In light of this, "resolution of a patent's section 101 eligibility is not always appropriate at the Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss stage without the benefit of claim construction." Mirror Imaging, LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. W-21-CV-00518-ADA, 2022 WL 229363, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2022); see Glob. Locating Sys., LLC v. ShadowTrack 247, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00225-MR, 2020 WL 3513535, at *3 (W.D.N.C. June 29, 2020) ("[A] court may require claim construction before ruling a motion to dismiss based on patent eligibility under § 101." (collecting cases)); see also MyMail, 934 F.3d at 1379 (explaining "if the parties raise a claim construction dispute at the Rule 12[ ] stage, the district court must either adopt the non-moving party's constructions or resolve the dispute to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis" (citing Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1125)).
In light of this, “resolution of a patent's section 101 eligibility is not always appropriate at the Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss stage without the benefit of claim construction.” Mirror Imaging, LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. W-21-CV-00518-ADA, 2022 WL 229363, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2022); see Glob. Locating Sys., LLC v. ShadowTrack 247, LLC, No. 1:19-CV-00225-MR, 2020 WL 3513535, at *3 (W.D. N.C. June 29, 2020) (“[A] court may require claim construction before ruling a motion to dismiss based on patent eligibility under § 101.” (collecting cases)); see also MyMail, 934 F.3d at 1379 (explaining “if the parties raise a claim construction dispute at the Rule 12[] stage, the district court must either adopt the non-moving party's constructions or resolve the dispute to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis” (
Plaintiff also argues this this Court has recently denied motions to dismiss in similar cases. (Id., citing Glob. Locating Sys., LLC v. Shadowtrack 247, LLC, No. 19-cv-225-MR (W.D. N.C. June 29, 2020); Eyetalk 365, LLC v. Bird Home Automation, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-680-FDW-DCK (W.D. N.C. Jan. 30, 2017); InVue Sec. Prods. v. Mobile Tech, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-610-MOC-DSC (W.D. N.C. Apr. 14, 2016)). Plaintiff asks the Court not to depart from this practice in this case. Because this lawsuit involves the technical nature of “call processors” and other technical terms from this industry, Plaintiff argues that the Court is not equipped to judge the merits of Plaintiff's asserted patents on the face of the patents alone, and without the benefit of claim construction, fact discovery, and expert discovery.