Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC.,

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v.

FITBIT, INC., Case No. 17-cv-05928-YGR

Defendant. Dkt. No. 148 v.

Case No. 17-cv-05929-YGR

MOOV, INC.,

Dkt. No. 130

Defendant. v.

Case No. 17-cv-05931-YGR

NIKE, INC.,

Dkt. No. 128

Defendant. v.

Case No. 17-cv-05932-YGR

UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,

Dkt. No. 110

Defendant. v.

Case No. 17-cv-05933-YGR

FOSSIL GROUP, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 193

Defendants.

v.

Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR

G

ARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 130

Defendants.

v.

Case No. 17-cv-05936-YGR

NIKON AMERICAS, INC., ET AL.,

Dkt. No. 135

Defendants.

On February 17, 2021, the Court held a hearing regarding Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (See Case No. 17-cv-5933, Dkt. No. 193.) As explained at the hearing, Plaintiff proposes a number of inventive concepts based on the combination of elements that are otherwise individually addressed. (E.g., Dkt. No. 206-1 # 16-20.) Under Federal Circuit precedent, the relevant inquiry is whether these elements are individually “well-understood, routine, or conventional” and whether considering those elements as an ordered combination “add[s] nothing... that is not already present when the [elements] are considered separately.” Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., 935 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)).

Accordingly, and as stated at the hearing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit additional briefing that 11]| identifies each combination (i.e., the inventive concept based on the combination of inventive concepts that Plaintiff asserts individually) and what the combination “‘adds” to the analysis beyond consideration of the individual concepts. The Court will order additional briefing to address the substance of the allegations if necessary. Failure to identify additional inventiveness based on the combination will be deemed acquiescence that the conventionality of that combination depends on the conventionality of the constituent concepts. Plaintiff shall file the supplement briefing no later than February 24, 2021.

IT Is SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2021

Jaret fg of Ceca

Sven SraTis DISTRICT COURT JUDGE