British Telecommunications PLC v. Iac/Interactive Corp
381 F. Supp. 3d 293
D. Del.2019Background
- British Telecommunications (BT) sued IAC, Match Group entities (MGI, MGL), and Vimeo for infringement of six patents ('450, '040, '079, '105, '200, '297) in an amended complaint with infringement charts attached.
- Vimeo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as to the '200, '450, and '079 patents (failure to plausibly plead infringement for '200; §101 for '450 and '079). MGL moved to dismiss as to the '105, '040, and '297 patents (insufficient pleading for '105; §101 for '040 and '297).
- The court treated the parties' infringement charts and allegations under Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards, recognizing plaintiffs may plead on information and belief when details are within defendants' control.
- Court analyzed claim-by-claim: denied dismissal for BT's pleadings on the '105 (profile-updating rules/weights) and '200 (adaptive streaming; GET request as "indication") patents as plausibly pleaded.
- Court applied the Alice two-step test and concluded the '297, '040, '450, and '079 patents are directed to abstract ideas and lack an inventive concept, granting dismissal as to those patents under §101.
- The court rejected BT's argument that Aatrix/Berkheimer categorically preclude resolution of inventive-concept issues at the 12(b)(6) stage where the complaint lacks factual detail showing a nonconventional inventive concept.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of infringement pleading for the '105 patent | BT alleged with charts that Match.com's "Daily Matches" practices each limitation of claim 10 (two rule sets, personalized weightings, inference engine). | MGL contended BT failed to plausibly allege two distinct rule sets or the claimed "hallmark" IF/THEN rules. | Denied dismissal: charts and factual allegations made infringement plausible; claim-construction disputes reserved for later. |
| Sufficiency of infringement pleading for the '200 patent | BT's chart alleged Vimeo's adaptive streaming meets claim 4, equating buffer-triggered GET requests with the claim's required "indication." | Vimeo argued industry-standard adaptive streaming uses client GET requests (selection, not an "indication") and servers only return requested segments, so claim element not met. | Denied dismissal: a GET request plausibly meets the "indication" limitation at pleading stage; fact/claim-construction issues inappropriate for dismissal. |
| Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 for the '297, '040, '450, and '079 patents | BT argued the patents improve messaging/telecom/data-visualization systems and recite nonconventional combinations (agent programs, inventive programming, network arrangements). | Defendants argued each patent claims abstract ideas (e.g., distributing information based on feedback; tailoring content by location; data visualization and remote access; centralized access control) and add only conventional computer/network components. | Granted dismissal: all four patents held invalid under Alice step 1 (directed to abstract ideas) and step 2 (no inventive concept; implementations use generic/conventional components). |
| Appropriateness of deciding §101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion | BT relied on Aatrix/Berkheimer to argue factual disputes about conventionality preclude dismissal. | Defendants maintained the complaint lacks detailed factual allegations showing unconventional technical improvements; precedent permits §101 dismissal at pleading stage. | Court held dismissal appropriate: Aatrix/Berkheimer require substantive factual allegations to avoid dismissal; BT failed to plead such facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of plausibility standard)
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (two-step §101 framework)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66 (inventive concept inquiry under §101)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (claims directed to specific improvements to computer functionality may be eligible)
- Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (collecting/displaying information on generic computers is abstract)
- BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (specific, discrete implementation can supply inventive concept)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (screening/distribution of messages on conventional computers is abstract)
- Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (factual allegations can preclude §101 dismissal when they show unconventional improvements)
- Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (genuine factual disputes about conventionality may prevent dismissal under §101)