Absent Specific Reason, Claim Construction Not Necessary to § 101 Analysis

The court granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' infringement claims for lack of patentable subject matter and rejected plaintiffs' argument that the motion was premature because claim construction had not occurred. "Plaintiffs' arguments throughout the briefing make no mention of how the construction of certain limitations would inform the § 101 analysis. The court concludes that it may proceed on a § 101 analysis, as the parties' arguments are not focused on specific claim limitations, but instead on the broader concepts of the claims and the computer components used."

Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, 1-13-cv-01274 (DED December 18, 2014, Order) (Robinson, J.)

---

The court denied without prejudice defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for infringement of its seismic array patent for lack of patentable subject matter but rejected plaintiff's argument that the motion was premature. "[Plaintiff] has been unable to identify any relevant factual dispute, and the parties agree that the Court can use [plaintiff's] proposed claim construction for the purposes of this Motion. Given this consensus, the Court is satisfied that it has the full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter required for an eligibility determination. Thus, the Court finds that claim construction is not necessary for the resolution of this Motion."

Fairfield Industries Incorporated v. Wireless Seismic, Inc., 4-14-cv-02972 (TXSD December 23, 2014, Order) (Ellison, J.)