Judge Sue L. Robinson recently ruled on a number of summary judgment and related pre-trial motions in SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civ. No. 13-1534-SLR (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2016). Among other rulings, Judge Robinson denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the plaintiff’s patents, which “address the vulnerability of computer networks’ interoperability and sophisticated integration of technology to attack … are … more complex than ‘merely recit[ing] the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet,’ and are better understood as being ‘necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.'” Id. at 12 (quoting DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The Court added that “[t]he claims as an ordered combination (in light of the specification) sufficiently delineate ‘how’ the method is performed to ‘improve the functioning of the computer itself,’ thereby providing an inventive concept.” Id. at 13 (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014)).
Also of note, the Court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of anticipation, explaining that “anticipation cannot be based on the multiple layers of supposition created by Cisco to construct its theory of anticipation and still meet the requirement that the claimed limitation be immediately apparent. Although Cisco has attempted to package its anticipation argument in slightly different language than litigants have in prior litigation, teh argument fails as a matter of law.” Id. at 20 (footnotes omitted). The Court denied the defendant’s motion, and sua sponte entered summary judgment of no anticipation. Id.