Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blue Spike LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

December 18, 2019

BLUE SPIKE LLC, BLUE SPIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD., WISTARIA TRADING LTD., Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         At Wilmington this 18th day of December 2019:

         WHEREAS, Blue Spike LLC, Blue Spike International Ltd., and Wistaria Trading Ltd. (collectively "Plaintiffs") have filed a suit for patent infringement against Charter Communications, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 475, 246, 8, 739, 295, and 9, 934, 408 (Counts I-III) (collectively, the "Secure Server patents"); 7, 159, 116 and 8, 538, 011 (Counts IV-V) (collectively, the "Trusted Transaction patents"); 9, 021, 602 and 9, 104, 842 (Counts VI-VII) (collectively, the "Watermarking patents"); 8, 224, 705, 7, 287, 275, 8, 473, 746, RE 44, 222, and RE 44, 307 (Counts VIII-XII) (collectively, the "Packet Transfer patents") (D.I. 1);

         WHEREAS, Defendant moved to dismiss, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs' Counts I-III for failure to state a plausible claim of either direct or indirect infringement of the Secured Server patents (see D.I. 17 at 9-12);

         WHEREAS, Defendant also moved to dismiss, under Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiffs' Counts IV-XII for failure to state a claim on the bases that the Trusted Transaction, Watermarking, and Packet Transfer patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they are allegedly directed to unpatentable subject matter (see D.I. 17 at 12-30);

         WHEREAS, the Court has considered the parties' briefs and related filings (D.I. 17, 21, 22, 24, 28, 28); and

         WHEREAS, on November 26, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant's motion to dismiss (see Nov. 26, 2019 Hrg. Tr. (D.I. 34) ("Tr."));[1]

         NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (D.I. 16) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. The motion is DENIED with respect to Counts I and III, alleging infringement of the '246 and '408 Secure Server patents. These Counts remain in the case.
2. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Count II, alleging infringement of the '295 Secure Server patent. This Count is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs having an opportunity to file an amended complaint and attempt again to state a claim for infringement of the '295 patent.
3. The motion is DENIED with respect to Counts IV and V, alleging infringement of the '116 and '011 Trusted Transaction patents. These Counts remain in the case.
4. The motion is DENIED with respect to Counts VI and VII, alleging infringement of the '602 and '842 Watermarking patents. These Counts are not dismissed.
5. The motion is GRANTED with respect to Count IX, alleging infringement of the '275 Packet Transfer patent. This Count is DISMISSED.
6. The motion is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT with respect to Counts VIII, X, XI, and XII, alleging infringement of the '705, '746, '222, and '307 Packet Transfer patents. The parties shall continue to comply with the briefing schedule set out at D.I. 32.

         The Court's Order is consistent with the following bench ruling announced at the conclusion of the November 26 hearing (see Tr. at 68-81):

I do want to note before I jump into analyzing the patents that what the Defendant has done here is, I think, fairly characterized as pretty aggressive. One might say the same about the Plaintiffs, to assert 12 patents .... [B]ut to move in a single motion to get rid of 12 patents, nine on [Section] 101 grounds and three more on [Rule] 12(b)(6) pleadings standards and only have a 30 page brief, which, of course, is actually an increase in our page limits, to do that is asking a lot of the Court....
[Y]ou encounter some hurdles, not just that you have very limited pages to address 12 separate patents, but also we're very, very early in the case. That means[, ] in my view, coming from the law, of course, with Rule 12 motions, essentially doubts are going to be resolved in favor of the Plaintiffs at this stage of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.