Eyetalk365, LLC v. Zmodo Tech. Corp. Ltd.
356 F. Supp. 3d 1059
D. Nev.2018Background
- Eyetalk365, LLC (plaintiff), assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,432,638 for a "Communication and Monitoring System," sued Zmodo Technology Corp. (defendant) for direct and induced infringement of claims 1 and 6.
- Case transferred from the Western District of North Carolina to the District of Nevada after TC Heartland; claim construction briefing was completed before transfer.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- Plaintiff moved to strike Defendant’s fourth through ninth affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) as insufficiently pled.
- The court considered whether the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea under Alice Corp. and whether the affirmative defenses give fair notice under Rule 8(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims 1 and 6 of the ’638 patent are patent-eligible under § 101 | Claims recite concrete AV doorbell functionality and are patent-eligible | Claims are directed to an abstract idea and thus ineligible under Alice step one | Court: Claims are not abstract; detecting a person, sending video, and two-way audio are concrete steps — § 101 motion denied |
| Whether Defendant’s 4th–9th affirmative defenses should be stricken under Rule 8(c) | These defenses are insufficiently stated and should be stricken | Defenses provide fair notice or are permissible as affirmative or passive defenses | Court: Defenses 4–7 provide fair notice; 8–9 are passive/superfluous but not strike-worthy; motion denied (defendant later withdrew challenged defenses) |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (two-step test for determining abstract ideas and inventive concept under § 101)
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (claims must be considered as a whole; novelty is separate under § 102)
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) (venue for patent suits under § 1400(b))
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) (framework for inventive concept inquiry under § 101)
- In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (casino wagering method found to be an abstract idea)
- CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (method performable in the human mind is an abstract idea)