Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 17, 2021
• Docket: 4:17-cv-05928
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 OAKLAND DIVISION 4 CELLSPIN SOFT, INC., 5 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 6 SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 7 FITBIT, INC., Case No. 17-cv-05928-YGR 8 Defendant. Dkt. No. 148 9 v. 10 Case No. 17-cv-05929-YGR MOOV, INC., 11 Dkt. No. 130 Defendant. 12 v. 13 Case No. 17-cv-05931-YGR NIKE, INC., 14 Dkt. No. 128 Defendant. 15 v. 16 Case No. 17-cv-05932-YGR UNDER ARMOUR, INC., 17 Dkt. No. 110 Defendant. 18 v. 19

Case No. 17-cv-05933-YGR 20 FOSSIL GROUP, INC., ET AL., Dkt. No. 193 Defendants. 21

22 v. Case No. 17-cv-05934-YGR 23 G

ARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., Dkt. No. 130 Defendants. 24

25 v. 26 Case No. 17-cv-05936-YGR NIKON AMERICAS, INC., ET AL., Dkt. No. 135 27 Defendants. 1 On February 17, 2021, the Court held a hearing regarding Defendants’ motion for summary 2|| 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] 7|| 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)). 10 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 14|| 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 16|| constituent concepts. Plaintiff shall file the supplement briefing no later than February 24, 2021. 17 18 IT Is SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: February 17, 2021 20 Jaret fg of Ceca 21 Sven SraTis DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28