Jewel Pathway LLC v. Polar Electro Inc.

556 F.Supp.3d 335

JEWEL PATHWAY LLC, Plaintiff,

v.POLAR ELECTRO INC., Defendant.

20 Civ. 4108 (ER)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed August 16, 2021

Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Anthony James Fuga, Holland & Knight LLP, Chicago, IL, Eric Harold Yecies, Holland & Knight LLP, New York, NY, John P. Moran, Holland & Knight, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

Ramos, D.J.:

Jewel Pathway LLC ("Jewel") brought this suit alleging patent infringement against Polar Electro Inc. ("Polar"). Doc. 1. Pending before the Court is Polar's motion to dismiss, in which Polar asserts that the patent at issue is invalid for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Doc. 26.

For the following reasons, Polar's motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Jewel is a Texas corporation and maintains its principal place of business in the state. Doc. 25 ¶ 1. Relevant here, Jewel owns, by assignment, all rights, title, and interests in the patent at issue, United States Patent No. 8,818,711 (the "’711 Patent"), including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for infringement of the patent and to collect damages against any infringers. Id. ¶ 7. The ’711 Patent was filed on December 18, 2009 and issued on August 26, 2014. Id. ¶ 8. Polar is a New York corporation that maintains its principal place of business in the state. Id. ¶ 2.

This dispute centers around the ’711 Patent, which is entitled "3D Path Analysis for Environmental Modeling." Doc. 25-1 at col. 1:1–2. The specification explains that, although advances in GPS technologies allow people to use digital maps that are presented in mapping applications, those "digital maps are often limited to existing roadways and are often unable to dynamically adapt to changing roadway conditions." Id. at col. 1:13–18. Moreover, the specification notes that, "[a]lthough mapping applications may be able to identify the location of a user using GPS technologies, they are unable to provide mapping capabilities that do not follow existing roads." Id. at col. 1:21–24. According to the specification, although some mapping applications rely on satellite imagery, that solution is still based on existing roadways, and satellite imagery is often out of date, is at an insufficient image resolution, and makes it difficult for users to distinguish between impassible features and elevation changes. Id. at col. 1:33–41. The specification notes that this problem is particularly acute in areas such as parks and public walkways. Id. at col. 1:41–44.

According to Jewel, the ’711 Patent provides a technical solution to the problem of generating a traversable path without using traditional maps. Doc. 25 ¶ 14. According to the specification, "[l]ocation data is collected from location-enabled devices operating in an area. The location data is then analyzed to determine or identify paths that the devices traversed." Doc. 25-1 at col. 2:15–18. In turn, "[t]he location data can be processed to determine traversable paths that can be provided to other devices, for example as maps or superimposed on existing maps." Id. at col. 2:18–21. Over time, according to the specification, "[t]he location data collected from location-enabled devices provides a crowd-sourced multi-dimensional map of traversable space." Id. at col. 2:41–43.

Claim 1 of the ’711 Patent states that it provides "[a] method to construct a path analysis in an area," asserting that the method comprises of:¹

receiving a first set of location data from a first mobile device, the first set of location data comprising multiple data points of physical locations traversed by the first mobile device that represent a first path in an area traversed by the first mobile device;

generating, using a processor, a traversable path based on the first set of location data without using traditional maps, the traversable path following a non-predetermined path that at least partially does not adhere to predetermined paths identified in the traditional maps and including a portion that deviates from the first path traversed by the first mobile device determined based on differences between the first set of location data and one or more second sets of location data from one or more second mobile devices, the one or more second sets of location data comprising multiple data points of physical locations traversed by the one or more second mobile devices in the area traversed by the first mobile device;

superimposing the traversable path onto a map; and

packaging the map for delivery or display of the map at a device.

Id. at col. 15:64–16:22.

Figure 5 of the ’711 Patent provides a flow diagram illustrating the method described in claim 1:

Id. at 8; see also id. at col. 10:8–9.

B. Procedural History

Jewel filed the instant suit on May 29, 2020, alleging that Polar directly and contributorily infringed the ’711 Patent, and induced infringement of the ’711 Patent by selling products to its customers for use in their products that infringed the patent. Doc. 1. On August 24, 2020, Jewel filed its First Amended Complaint. Doc. 13. On October 23, 2020, Jewel filed its Second Amended Complaint, maintaining the same cause of action as in its prior complaints. Doc. 25.

On November 12, 2020, Polar filed the instant motion to dismiss. Doc. 26.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). The plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). However, this "flexible plausibility standard" is not a heightened pleading standard, In re Elevator Antitrust Litig. , 502 F.3d 47, 50 & n.3 (2d Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted), and "a complaint ... does not need detailed factual allegations" to survive a motion to dismiss, Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

The question on a motion to dismiss "is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Sikhs for Just. v. Nath , 893 F. Supp. 2d 598, 615 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien , 56 F.3d 375, 378 (2d Cir. 1995) ). Indeed, "the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test, in a streamlined fashion, the formal sufficiency of the plaintiff's statement of a claim for relief without resolving a contest regarding its substantive merits" or "weigh[ing] the evidence that might be offered to support it." Halebian v. Berv , 644 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). Thus, when ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Nielsen v. Rabin , 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court may also consider "documents attached to the complaint as exhibits[ ] and documents incorporated by reference in the complaint." Doe v. N.Y. Univ. , No. 20 Civ. 1343 (GHW), 2021 WL 1226384, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (quoting DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC , 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) ).

"Patent eligibility, a question of law often involving subsidiary factual questions, can be decided on a motion to dismiss ‘when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.’ " Pers. Beasties Grp. LLC v. Nike, Inc. , 341 F. Supp. 3d 382, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. , 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ), aff'd , 792 F. App'x 949 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (per curiam); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC , 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

III. DISCUSSION

Section 101 of the Patent Act allows inventors to obtain patents on "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. "The provision, however, ‘contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.’ " SAP , 898 F.3d at 1166 (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014) ). To determine whether a patent claim falls within this exception, the Supreme Court has set forth a two-step framework for analyzing a claim:

(1) whether the claim is "directed to a patent-ineligible concept," i.e. , a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and, if so, (2) whether the elements of the claim, considered "both individually and as an ordered combination," add enough to "transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application."

In re Rosenberg , 813 F. App'x 594, 596 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Alice , 573 U.S. at 217–18, 134 S.Ct. 2347 ).

1. Alice Step One

"The inquiry at [the] first stage looks at the ‘focus’ of the claims, and their ‘character as a whole.’ " Id. (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ). The Federal Circuit has "explained that claims focused on ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ are directed to an abstract idea." SAP , 898 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. , 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ). Moreover, "even if a process of collecting...