`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`§§§
`
` CASE NO. 6:13cv447-JRG-KNM
`§
`§
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CASE NO. 6:13cv448-JRG-KNM
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§ §§§§
`
`§§
`
`§§§§§
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC, et al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Invalidity
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 266; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 320) and the
`
`Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (6:13CV447, Doc. No. 423; 6:13CV448; Doc. No.
`
`454) recommending that the Motions be denied. Having considered Defendants’ Objections to the
`
`Report and Recommendation Regarding Apple’s and Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment
`
`Regarding Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (6:13CV447, Doc. No. 457; 6:13CV448, Doc.
`
`No. 477), and having conducted a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and
`
`Recommendation as to which objection was made, the Court finds no error therein.
`
`Defendants assert that the Court’s claim construction that not all asserted claims require
`
`“logically separate” memories for certain types of data directly contradicts the Court’s reliance on
`Smartflash - Exhibit 2050
`Apple v. Smartflash
`CBM2015-00032
`
`
`
`Case 6:13-cv-00447-JRG Document 484 Filed 02/13/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 26228
`
`the patents’ recitations of distinct memory types. However, in ruling on the instant motion, the
`
`Court recognized that the patents recite several different memory types throughout the claims—as
`
`opposed to simply generic computer memory. This is one element among the combination of
`
`limitations that provides an inventive concept. Recognizing that the claims do more than recite
`
`generic computer memory does not contradict a finding that some claims require “logically
`
`separate” storage of certain data types.
`
`The Court hereby adopts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Invalidity
`
`Pursuant to § 101 (6:13CV447, Doc. Nos. 266; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 320) are DENIED.
`
`2