Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc.

E.D. Texas

Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc.

DecidedApril 26, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-00322

StatusUnknown

This text of Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc. (Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION § LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, § § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-0322-JRG-RSP v. § (Lead Case) § FORTINET, INC., § § Defendant. § ORDER Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) asserting that the patents in suit claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Civil Action No. 2:22-00305, Dkt. No. 21.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 105), recommending denial of the motion. Cisco has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 113.) After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motion, the Report and Recommendation, and Cisco’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation. Even accepting as true Cisco’s proposition that the proper characterization of the claimed advance is “instructing a component to monitor only a single neighbor, instead of more than one neighbor in the ring” (Dkt. No. 113 at 6), such a characterization satisfies step one of the Alice/Mayo framework as described by the Federal Circuit in TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and the case law cited therein because “the focus of the claimed advance is on a solution to a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” and because “the claim is properly characterized as rather than only claiming a desirable result or function.” /d. at 1293 (compiling cases). Moreover, Cisco’s arguments at step one of the Alice/Mayo framework are more akin to novelty and obviousness than they are to eligibility. (See Dkt. No. 113 at 6 (“But, the use of a logical ring structure for monitoring the status of the network was known.”); see also id. at 7 (“Accordingly, the focus of the claimed advance is a basic, known idea for monitoring, applied to the known environment of a distributed computer system (instead of, for example, school children), and is therefore directed to an abstract idea at Alice Step One.”).) Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was clearly erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES — Cisco’s Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and orders that the Motion to Dismiss, Civil Action No. 2:22-00305, Dkt. No. 21, is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of April, 2023.

RODNEY GILSTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION § LIONRA TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, § § Plaintiff, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-0322-JRG-RSP v. § (Lead Case) § FORTINET, INC., § § Defendant. § ORDER Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) asserting that the patents in suit claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Civil Action No. 2:22-00305, Dkt. No. 21.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 105), recommending denial of the motion. Cisco has now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 113.) After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the motion, the Report and Recommendation, and Cisco’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation. Even accepting as true Cisco’s proposition that the proper characterization of the claimed advance is “instructing a component to monitor only a single neighbor, instead of more than one neighbor in the ring” (Dkt. No. 113 at 6), such a characterization satisfies step one of the Alice/Mayo framework as described by the Federal Circuit in TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and the case law cited therein because “the focus of the claimed advance is on a solution to a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” and because “the claim is properly characterized as rather than only claiming a desirable result or function.” /d. at 1293 (compiling cases). Moreover, Cisco’s arguments at step one of the Alice/Mayo framework are more akin to novelty and obviousness than they are to eligibility. (See Dkt. No. 113 at 6 (“But, the use of a logical ring structure for monitoring the status of the network was known.”); see also id. at 7 (“Accordingly, the focus of the claimed advance is a basic, known idea for monitoring, applied to the known environment of a distributed computer system (instead of, for example, school children), and is therefore directed to an abstract idea at Alice Step One.”).) Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was clearly erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES — Cisco’s Objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, and orders that the Motion to Dismiss, Civil Action No. 2:22-00305, Dkt. No. 21, is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of April, 2023.

RODNEY GILSTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lionra Technologies Limited v. Fortinet, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lionra-technologies-limited-v-fortinet-inc-txed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack