Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2023

EscapeX IP LLC v. Block, Inc.

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:22-cv-03575
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Intellectual PropertyMotion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In EscapeX v. Block, Judge Furman held the patent claims abstract, granted Block’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint, and closed the case.

Who this affects

EscapeX IP LLC’s patent claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of Block, Inc.

What happened

EscapeX IP LLC sued Block, Inc., concerning claims in the ’113 Patent. The court’s judgment states that those claims were directed to an abstract idea and were therefore not eligible for patent protection.

The court granted Block’s motion to dismiss and dismissed EscapeX’s First Amended Complaint. It declined to grant EscapeX another opportunity to amend because the problem was substantive, EscapeX had not requested amendment or identified facts that would cure the problems, and the court had previously warned that no further amendment would be allowed.

Judge Jesse Furman’s court entered judgment for Block, and the case was closed. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
EscapeX IP LLC v. Block, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03575
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Jan. 25, 2023

Background

EscapeX IP LLC brought the action against Block, Inc. The judgment refers to claims in the ’113 Patent and to EscapeX’s First Amended Complaint. It states that the court’s reasons were set out in an Opinion and Order dated January 24, 2023.

Ruling

The court held that the ’113 Patent’s claims were directed to an abstract idea and therefore were not eligible for patent protection. On that basis, Block’s motion to dismiss was granted, and the First Amended Complaint was dismissed.

Leave to Amend

The court declined to give EscapeX another opportunity to amend its complaint. It stated that the defect in EscapeX’s claims was substantive, making amendment futile. The court also noted that EscapeX did not seek leave to amend or suggest that it had facts that would cure the problems, and that the court had previously allowed an amendment and expressly warned that EscapeX would not receive another opportunity to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss.

Disposition

Judgment was entered in favor of Block, and the case was closed. The judgment does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Judge Jesse Furman is identified in the supplied case metadata; the judgment itself is signed by the court clerk.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.