By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Peeble Tide LLC v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-769-LPS (D.Del. January 31, 2020), the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss in three separate patent infringement cases brought by Plaintiff Peeble Tide LLC after finding that the two patents asserted, U.S. Patent

By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, et al., Civil Action No. 18-1949-LPS-CJB (D.Del. September 19, 2019) the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. In doing so, the Court found that claims 1-9, 16, 17 and 21

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-444-RGA (D.Del. November 26, 2018) (consolidated), the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. §101 after concluding that the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,569,755 (“the ‘755 Patent”), are directed

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in IPA Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-1266-RGA (D.Del. March 31, 2018) (consolidated), the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,742,021 (“the ‘021 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,523,061

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in American Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC et al., Civil Action No. 15-1168-LPS (D.Del. February 27, 2018), the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,774,911 (“the ‘911 patent”) after finding that it was directed

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet in Jedi Technologies, Inc. v. Spark Networks, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 16-1055-GMS (D.Del. August 3, 2017), the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s patent infringement action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) after finding that plaintiff’s patents claim ineligible subject

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Symantec Corp. et al., C.A. No. 13-440-LPS (D.Del. February 13, 2017), the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of patent ineligibility upon finding that the claims at issue – claims 25 and 33 of U.S.

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Nice Systems Ltd. et al. v. Clickfox, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-743-RGA (D.Del. September 15, 2016), the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter after finding that (1) the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,976,955

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Idexx Laboratories, Inc. v. Charles River Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-668-RGA (D.Del., July 1, 2016), the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim after concluding that the representative claim, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,927,298 (“the

By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in Novo Transforma Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., et al., Civil Action No. 14-612-RGA (D.Del., September 2, 2015) (consolidated), the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity after applying the two-step framework provided in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS