Wireless Discovery LLC v. Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc.

654 F.Supp.3d 347

WIRELESS DISCOVERY LLC, Plaintiff, v. COFFEE MEETS BAGEL, INC., Defendant.

Wireless Discovery LLC, Plaintiff, v. Down App, Inc., Defendant.

Wireless Discovery LLC, Plaintiff, v. Grindr, Inc., Defendant.

Wireless Discovery LLC, Plaintiff, v. Hily Corp., Defendant.

C.A. No. 22-478-GBW

C.A. No. 22-479-GBW

C.A. No. 22-481-GBW

C.A. No. 22-482-GBW

United States District Court, D. Delaware

Filed February 6, 2023

Jimmy C. Chong, Chong Law Firm, PA, Wilmington, DE, William P. Ramey, III, Pro Hac Vice, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE, Lance E. Wyatt, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Neil J. McNabnay, Pro Hac Vice, Noel F. Chakkalakal, Pro Hac Vice, Dallas, TX, Philip G. Brown, Pro Hac Vice, for Defendant Down App, Inc., Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc., Hily Corp.

Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE, Melanie K. Sharp, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE, Lance E. Wyatt, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Neil J. McNabnay, Pro Hac Vice, Noel F. Chakkalakal, Pro Hac Vice, Dallas, TX, Philip G. Brown, Pro Hac Vice, for Defendant Grindr, Inc.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

GREGORY B. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently before this Court is Defendant Coffee Meets Bagel, Inc.'s ("Coffee Meets Bagel"), Defendant Down App, Inc.'s ("Down App"), Defendant Grindr, Inc.'s ("Grindr"), and Defendant Hily, Corp.'s ("Hily") (collectively, "Defendants") Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (the "Motion"). C.A. No. 22-478, D.I. 24; C.A. No. 22-479, D.I. 25; C.A. No. 22-481, D.I. 27; C.A. No. 22-482, D.I. 25.¹ The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing, D.I. 25, D.I. 30, D.I. 36,² and heard oral argument on December 14, 2022.³ ("Tr. ___"). For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff Wireless Discovery LLC ("Wireless Discovery") sued Defendants in separate patent infringement cases asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,264,875 ("the '875 patent"). D.I. 1. Wireless Discovery amended its complaint on July 18, 2022, asserting three additional patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,357,352 (the "'352 patent"), 10,321,267 (the "'267 patent"), and 10,334,397 (the "'397 patent"). D.I. 17; No. 22-479, D.I. 18; No. 22-481, D.I. 20; No. 22-482, D.I. 19.

The asserted patents are all from the same patent family and are continuations-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 8,914,024, which is not asserted in any of these cases. See D.I. 25 at 3. The asserted patents all relate generally to the idea of social networking, i.e., discovering members of the same social network in the same vicinity and exchanging member's personal information. See D.I. 17-5 at 1:16-22 ("The invention relates to discovering members of a social network by associating their personal attributes to the mobile device for the purpose of exchanging information using mobile communication devices and, in particular, exchanging personal information between one or more mobile communication devices.").

Individuals can "use their mobile phones to discover others by personal attributes, such as by photos and names, after which, the two parties can exchange information over the internet." Id. at 2:4-7. These individuals can discover other members who are located "within a vicinity." Id. at 4:4-6. The "vicinity" is determined by a location that was reported to the server, in the geographic area specified by a user's "search criteria," or by a location recorded in a database. Id. at 5:4-15.

Individuals can send "invitations" to other members in the vicinity. Id. at 5:14-22. "The invitation may take the form of a social card, VCard, or other manner of engaging another person in a social atmosphere, or even a business setting such as a meeting, trade show, conference, etc." Id. at 5:18-22. If a user accepts the "invitation," "members can elect to exchange or send personalized, intimate contact information over the internet after the users have discovered each other." Id. at 4:10-12. The invention "provides a system and method that enables free discovery of others who also desire social interaction, but without being constrained by hardware compatibility issues inherent in mobile devices by different manufacturers." Id. at 2:20-24.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

a. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

To state a claim on which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Such a claim must plausibly suggest "facts sufficient to 'draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.' " Doe v. Princeton Univ., 30 F.4th 335, 342 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557, 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.' " Klotz v. Celentano Stadtmauer & Walentowicz LLP, 991 F.3d 458, 462 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937). But the Court will " 'disregard legal conclusions and recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements.' " Princeton Univ., 30 F.4th at 342 (quoting Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 341 (3d Cir. 2016)). Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the Complaint and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Fed. Trade Comm'n v. AbbVie Inc., 976 F.3d 327, 351 (3d Cir. 2020).

b. Patent Eligible Subject Matter

Patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a threshold legal issue. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010). Section 101 inquiry is properly raised at the pleading stage if it is apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to eligible subject matter. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 138 S. Ct. 2621, 201 L.Ed.2d 1026 (2018); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that patent eligibility "may be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion"); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that "it is possible and proper to determine patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion" (quoting Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2016))); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on § 101 patent ineligibility). This is, however, appropriate "only when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law." Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter. It states, "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that there are exceptions to § 101. "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[I]n applying the § 101 exception, [the court] must distinguish between patents that claim the 'building blocks' of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more[ ] thereby 'transforming' them into a patent-eligible invention. The former 'would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying' ideas, and are therefore ineligible for patent protection. The latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our patent laws." Id. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (cleaned up).

The Supreme Court's Alice decision established a two-step framework for determining patent-eligibility under § 101. In the first step, the court must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent ineligible concept. Id. In other words, are the claims directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea? Id. If the answer to the question is "no," then the patent is not invalid for teaching ineligible subject matter under § 101. If the answer to the question is "yes," then the court proceeds to step two, where it considers "the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination" to determine if there is an "inventive concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Id. at 217-18, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (alteration in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]." Id. at 221, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, "the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of [the idea] to a particular technological environment." Id. at 222, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (quoting Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11, 130 S.Ct. 3218). Thus, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. at 223, 134 S.Ct. 2347. "The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is...