United States District Court, D. Delaware
BLUE SPIKE LLC, BLUE SPIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD., WISTARIA TRADING LTD., Plaintiffs,
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Defendant.
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Wilmington this 18th day of December 2019:
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);
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);
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);
the Court has considered the parties' briefs and related
filings (D.I. 17, 21, 22, 24, 28, 28); and
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."));
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.
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 ...