Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Smartflash LLC et al v. apple Inc, et al, No. 6:13-cv-00447 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2015)

Adopted Report and recommendation (or magistrate's order) adopted
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
Case No.
No. 6:13-cv-00447, Dkt. No. 484
Decided
February 13, 2015
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Order
Docket Entry
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 423 Report and Recommendations, and denying Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 (6:13CV447, 266; 6:13CV448, Doc. No. 320)
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § CASE NO. 6:13cv447-JRG-KNM § v. § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

APPLE INC., et al., § § Defendants. § § SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., § § Plaintiffs, § CASE NO. 6:13cv448-JRG-KNM v. § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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 on2 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.

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Smartflash LLC et al v. apple Inc, et al, No. 6:13-cv-00447 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2015).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-6_13-cv-00447-8
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-6_13-cv-00447-8

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.