 14-735 D.I. 24). Plaintiff Messaging Gateway Solutions LLC filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings of validity against the moving Defendants, as well as against Amdocs, Inc. and Amdocs, Ltd. (C.A. 14-732 D.I. 24). Amdocs filed an opposition to the cross-motion onJanuary15, 1015. (C.A.14-732D.I.27). Thematterhasbeenfullybriefed. (C.A.14-735 D.I. 25, 29; C.A. 14-736 D.I. 22, 27; C.A. 14-732 D.I. 25, 28). The Court heard oral argument on February 24, 2015. (C.A. 14-737 D.I. 33 [hereinafter, "Tr."]).
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity pursuant to§ 101(C.A.14-733 D.I. 22; C.A. 14-734 D.125; C.A. 14-735 D.I. 24; C.A. 14-736 D.I. 21; C.A. 14-737 D.I. 24) are DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings of validity pursuant to §101 (C.A. 14-732 D.I. 24) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed seven related patent infringement actions against Defendants Aerialink, Inc., Amdocs, Clickatell, mGage, mBlox, Syniverse, and Vibes Media on June 11, 2014. (C.A. 14-731D.I.1; C.A. 14-732 D.I. 1; C.A. 14-733 D.I. 1; C.A. 14-734 D.I. 1; C.A. 14-735 D.I. 1; C.A. 14-736 D.I. 1; C.A. 14-737 D.I. 1). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 260, 329 ("the '329 patent") and 8, 750, 183 ("the '183 patent"). Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case againstAerialink on September 25, 2014. (C.A. 14-731D.I.13). The Court ordered a stipulated dismissal of the claims related to the '329 patent on October 15, 2014. (C.A. 14-732 D.I. 19; C.A. 14-733 D.I. 18; C.A. 14-734 D.I. 21; C.A. 14-735 D.I. 18; C.A. 14-736 D.I. 17; C.A. 14-737 D.I. 20).
A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed under the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the Rule 12(c) motion alleges that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Turbe v. Gov Y of the Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991); Revell v. Port Auth., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010). The court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint and take them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406 (2002). "[U]pon cross motions for judgment on the pleadings, the court must assume the truth of both parties' pleadings." 61AAm. Jur. 2d Pleading§ 555; cf Pichler v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380, 386 (3d Cir. 2008) ("On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court construes facts and draws inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made.'"). "When there are well-ple[d] factual allegations, a court should ...