Linquet Technologies, Inc. v. Tile, Inc.

Background

Linquet Technologies, Inc. brought a patent-infringement action accusing Tile, Inc.’s tracking-tag products of infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,163,318. The court had previously dismissed Linquet’s first amended complaint after finding that the patent claimed subject matter that federal patent law does not make eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court allowed Linquet to file a second amended complaint. Tile moved to dismiss that complaint as well.

Legal standard and analysis

The court considered Tile’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. For patent eligibility, the court applied the two-step test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International: first, whether the patent claims an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon; and second, whether the claim includes an “inventive concept” that adds enough to transform the ineligible concept into a patent-eligible invention.

The parties focused on Claim 1, which the court treated as representative because Linquet did not separately analyze Claim 2. At the first step, the court reaffirmed that Claim 1 was directed to the abstract idea of using markers and identifiers to avoid losing things. The court said that implementing this tracking concept with computer technology did not make it non-abstract. It rejected Linquet’s argument that the claim provided a technical solution to problems involving privacy, scalability, and efficiency. The court found that the second amended complaint and a declaration from Dr. Daniel W. Engels made conclusory statements and did not identify support in the patent’s language showing that the patent addressed a technical problem with community-powered tracking.

At the second step, the court found that Claim 1 lacked an inventive concept. The claim used conventional components arranged in a conventional way, and Linquet did not explain how the tags and electronic devices were configured or used in an unconventional manner. The court also said that evidence about improvements over prior art could relate to novelty or obviousness, but did not establish patent eligibility under Section 101. The court rejected Linquet’s argument that factual disputes prevented dismissal because the alleged disputes rested on conclusory allegations.

Ruling

Judge James Donato granted Tile’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice because Linquet had already received more than one opportunity to amend and had been given guidance in the earlier order. The court closed the case.