United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A., Plaintiffs,
BIG FISH GAMES, INC., Defendant.
Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Big Fish Games,
Inc.'s (“Big Fish”) Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #
22. Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A.
(“Uniloc”), oppose the Motion. Dkt. # 52. Having
considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant
portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court
finds that oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court GRANTS
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. # 22.
alleges that Defendant has infringed and is continuing to
infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6, 110, 228
(“the ‘228 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,
564, 229 (“the ‘229 Patent”), by making,
using, importing, offering for sale and/or selling the Big
Fish Games portal, which allows remote users to install
upgrades to Big Fish Games, and by instructing its customers
to infringe on the patents through training videos,
demonstrations, brochures, installation and/or user guides.
Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 16, 18, 34, 36.
asserts two patents in this lawsuit: the ‘228 Patent
which is entitled, “Method and Apparatus for Software
Maintenance at Remote Nodes, ” and the ‘229
Patent, which is entitled “System and Method for
Pausing and Resuming Move/Copy Operations.” Dkt. # 1
Exs. A, B. Both patents involve processes within data
processing systems. Id. The ‘228 Patent
purports to improve on prior art by providing a common method
of applying software fixes to remote locations across
operating systems and program products in distributed data
processing systems. Dkt. # 1 Ex. A. Pursuant to this method,
a central software maintenance facility operates with a
computer interface through which a customer at a remote
location can request service and receive updated executable
code back from the facility. Id. The customer
interface provides a “front end” that covers
different software platforms and allows a customer to specify
a range of operations, including service research, requesting
service, applying service, providing program fixes, and
installing product or fixes at the remote location. The
application of the service is done at the central facility.
‘229 Patent purports to improve on prior art by
providing a method and system for pausing move or copy
operations in order to provide computing resources to other
system operations within a data processing system.
Id. By allowing a user to pause the move or copy
operation, the information is retained so that the operation
can be resumed at a later time. Id. This releases
computing and network resources utilized by the operation
while preserving the progress of the operation. Id.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) permits a court to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim. The rule requires the court to
assume the truth of the complaint's factual allegations
and credit all reasonable inferences arising from those
allegations. Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910
(9th Cir. 2007). A court “need not accept as true
conclusory allegations that are contradicted by documents
referred to in the complaint.” Manzarek v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must point to factual allegations
that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 568 (2007). If the plaintiff succeeds, the complaint
avoids dismissal if there is “any set of facts
consistent with the allegations in the complaint” that
would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Id. at 563;
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
typically cannot consider evidence beyond the four corners of
the complaint, although it may rely on a document to which
the complaint refers if the document is central to the
party's claims and its authenticity is not in question.
Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006).
A court may also consider evidence subject to judicial
notice. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908
(9th Cir. 2003).
Fish argues that the Complaint fails to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6) because the patents Uniloc asserts claim
patent-ineligible concepts under 35 U.S.C. § 101.