Kaavo Inc. v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al., Inc., C.A. Nos. 14-1192 – LPS-CJB; 14-1193 – LPS-CJB, February 5, 2016.
Burke, M.J. Magistrate recommends that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based upon section 101 unpatentable subject matter be granted in part and denied in part. Briefing was completed on March 2, 2015 and oral argument took place on May 27, 2015.
The disputed technology relates to systems for management of a cloud computing environment for use by a software application. Defendants claim the subject matter of the patent ineligible under Alice. The court finds that claim 1 of the patent-in-suit is patent ineligible since it is directed to the abstract idea since it is focused on the general process of setting up and managing a cloud computing environment. The court further concludes that claim 1 lacks the requisite inventive concept. There are no meaningful, particularized technological or procedural limitations on that idea. In addition, the court finds that there is no set of facts that could be proven relevant to preemption that would result in a determination that the claim is patent eligible. With respect to the remaining independent claims, plaintiff has not identified facts unique to claims 13, 24 and 35 which would require a different result and the court reads plaintiff’s silence to confirm there is nothing unique to these claims that would warrant postponing a decision. The court finds one dependent claim patent ineligible, but finds it is not sufficiently clear from the briefing as to the remaining dependent claims whether they are directed to an abstract idea. The court therefore recommends denying the motion as to the remaining dependent claims without prejudice to renew as motion for summary judgment if warranted.
