`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-1136 (JHS)
`
`
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ROKU, INC.’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`VIDEOLABS, INC. and
`VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. § 101, Defendant Roku,
`
`Inc. (“Roku”) moves to dismiss Counts I–IV of Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP
`
`LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s complaint (D.I. 1) with prejudice on the grounds that U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. RE43,113; 7,233,790; 7,440,559; and 8,605,794 fail to recite patentable subject matter under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The grounds for this motion are set forth more fully in Roku’s Opening Brief and the
`
`materials and information cited therein.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 9 Filed 02/16/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 326
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jying@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Roku, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul E. Torchia
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`(212) 351-4000
`
`S. Christopher Whittaker
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Dr., Suite 1200
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`(949) 451-3800
`
`Jaysen S. Chung
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
`(415) 393-8200
`
`Nathan R. Curtis
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201-2923
`(214) 698-3100
`
`February 16, 2024
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 9 Filed 02/16/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 327
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-1136 (JHS)
`
`
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`VIDEOLABS, INC. and
`VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`The Court, having considered Defendant Roku, Inc. (“Roku”)’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`Counts I–IV of Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s
`
`complaint (D.I. 1), and any opposition thereto, hereby orders that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED;
`
`The claims of U.S. Patent Nos. RE43,113; 7,233,790; 7,440,559 and 8,605,794 fail
`
`to recite patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and
`
`3.
`
`Counts I–IV of the Complaint (D.I. 1) are hereby dismissed with prejudice.
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED, this ______ day of _________________, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________
`The Honorable Joel H. Slomsky
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 9 Filed 02/16/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 328
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 16, 2024, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`February 16, 2024, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`M. Elizabeth Day, Esquire
`Marc Belloli, Esquire
`Jerry D. Tice II, Esquire
`Aaron R. Hand, Esquire
`Hillary Bunsow, Esquire
`BUNSOW DE MORY LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`
`
`
`
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
