Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 221 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8970
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 19-1410 (MN)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.
`d/b/a LAB126, RAWLES LLC, AMZN
`MOBILE LLC, AMZN MOBILE 2 LLC,
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. f/k/a
`AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES,
`INC. and AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`At Wilmington, this 23rd day of May 2023:
`
`ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., A2Z
`
`
`
`
`
`Development Center, Inc. d/b/a Lab126, Rawles LLC, Amzn Mobile LLC, Amzn Mobile 2 LLC,
`
`Amazon.com Services, Inc. f/k/a Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. and Amazon Digital Services
`
`LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) have filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity
`
`(D.I. 184) of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,626,703 (“the ’703 Patent”), 9,269,097 (“the ’097 Patent”) and
`
`8,073,681 (“the ’681 Patent”) and a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (D.I. 185)
`
`of the ’703, ’097 and ’681 Patents and non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,886,536 and
`
`7,818,176;
`
`
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, across Defendants’ two motions, there are at least eight separate grounds on
`
`which summary judgment is sought – i.e., Defendants seek a finding of patent ineligibility under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 for three of the asserted patents (see D.I. 186 at 8-28) as well as a finding of non-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 221 Filed 05/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8971
`
`infringement as to all five asserted patents at the summary-judgment stage (see D.I. 186 at 28-
`
`40);1
`
`WHEREAS, an important purpose of summary judgment is to narrow the issues for trial
`
`by resolving issues that can be decided in a party’s favor as a matter of law because there is no
`
`genuine dispute of material fact – i.e., it is not to conduct a de facto bench trial of sorts based on
`
`shotgun theories and voluminous submissions that burden the parties and waste judicial resources;
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, there is sound reasoning in the ranked-choice procedure adopted by Chief
`
`Judge Connolly to combat excessive summary judgment motion practice in patent cases (see
`
`https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/FINAL%20STANDING%20ORDER%20FOR%20
`
`SUMMARY%20JUDGMENT%20PRACTICE%20IN%20PATENT%20CASES.pdf); and
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Court believes that this case is one in which Defendants’ excessive
`
`summary judgment motion practice has unnecessarily burdened the parties and the Court.
`
`
`
`THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before May 26, 2023, Defendants
`
`shall file a one-page letter with the Court ranking the grounds for summary judgment raised in its
`
`motions for summary judgment (D.I. 184 & 185) in whatever order they choose but with the
`
`understanding that once the Court denies summary judgment as to any single ground raised in
`
`Defendants’ motions, the Court will not address any summary judgment grounds that were ranked
`
`after that ground.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Honorable Maryellen Noreika
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`It strains credulity to believe that there is not a single genuine issue of material fact in any
`of the at least eight grounds raised in Defendants’ motions.
`
`For example, if Defendants place non-infringement of the ’536 Patent as the first ground
`on their list and the Court denies summary judgment as to that ground, the Court will deny
`all of Defendants’ motions and not review any summary judgment grounds ranked after
`non-infringement of the ’536 Patent.
`
`2
`
`