throbber
Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 130 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-IT
`
`FITBIT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ON
`FITBIT’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`On December 10, 2019, Defendant Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) filed a renewed Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion to dismiss Plaintiff Philips North Am. LLC’s (“Philips”) First Amended Complaint Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. (Dkt. 33, 34).1 This Court held a hearing on Fitbit’s motion on August 20, 2020.
`
`On December 29, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued Simio LLC v. Flexsim Software Prods.
`
`Inc., No. 2020-1171, -- F.3d --, 2020 WL 7703014 (Fed. Cir. 2020). (attached as Ex. A). In Simio,
`
`the Federal Circuit affirmed two district court rulings: (1) a grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
`
`dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) a denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint to
`
`add new factual allegations to support patent-eligibility of the claims. Fitbit now moves for leave
`
`to submit this precedential opinion as supplemental authority to its Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Good
`
`cause exists for at least the following reasons:
`
`
`
`In its de novo review of the District Court’s grant of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion—while
`
`accepting “all well-pled allegations as true” and viewing those allegations “in the light
`
`most favorable to the nonmoving party”—the Federal Circuit nevertheless focused its
`
`
`1 Because Philips’ disclaimer of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,976,958, Fitbit’s pending
`Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Dkt. 33, 34) is directed to the second amended complaint (Dkt. 112).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 130 Filed 01/15/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`patent eligibility analysis at Alice step one on “what the patent asserts to be the focus of
`
`the claimed advance over the prior art,” not the allegations in the complaint. Simio, 2020
`
`WL 7703014, at *3–4 (emphasis added).
`
` For Alice step two, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument that a proposed amended
`
`complaint’s “new allegations were sufficient to preclude dismissal for ineligibility,”
`
`affirming the District Court’s “futility-based denial” of a motion for leave to amend. Id., at
`
`*8. The amended complaint spanned more than 100 paragraphs focused on a single patent,
`
`including an “illustrative” allegation that the Federal Circuit reproduced in its entirety:
`
`[T]he claimed executable process improves the functioning and operations
`of the computer, itself, as the creation and modification of a simulation
`objects, and the addition of new behaviors to object instances, can be done
`more efficiently and without the need for software programming. In
`addition, the claimed system requires less programming in operation and
`results in faster processing speed. . . .
`
`Id. at *8–9 (excerpted). First, the Federal Circuit reiterated that conclusory allegations must
`
`be “disregard[ed].” Id. at *9. Then, in instructing why “illustrative” allegations like the
`
`above can be disregarded and do not prevent resolution of the § 101 inquiry as a matter of
`
`law, the Federal Circuit explained: “[a] statement that a [claimed] feature ‘improves the
`
`functioning and operations of the computer’ is, by itself, conclusory.” Id. Further,
`
`allegations relating to “improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract
`
`idea on a computer” are insufficient as a matter of law. Id. (citing Customedia Techs., LLC
`
`v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 130 Filed 01/15/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2021
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.
`
`By Its Attorneys,
`
`/s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`Chad Peterman
`chadpeterman@paulhastings.com
`Dave Beckwith
`davidbeckwith@paulhastings.com
`David Okano
`davidokano@paulhastings.com
`Radhesh Devendran
`radheshdevendran@paulhastings.com
`Berkeley Fife
`berkeleyfife@paulhastings.com
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`1(650) 320-1900
`
`Jennifer B. Furey (BBO # 634174)
`Andrew T. O’Connor (BBO # 664811)
`GOULSTON & STORRS PC
`400 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 482-1776
`Facsimile: (617) 574-4112
`E-mail: jfurey@goulstonstorrs.com
`aoconnor@goulstonstorrs.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 130 Filed 01/15/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION
`
`I, Chad Peterman, counsel for Defendant Fitbit, Inc., hereby certify that Fitbit has
`
`conferred with counsel for Philips North America, LLC to resolve the issues presented in this
`
`motion, but after a good faith attempt to reach agreement, the parties did not do so.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Chad Peterman
`Chad Peterman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 130 Filed 01/15/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a true copy of the above document was served on the attorney of record for
`
`each party via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of this filing (NEF) to
`
`all registered participants, and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as nonregistered
`
`participants.
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Yar Chaikovsky
`
`Yar Chaikovsky
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket