From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

PerDiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Mar 13, 2024
720 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2024)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:23-CV-193-MHC

2024-03-13

PERDIEMCO LLC, Plaintiff, v. NEXTRAQ LLC, Defendant.

Benjamin M. Cappel, Pro Hac Vice, AddyHart P.C., Chicago, IL, Charles Adam Pannell, III, Meredith Martin Addy, AddyHart, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff. John D. Murnane, Pro Hac Vice, Venable, LLP, New York, NY, Justin J. Oliver, Pro Hac Vice, Venable, LLP, Washington, DC, Richard Kennon Hines, V, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.


Benjamin M. Cappel, Pro Hac Vice, AddyHart P.C., Chicago, IL, Charles Adam Pannell, III, Meredith Martin Addy, AddyHart, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff.

John D. Murnane, Pro Hac Vice, Venable, LLP, New York, NY, Justin J. Oliver, Pro Hac Vice, Venable, LLP, Washington, DC, Richard Kennon Hines, V, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant.

ORDER

MARK H. COHEN, United States District Judge

This case comes before the Court on Defendant NexTraq LLC ("NexTraq")'s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15].

I. BACKGROUND

Because this case is before the Court on a motion to dismiss, the facts are presented as alleged in Plaintiff PerDiemCo LLC ("PerDiem")'s Original Complaint for Patent Infringment ("Compl.") [Doc. 1]. See Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1128 (11th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).

PerDiem filed the above-styled lawsuit on January 13, 2023, alleging that Nextraq

offers products and services that infringe on PerDiem's patents related to computerized location tracking system technology in mobile devices. Compl. for Patent Infringement ("Compl.") [Doc. 1]. Specifically, PerDiem alleges that NexTraq infringed on one or more of the following seven patents (the "Patents-in-Suit"):

United States Patent No. 9,680,941 ("'941 Patent"), titled "Location Tracking System Conveying Event Information Based on Administrator Authorizations" [Doc. 1-1];
United States Patent No. 9,871,874 ("'874 Patent"), titled "Multi-Level Database Management System and Method for an Object Tracking Service That Protects User Privacy" [Doc. 1-3];
United States Patent No. 10,021,198 ("'198 Patent"), titled "Software-Based Mobile Tracking Service with Video Streaming When Events Occur" [Doc. 1-5];
United States PatentNo. 10,397,789 ("'789 Patent"), titled "Method for Controlling Conveyance of Event Information About Carriers of Mobile Devices Based on Location Information Received from Location Information Sources Used by the Mobile Devices" [Doc. 1-7]; United States Patent No. 10,602,364 ("'364 Patent"), titled "Method for Conveyance of Event Information to Individuals Interested Devices Having Phone Numbers" [Doc. 1-9];
United States Patent No. 10,819,809 ("'809 Patent"), titled "Method for Controlling Conveyance of Event Notifications in Sub-Groups Defined Within Groups Based on Multiple Levels of Administrative Privileges" [Doc. 1-11]; and United States Patent No. 11,064,038 ("'038 Patent"), titled "Method for Tracking Mobile Objects Based on Event Conditions Met at Mobile Object Locations" [Doc. 1-13].

Compl. ¶¶ 1, 27-34, 67, 72, 76-160, Exs. A-G.

PerDiem maintains that the Patents-in-Suit are directed to providing "computing solutions that address problems that are particular to computerized location tracking systems." Compl. ¶ 49. As detailed in the Complaint:

[t]he inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit represent improvements to location tracking systems. More specifically, the claims of the geofencing patents are directed to, in part, improved location tracking systems and related methods. The system may track locations of a plurality of mobile objects or devices in a network employed to provide a tracking service that sends notifications or alerts after group event conditions which are based on locations of grouped tracked objects are met.
***
The systems, devices and methods and [sic] of the Asserted Claims are also directed to conveying information relating to the object location events to one or more computing devices which may be associated with corresponding identification codes of one or more users.

Compl. ¶¶ 42, 50. In other words, the claims in PerDiem's patents "recite a tiered hierarchy of administrative privileges" that permit users to do more than simply track a mobile device's location; they create a "location tracking system that can: (1) track groups of mobile devices in relation to particular user-defined zones of interest, (2) send automatic alerts when the tracked mobile devices cross zone boundaries, and (3) distribute these alerts to flexible, user-defined groups that have the proper privileges." PerDiem's Opp'n to NexTraq's Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n") [Doc. 18] at 2. All seven Patents-in-Suit recite the same example of a mother tracking the global positioning system ("GPS") device in her daughter's car to explain how the technology operates. See, e.g., '941 Patent at 9:27-10:6. In the example common to all the Patents-in-Suit, the mother programs into her tracking device (referred to as a personal digital assistant ("PDA")) several locations that her daughter plans to visit during the day (user defined zones), and each time her daughter's car (which is equipped with a GPS receiver) enters or leaves those locations (the object location event), the mother receives an email detailing the "occurrence and time of the object location events[.]" Id. 9:57-58. Distribution of the object location information is limited to those users or devices having access codes, and the access codes themselves can be sent to other trusted users, such as the mother described above passing the access code along to the daughter's father so that he can also track the information. Id. at 9:27-10:6.

PerDiem alleges that the Patents-in-Suit are all related and claim priority to the same Provisional Patent Application No. 60/752,879, filed on December 23, 2005. Compl. ¶ 64. Additionally, PerDiem alleges that the Patents-in-Suit have the same specifications. Compl. ¶ 68. In fact, the Patents-in-Suit use the same twenty-eight drawings to illustrate PerDiem's invention, and the "Abstract," "Field of the Invention," "Background of the Invention," "Summary of the Invention," "Brief Description of the Drawings," and "Detailed Description of the Invention," sections of all of the Patents-in-Suit are virtually identical. Compl. Exs. A-G.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). While this pleading standard does not require "detailed factual allegations," the Supreme Court has held that "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." 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, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a claim will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The Supreme Court has explained this standard as follows:

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.

Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (internal citation omitted). Thus, a claim will survive a motion to dismiss only if the factual allegations in the pleading are "enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

At the motion to dismiss stage, the court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint as true, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn from those facts. McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004); Lotierzo v. Woman's World Med. Ctr., Inc., 278 F.3d 1180, 1182 (11th Cir. 2002). Not only must the court accept the well-pleaded allegations as true,

but these allegations must also be construed in the light most favorable to the pleader. Powell v. Thomas, 643 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011). However, the court need not accept legal conclusions, nor must it accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Thus, evaluation of a motion to dismiss requires the court to assume the veracity of well-pleaded factual allegations and "determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

B. Subject Matter Eligibility

Patent eligibility 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). The Section 101 inquiry is an issue of law and properly raised and decided on a motion to dismiss if it is apparent from the face of the patent that the asserted claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter; an invention or a discovery is patentable if it is a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, Section 101 does not cover "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas," which are not patentable subject matter. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014) (citation omitted). The rationale behind this implicit exception is that monopolization of abstract ideas, which are the basic tools of scientific and technological discovery, would impede innovation rather than promote it. Id. Thus, "in applying the § 101 exception, [courts] must distinguish between patents that claim the 'buildin[g] block[s]' of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby 'transform[ing]' them into a patent-eligible invention." Id. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab'ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 89, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012)).

In Alice, the Supreme Court employed a two-part test "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Id. In the first step, a court must determine "whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. at 217-18, 134 S.Ct. 2347. In other words, does the patent "simply describe" natural relations or abstract phenomena? Id. If the answer is "no," then the patent is not invalid for being directed to ineligible subject matter. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77, 132 S.Ct. 1289. If the answer is "yes," the court moves to step two and considers "the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination" to determine whether 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." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Although the Supreme Court has not delineated "the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas,'" it and the Federal Circuit have provided some important guiding principles. First, "mathematical algorithms, including those executed on a generic computer, are abstract ideas." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Second, "some fundamental economic and conventional business practices are also abstract ideas." Id. Third, longstanding, well-known

methods of organizing human behavior, such as filtering information from the internet, are abstract ideas. Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Fourth, the manipulation of information —i.e., collecting information, analyzing information, or presenting information —without more, is an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]e have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract.").

III. DISCUSSION

At the outset, the Court notes that PerDiem argues that the factual allegations in the Complaint make clear that the Patents-in-Suit were all successfully prosecuted before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), which office allowed the patents to issue. Pl.'s Opp'n at 5-7 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 35-36). PerDiem contends that the USPTO's decision to allow the Patents-in-Suit "over § 101" is enough to overcome "NexTraq's Rule 12 motion on § 101 eligibility." Id. at 6. The Court disagrees. The prosecution history of the Patents-in-Suit "before the USPTO bear no relationship to the subject matter" at issue in this Court's Section 101 analysis and in no "way shield the patent's claims from Article III review for patent eligibility." Elec. Commc'n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also TAGI Ventures, LLC v. Turner Sports Interactive, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-3412-MHC, 2017 WL 3469528, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 17, 2017) (rejecting the same argument).

A. The Claims in the '941 Patent Represent the Asserted Claims from the Remaining Patents-in-Suit.

It is well-established that in a Section 101 analysis, the eligibility of multiple patent claims may be determined based on an analysis of a representative claim if the representative claim is "substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea." Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014). NexTraq limits its argument in its Motion to Dismiss to the "representative claims of the '941 and '038 Patents," but neglects to identify the specific claims in the '941 and "038 Patents it contends are representative of the claims in the other Patents-in-Suit. See Nextraq's Mem. of Law in Supp. of Its Mot. to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ("Def.'s Br.") [Doc. 15 at 3-35] at 5. Instead, NexTraq argues in conclusory fashion that the Patents-in-Suit "share the same specification" and "also claim similar elements, in various iterations," again failing to identify any specification or similar elements in either the allegedly representative patents or the remaining Patents-in-Suit they are supposed represent. Id.

NexTraq states that it has provided an exhibit which "contains highlighted versions of the asserted claims from the remaining patents to show the similarity of those claims to the representative claims." Id. Indeed, NexTraq did submit a document in which many of the claims of the non-representative patents (Patents '874, '198, '789, '364, and '809), are reproduced and various phrases are highlighted with two different colors, but NexTraq has not provided any explanation as to which claims in the '941 and '038 Patents are alleged to be representative of the claims reproduced in the exhibit, nor does NexTraq explain what the color-coding represents. Moreover, the exhibit submitted

In its reply brief, NexTraq states that its exhibit "uses only two colors—distinguishing hardware and functionality—and is easy to read." Def.'s Reply in Supp. of its Mot. to Dismiss ("Def.'s Reply") [Doc. 19] at 14. However, NexTraq never identifies the claims in the allegedly representative patents (the '941 and '038 Patents) that are substantially similar to the highlighted phrases from the exhibit of the claims in the remaining patents. Because there is nothing to which the Court can compare the information in the exhibit, this document is not probative of the representativeness issue.

by NexTraq does not include asserted claim 14 from the '789 Patent or asserted claims 2-5 of the '809 Patent.

PerDiem opposes NexTraq's representative argument, contending that Claim 1 of the '941 Patent and Claim 1 of the '038 Patent are not representative of the other twenty-eight claims at issue in this case and that NexTraq has failed to show how the claims in the '941 and '038 Patents are substantially similar to the other asserted claims such that they should be treated as representative. Pl.'s Opp'n at 8-10 (citing Diogenes Ltd. v. DraftKings, Inc., 623 F. Supp. 3d 423, 429-30 (D. Del. 2022) (finding that the defendant's "conclusory" and "paltry" arguments that certain claims were representative of the remaining claims were insufficient to demonstrate representativeness)).

The Court finds that NexTraq has failed to demonstrate that the claims in the allegedly representative patents represent the remaining claims from the Patents-in-Suit. Apart from stating in conclusory fashion that the Patents-in-Suit all "share the same specification" and "claim similar elements, in various iterations," NexTraq fails to identify the representative claims and explain how the representative claims are substantially similar to the remaining claims. NexTraq submitted an exhibit containing color-coded language from most, but not all, of the claims of the allegedly represented patents, but there is no explanation of this document. More importantly, there is no corresponding document marrying up the language of the allegedly representative claims with the language of the represented claims. "[P]resumably, it [i]s up to the Court to figure out the argument on its own." Diogenes, 623 F. Supp. 3d at 428.

NexTraq argues that Diogenes is distinguishable because that case involved a chart that was "hard to read" and a "color-coded key that was difficult to decipher," as opposed to NexTraq's highlighted exhibit which uses "only two colors—distinguishing hardware and functionality—and is easy to read." Def's Reply at 14. NexTraq also argues that Diogenes is an outlier because, among other reasons, it involved a "broad array of claims and broad array of patents." Id. (citing Diogenes, 623 F. Supp. 3d at 429).

If the defendant in Diogenes made a "paltry effort at showing representativeness," NexTraq fared no better in this case. Diogenes, 623 F. Supp. 3d at 429. While the chart attempting to explain the representative nature of certain claims in Diogenes may have been hard to read, at least there was a chart with a key attempting to explain the color-coding and, most importantly, an explanation of how the representative claims represented the remaining claims. Apart from generally referring to the "representative claims of the '941 and '038 Patents," NexTraq has not identified the claims that it contends are representative. Moreover, to the extent it contends all of the claims from the '941 and '038 Patents are representative of the remaining claims at issue in this case, NexTraq has not offered any explanation as to how the allegedly representative claims are substantially similar to the represented claims. To the extent the Court understands the color-coding of the document NexTraq submitted, the green color indicates "hardware," and the yellow

color indicates "functionality." See Def.'s Reply at 14. However, NexTraq has made no effort to explain how the hardware and functionality components are similar from claim to claim and completely omits any, reference to the allegedly similar components in the allegedly representative claims. As such, while the document theoretically allows the Court to more easily figure out which claims among the represented patents are substantially similar to each other, the document is probative of nothing in terms of how the representative claims of the '941 and '038 Patents are substantially similar to, and therefore representative of, the remaining claims.

Notwithstanding NexTraq's failure to demonstrate that representative claims of the '941 and '038 Patents represent the remaining claims in this suit, "[c]ourts may treat a claim as representative in certain situations, such as if the patentee does not present any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim or if the parties agree to treat a claim as representative." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding that courts can treat a claim as representative if all the claims are substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea). Addressing all of the asserted claims in a Section 101 analysis is "unnecessary when all the claims are substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). In this case, although NexTraq failed to explain how its alleged representative claims represent the remaining claims at issue in this case, the Court has conducted an independent examination of all the Patents-in-Suit and, for the reasons that follow, finds that the claims of the '941 Patent are representative of the remaining claims.

1. The allegations in the Complaint confirm that the asserted claims at issue in this case are all similarly directed to the same idea.

The allegations in PerDiem's Complaint make clear that the asserted claims from the Patents-in-Suit are all substantially similar and are all directed to the same "improved location tracking systems and related methods." Compl. ¶ 42. The system and methods common to all asserted claims are similarly alleged to "track locations of a plurality of mobile objects or devices in a network employed to provide a tracking service that sends notifications or alerts after group event conditions which are based on locations of grouped tracked objects are met." Id. PerDiem alleges in its Complaint that all of the asserted claims similarly "provide improvements over conventional networks by providing a reliable and efficient way for the service subscribers to track objects and convey the notifications to authorized recipients." Id. ¶ 44. Further, PerDiem alleges that the Patents-in-Suit all share the same specifications and all claim priority to the same Provisional Patent Application No. 60/752,879. Id. ¶¶ 64-65. In this manner, the allegations in PerDiem's Complaint support the position that the claims of the '941 Patent are substantially similar and directed to the same idea as the remaining claims in the Patents-in-Suit.

2. The language of the Patents-in-Suit specifications are virtually identical, and all similarly directed to the same idea.

Consistent with the allegations in PerDiem's Complaint, a review of the language of the Patents-in-Suit reveals that the patent specifications for all Patents-in-Suit

are virtually identical. All Patents-in-Suit include virtually identical specification language in the following sections: the "Abstract," the "Field of the Invention," the "Background of the Invention," the "Summary of the Invention," and the "Detailed Description of the Invention." Compl. Exs. A-G. Additionally, all of the Patents-in-Suit include the same twenty-eight drawings to illustrate the technology behind PerDiem's patents and the "Brief Description of the Drawings" are identical. Compl., Exs. A-G. Accordingly, the virtually identical language of the specifications from all Patents-in-Suit confirm the position that the claims of the '941 Patent are substantially similar and directed to the same idea as the remaining claims in the Patents-in-Suit.

3. PerDiem has failed to present meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim not found in the '941 Patent claims.

PerDiem argues that Claim 1 of the '038 Patent is substantially different than Claim 1 of the '941 Patent, contending that:

there are substantial differences between claim 1 of the '941 patent and claim 1 of the '038 patent. For example, claim 1 of the '038 patent requires 1) different first and second network of computing devices, 2) different first and second event conditions for occurrence of different driving events and 3) different first and second driving event notification. No such limitations are required by claim 1 of the '941 patent.

Pl.'s Opp'n at 10. The distinctions PerDiem has identified do not have a meaningful difference for this Court's Section 101 analysis. As is explained above and in more detail below in Section III(B)-(C), all of the asserted claims in this case are directed toward the same idea: "improved location tracking systems and related methods." Compl. ¶ 42. The fact that Claim 1 of the '038 Patent and Claim 1 of the '941 Patent recite different computing devices and different event conditions for occurrence of different events, which may result in different notifications, does not change the fact that the claims in both patents are directed to the same system and method designed to "track locations of a plurality of mobile objects or devices in a network employed to provide a tracking service that sends notifications or alerts after group event conditions which are based on locations of grouped tracked objects are met." Id. ¶ 44. The difference PerDiem has identified does not present a distinction of significance that would affect this Court's Section 101 analysis of whether PerDiem's asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea.

PerDiem also argues that Claim 44 of the '874 Patent is "not substantially similar" to the claims in the '941 Patents. Pl.'s Opp'n at 10 (purporting to quote Claim 44 language, arguing that "claim 44 of the '874 patent implements 'applying and checking multiple levels of access control.'"). PerDiem argues that the Claim 44 elements "define which users can access information; provide multiple levels of administrative privilege; and define how the system is administrated." Id. However, this concept is not unique to the '874 Patent. As described in the "Detailed Description of the Invention," common to all the Patents-in-Suit, the inventions embodied in the patents all contemplate the application and checking of multiple levels of access control:

Although Claim 44 does recite elements involving the application and checking of multiple levels of access control, the phrase PerDiem quotes does not appear in Claim 44 or elsewhere in the '874 Patent. See '874 Patent.

In addition to or alternatively to the event information, object location and/or zone information can be conveyed to the computing devices based on user identification codes, which comprise a first level of access control. The conveyance of any one or combination of the foregoing information, i.e., location, zone and/or event, can be to the same users or groups or different users or groups. A second, third, or additional layers of access control can also be applied to any one or combination of the location, zone and/or event information using corresponding access codes as further described below.

See, e.g., '941 Patent at 10:48-58.

Additionally, PerDiem's own argument opposing NexTraq's Motion to Dismiss belies its position that the application and checking of multiple levels of access control embodied in Claim 44 of Patent '847 is not represented by the claims in the '941 Patent. PerDiem argues that the asserted claims in this case all "improve data security by controlling conveyance of location and event information using multiple levels of administrative privilege and control access to such information using access codes that protect user privacy." Pl.'s Opp'n at 19-20 (citing Claim 1 of the '941 Patent and Claim 44 of the '874 Patent). Quoting Claim 1 of the '941 Patent exclusively, PerDiem also argues that one of the elements that makes all of the asserted claims patent eligible is that they

require different group administrators to "control access to the location information and the event information in order to protect the privacy of the location information and the event information based on the one or more information access codes" using first and second levels of administrator privilege under multiple levels of access control.

Pl.'s Opp'n at 20 (quoting Claim 1 of the '941 Patent); see also id. at 22 (arguing that the application and checking of "multiple levels of access control" is an element that makes all of the asserted patent claims eligible), id. at 7 (arguing that the application of "multiple levels of access control" makes all of the asserted claims inventive). In this manner, PerDiem's own argument illustrates that the '941 Patent claims address the application and checking of multiple levels of access control and are, thus, substantially similar to Claim 44 of the '874 Patent.

Although PerDiem argues that the '941 Patent claims are not representative of the remaining claims, PerDiem does not "present[ ] any meaningful argument for the distinctive significance of any claim limitations other than those included in [the '941 Patent]." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1352. In fact, PerDiem's argument reveals the opposite: all of the asserted claims in this case are similarly directed to the same idea, and the '941 Patent claims are representative of the remaining asserted claims.

Because the claims of the '941 Patent are substantially similar and linked to the same idea of the remaining asserted claims, they are therefore representative of the remaining claims at issue in this case. Accordingly, the Court focuses on the claims of the '941 Patent for the purposes of this Court's Section 101 analysis below.

B. The Alice Test — Step One

NexTraq argues that the claims of the '941 Patent fail the first step of the Alice test because they are directed to ineligible subject matter that merely recites "generic" computer components without any specialized arrangement, which simply "monitor[s] the locations of mobile devices, uses authentication information to maintain privacy, and provides location notifications." Def.'s Br. at 11-15 (internal

quotations omitted). NexTraq argues that the claims of the '941 Patent "simply sets forth rules concerning assigning levels of authority different humans have, tracking members of a group, and issuing alerts when members leave or enter a zone." Id. at 9.

Claim 1 of the '941 Patent recites:

1. A location tracking system comprising:
one or more servers capable of receiving identifiers and location information for a plurality of mobile devices having corresponding mobile device identification codes that identify each mobile device;
the one or more servers configured to: store in one or more databases information for groups of users of mobile devices based on corresponding group identification codes that identify each group, each user in a group having a user identification code associated with a corresponding group identification code in the one or more databases, the user identification code identifying the user, said groups being defined by a first administrator having a first level of administrative privilege, said first level of administrative privilege being used to authorize a user in each group to be a second administrator of a plurality of second administrators, each second administrator having a corresponding second level of administrative privilege associated with a group;
store in the one or more databases information for the plurality of second administrators, each second administrator using the corresponding second level of administrative privilege after a corresponding group is defined by the first administrator to specify one or more information access codes, said one or more information access codes specifying one or more users in the corresponding group having access 1) to location information and 2) to event information other than location information, wherein the location information corresponds to a coordinate of a mobile device within a coordinate system corresponding to a map as determined by the location information source associated with the mobile device; and wherein the event information comprises at least one of a condition that relates a mobile device location information to a zone where the occurrence of the event causes an alert to be sent when a mobile device crosses a boundary associated with the zone, wherein the first administrator defines the corresponding group independent of a location of a zone;
control access to the location information and the event information in order to protect the privacy of the location information and the event information based on the one or more information access codes;
check the first level of administrative privilege to authorize the second administrator having a second level of administrative privilege to be associated with the group;
check the second level of administrative privilege to control conveyance of the location and the event information regarding the group using the one or more information access codes;
provide one or more interfaces configured to receive information related to a zone, an event, and an alert for the group; receive a request to set a zone for the group, the zone having a boundary that is independent of where mobile devices are located;
receive a request to set an event for the group;
receive a request to set an alert for the group, the request identifying a recipient of the alert;
store the group's zone, event and alert in the one or more databases;
receive identifiers and the location information for mobile devices in the group;
compare the identifiers and location information with the group's zone and event to determine whether to send the group's alert;
cause the group's alert to be sent; and
convey the location information based on the one or more information access codes specified for the group under said second level of administrative privilege.

'941 Patent, Claim 1 (23:16-24:23). The concept embodied by Claim 1 of the '941 Patent reduces to the following conceptual elements:

The remaining asserted claims of the '941 Patent (Claims 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, and 19), expand upon certain features of the location tracking system described in Claim 1. Claims 3 and 4 are directly and indirectly dependent on Claim 1, respectively, and introduce the idea of information access codes that limit the availability of the location information described in Claim 1's location tracking system. Id. at 24:37-43. Claim 7 is dependent on Claim 1 and recites the nature of the Claim 1 administrative privileges, and provides an informational framework for identification codes between the different levels of administrative privileges, and associates mobile object codes with both "vehicles" and "mobile object[s] comprising NFC device[s]." Id. at 24:55-25:6. Claims 8 and 9 are directly and indirectly dependent on Claim 1, respectively, and describe how the servers in the Claim 1 system are configured to receive location information and determine the occurrence of certain events based on that information. Id. at 25:7-30. Claim 11 is dependent on Claim 1 and recites controlling access to "sensor information" on the Claim 1 servers. Id. at 25:35-38. Claim 12 is dependent on Claim 1 and recites how tiered levels of administrative privileges are used to administer "information sharing environment[s]" in Claim l's location tracking system. Id. at 25:39-26:8. Claim 19 is indirectly dependent on Claim 1 and references the NFC device from Claim 18 (which determines the location information of mobile device in Claim 1), and recites that an "NFC device is associated with a driver of a vehicle." Id. at 26:27-28. None of the limitations recited in any of these claims, which are all based on the location tracking system described in Claim 1, alter the focus of the claims in the '941 Patent embodied in Claim 1 or add anything to the abstract idea analysis.

1. Computer servers capable of receiving, storing, and analyzing geo-tracking identifying information, location information, and event information;
2. Interfaces permitting users to assign identification codes to geotracking devices, assign levels of information access to users so that access to the geo-tracking information is controlled, and permitting users to define geographic zones so that when a device enters or leaves the defined zone, a location event is triggered;
3. Analysis of the geo-tracking information in real time to determine when location events occur; and
4. Transmission of geo-tracking information to authorized users upon occurrence of an event.

See id. Having viewed the language of the '941 Patent in light of the specifications,

PerDiem's own description of Claim 1 of the '941 Patent reveals similar basic elements:
Thus, rather than simply tracking a given mobile device's location as done in the prior art, the claims create a robust location-tracking system that: (1) tracks groups of mobile devices in relation to user defined zones or events, (2) specifies authorized recipients by the administrator of each group, when the tracked mobile devices cross zone boundaries or trigger events, and (3) distributes these alerts to recipients who are given access privileges by each group administrator independent of other group administrators.
Pl.'s Opp'n at 22 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 42-63 and referencing Claim 1 of the of the '941 Patent).

the Court finds that the claims of the '941 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and distributing information from geotracking devices.

The Federal Circuit has specifically held that patent claims directed to the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information, such as that contemplated by the claims in the '941 Patent, are directed to an abstract idea:

Information as such is an intangible. Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.

Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54; see also In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom., Killian v. Vidal, ___ U.S. ___, 144 S. Ct. 100, 217 L.Ed.2d 26 (2023) ("[The applicant's] claims must fail Alice/Mayo step one as they are directed to collection of information, comprehending the meaning of that collected information, and indication of the results, all on a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner."); ShoppersChoice.com, 958 F.3d at 1181 (finding that claims directed to the idea of "monitoring the location of a mobile thing and notifying a party in advance of arrival of that mobile thing" was an abstract idea); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (finding that the patent failed step one of the Alice test because it was directed toward an abstract idea: "The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known."); Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 562 F. Supp. 3d 770, 782 (C.D. Cal. 2021), aff'd, 72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quotation and citation omitted) ("Ultimately, Claim 1 amounts to little more than a system for collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, bringing it within a familiar class of claims directed to an abstract idea."); Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1278, 1289 (N.D. Ga. 2016), aff'd, 723 F. App'x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (analyzing the eligibility of a patent directed to the location and tracking of objects, the court found that the claims focused on "collecting data, analyzing it, and determining the results based on the analysis of data," which was an abstract idea).

In an effort to avoid the conclusion that the Patents-in-Suit are directed

to an abstract idea, PerDiem offers two primary arguments: (1) the asserted claims provide improvements to prior computerized location tracking systems, Pl.'s Opp'n at 15-20, and (2) the asserted claims' tiered levels of administrative and access privileges that control device location data is a patent eligible security measure. Id. at 20-22.

In response to NexTraq's argument that the '941 Patent is directed to an abstract idea, PerDiem does not limit its response to the claims of the '941 Patent and instead argues that all of the asserted claims in this case are patent eligible under step one of Alice. Pl.'s Opp'n at 11-22. PerDiem's argument referring to characteristics that all of the asserted claims similarly share instead of limiting its response to the '941 Patent claims supports this Court's conclusion that the claims are all substantially similar and directed to the same idea.

1. The claims of the '941 Patent are not directed toward an improvement in computer functionality.

PerDiem argues that useful improvements to computer networks are patentable regardless of whether the patent claims are comprised of standard computing equipment. Id. at 12. PerDiem contends that the asserted claims provide "unconventional computing solutions that address problems particular to computerized location tracking systems, for example by creating and checking multiple levels of administrative privileges using access codes that improve the prior art," which was "lacking in efficiency, reliability, and user privacy for controlling conveyance of location and event information." Id. at 15-16. PerDiem elaborates that it solves the prior art's deficiency by designing a system that "1) allow[s] a system administrator to define different groups and control group's user membership, 2) giv[es] different group administrators independent control over conveyance of location and event information in each group and 3) protect[s] privacy of location information and event information." Id. at 16 (citing Compl. ¶ 54).

PerDiem cites Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), for the proposition that claims directed to technological improvements in the way computers operate are not abstract and are therefore patent eligible. Pl.'s Opp'n at 18. However, the asserted claims in this case are unlike the patent claims at issue in Enfish. In Enfish, the Federal Circuit focused on the distinction made in Alice between improvements to computer-functionality on the one hand, and the use of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on "abstract ideas" on the other. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. The court held that, where computer-implemented method claims are at issue, like they are in this case, the question under step one of the Alice test is whether the claims implement an "improvement to computer functionality" or instead "a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Id. The Federal Circuit applied the distinction to reject the Section 101 challenge at stage one because the claims in that case focused on a specific improvement —a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data, not on asserted advances in the ways existing computer capabilities could be utilized. Id.; see also Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349 ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities."). "The present case is different: the focus of [PerDiem's asserted] claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain

independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.

PerDiem identifies multiple computer components at play in its asserted claims—"servers," "mobile devices," "databases," and "interfaces"—and argues that the configurations of those components coupled with the requirements in the individual claims, when analyzed as an ordered combination, render the asserted claims patent eligible. Pl.'s Opp'n at 11-20. However, even analyzing the components as a whole, these technologies are well-known, conventional, and generic, and the asserted claims merely recite generic computer functionalities to implement the abstract idea of collection, analysis, and dissemination of information. Further, PerDiem fails to explain how the claims of the '941 Patent improve the efficiency and reliability of the prior tracking systems and fails to identify any specialized arrangement of the recited computer components that improves computer functionality. See Riggs Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. 2022-1468, 2023 WL 193162, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 17, 2023) (finding that the asserted claim failed step one of the Alice inquiry because it was "directed to collecting and storing information using a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner.").

PerDiem cites TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1294-95 (Fed. Cir. 2020), in support its argument that NexTraq impermissibly "disregard[s] express claim elements," thus "overgenerliz[ing] the claim." Pl.'s Opp'n at 12 (quoting TecSec, 978 F.3d at 1295). However, as discussed and distinguished by the Federal Circuit recently, the claims in TecSec "provided a specific solution for computer data networks and required specific features like 'accessing an object-oriented key manager and specified uses of a label as well as encryption for the access management.'" Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting TecSec, 978 F.3d at 1295-96). Here, unlike in TecSec, the claims fail to recite the implementation of any specific "improvement to computer functionality," Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36, and, instead, use existing tools to "store" data, "check" levels of administrative privileges, "receive" information, and "determine" the occurrence of events. See '941 Patent 23:18-26:41.

The fact that PerDiem's asserted claims recite elements that are performed on conventional and generic computer technologies does not save them from being directed to an abstract idea. This concept —that a conventional, generic use of computers does not remove a claim from the abstract realm—was explained by the Federal Circuit as follows:

Our cases have distinguished between claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, versus those ... that simply recite generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity. Claim 1 is not directed to improving the functioning of the recited handheld device or server, and contrary to Riggs's assertion, it does not address a problem necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to solve a specific problem in the realm of computer networks. Instead, claim 1 uses conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment to implement the abstract idea of managing training completed remotely.

Riggs, 2023 WL 193162 at *2 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Federal Circuit held in Riggs that the claim was directed to an abstract idea where it was "directed to collecting and storing information using a generic computer network operating in its normal, expected manner." Id. at *3.

PerDiem fails to identify the improvement in computer functionality that its asserted claims supposedly accomplish, and

none is apparent from the language of the claims in the '941 Patent. The asserted claims are, therefore, "not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality." In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims abstract where they "are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two."); see also Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App'x 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that claims that did not require a particular configuration or specialized arrangement of computer components were "directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one.").

Accordingly, viewing the elements of the asserted claims of the '941 Patent in light of the specifications, the Court finds that PerDiem's invention is directed to the abstract concept of using computers in a normal, conventional manner as tools to collect, analyze, and distribute information.

2. The security measures recited in the '941 Patent claims are directed to an abstract idea.

PerDiem also argues that the asserted claims provide an improvement over prior art by implementing tiered security measures. Id. at 20-22 (citing, inter alia, TecSec, 978 F.3d 1278, and Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). PerDiem focuses on the "improvement of implementing tiered levels of administrative and access privileges that are used to control device location data," which it argues is a patent eligible security measure. Id. at 20-22.

"Improving security—here, against a computer's unauthorized use of a program—can be a non-abstract computer-functionality improvement if done by a specific technique that departs from earlier approaches to solve a specific computer problem." Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as amended (Nov. 20, 2018) (citing Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304-05). However, as the Federal Circuit has explained, just because a patent claim is directed to improving security measures does not remove it from the abstract realm:

Although claim 11 also recites added measures that purport to increase security —namely, enabling a first party to input authentication information, storing the authentication information, and providing the authentication information along with the advance notice of arrival to help ensure the customer that the notice was initiated by an authorized source—those claimed functions are also abstract.

Elec. Commc'n Techs., 958 F.3d at 1181.

In contrast to the claims at issue here, the claims in Finjan were specifically directed to an improvement to security-related computer functionality itself, not other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity:

[T]he method of claim 1 employs a new kind of file that enables a computer security system to do things it could not do before. The security profile approach allows access to be tailored for different users and ensures that threats are identified before a file reaches a user's computer. The fact that the security profile "identifies suspicious code" allows the system to accumulate and utilize newly available, behavior-based information about potential threats. The asserted claims are therefore directed to a non-abstract improvement in computer functionality, rather than the abstract idea of computer security writ large.

Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305.

In TecSec, the Federal Circuit acknowledged that just because a claim is directed to "security, it does not follow that all patents relating to multilevel security are necessarily ineligible for patenting." TecSec, 978 F.3d at 1296. Consistent with the ruling in Finjan, the court held that the patent must be directed to a specific problem or "specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities" and found that the invention "solv[ed] a particular problem of multicasting computer networks," which managed "cryptographic keys" in a new way. Id., 978 F.3d at 1293, 1295-96.

PerDiem's argument that the asserted claims are not abstract for the reason that they recite improved security measures is unavailing because PerDiem has failed to identify the specific improvement in security-related computer functionality embodied in any of the asserted claims. Additionally, PerDiem does not identify any particular security-related problem related to computerized location tracking system technology that is addressed by its patents. Considering the '941 Patent claims in light of their specifications, the Court finds that "their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335.

C. Alice — Step Two

Having found that the claims of the '941 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, and distributing information from geo-tracking devices, the Court turns to step two in which the Court must determine whether the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, supply an "inventive concept" and transform the nature of the claims from a patent on the ineligible concept into a patent-eligible application of the concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217, 134 S.Ct. 2347. "[T]ransformation into a patent-eligible application requires more than simply stating the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it.'" Id. at 221, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (internal punctuation and citation omitted). "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. (internal punctuation and citation omitted). "Those 'additional features' must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 132 S.Ct. 1289). Here, the Court must look at the elements of each claim—both individually and as an ordered combination. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1255.

In PerDiem's step two argument purporting to describe the individual claim elements that allegedly transform the nature of the claims into an inventive concept, PerDiem cites exclusively to the Detailed Description of the Invention found in the '941 Patent specifications. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 22-25 (citing the '941 Patent at 8:37-67, 14:44-67, 15:20-47). PerDiem does not cite to any individual '941 Patent claim, but contends that "[a]ll of these features, especially, when viewed in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception." Id. at 24. The Court will address the features in the '941 Patent claim specifications highlighted by PerDiem.

Without referencing any specific claim, PerDiem argues:

[T]he claims of the '941 patent, recite storing information for a plurality of groups of mobile devices defined by a first administrator that has a first level of administrative privilege and storing information about a plurality of second administrators, each being configured with a corresponding second level of administrative privilege. The first level of administrative privilege is used by the servers to define a plurality of groups of mobile devices and the second level of administrative privilege is used to control conveyance of information regarding a group. One or more servers provide interfaces for receiving information corresponding to a zone, an event, and an alert for the group. The servers receive an administrator request to set a zone having a boundary that is independent of where the group's mobile devices are located. The one or more servers further receive an administrative request to set an event and an alert for the group. The request for setting the alert identifies a recipient of the alert. The claims require storing the group's zone, event and alert in one or more databases.

Id. at 23-24 (citing, inter alia, '941 Patent at 8:37-67, 14:44-67, 15:20-47). The '941 claim specifications cited by PerDiem reference the Claim 1 element of servers capable of receiving and storing geo-tracking identifying information, location information, and event information as well as the Claim 1 element of an interface that permits users to assign levels of information access/privilege and define geographic zones that trigger location events. These are generic components (servers and interfaces), reciting routine and conventional functions (data storage and the assignment of levels of access to various users). Data recognition and storage are conventional steps that do not supply an inventive concept. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345 (holding that recognizing and storing data from specific data fields are "well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry.").

PerDiem's only argument in support of its position that the asserted claims pass step two of the Alice analysis is that the "complex tiered security measures" are an inventive concept. Pl.'s Opp'n at 23 (citing CosmoKey Sols. GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC, 15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). PerDiem argues that the claims in the '941 Patent

are not directed to generic computers performing generic computer functions. Rather, the combination of elements impose meaningful limits in that are applied to improve an existing technology (i.e., location tracking) by efficiently conveying event-related information to extend the usefulness of the technology into industries where privacy of such information must be protected and providing the event information for tracking objects, e.g., vehicles, etc. All of these features, especially, when viewed in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.

Id. at 24. PerDiem's conclusory statement that the claims supply an inventive concept, especially when PerDiem does not identify any claim or inventive concept, is unavailing. PerDiem has failed to identify any additional feature, individually and as an ordered combination, that transforms the claims in the '941 Patent from abstract to the non-abstract.

The lone case cited by PerDiem for this proposition, CosmoKey, is inapposite. In CosmoKey, the Federal Circuit found that a claimed invention was a "specific improvement to authentication that increases security, prevents unauthorized access by a third party, is easily implemented, and can advantageously be carried out with mobile devices of low complexity." Id., 15 F.4th at 1098. The Court held that "the claims recite an inventive concept by requiring a specific set of ordered steps that go beyond the abstract idea identified by the district court and improve upon the prior art by providing a simple method

that yields higher security." Id. at 1099. PerDiem has not identified any claims that recite a "specific set of ordered steps that go beyond the abstract idea." Nor has PerDiem explained how the privacy protecting measures recited in the '941 Patent claims "improve upon the prior art."

The Federal Circuit subsequently distinguished CosmoKey in a way that illustrates the shortcomings with the '941 Patent claims—ruling that the analysis is limited to instances in which the claims were directed to specific improvements and not "well-known and conventional ways to perform authentication[.]" In re AuthWallet, LLC, No. 2022-1842, 2023 WL 3330298, at *4 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2023) (citation omitted). Similarly, in Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the Federal Circuit held that the "broad and nonspecific" claims at bar did not recite an inventive concept because the patents referenced "well-known and conventional ways to perform authentication." Apple, 10 F.4th at 1355. The Federal Circuit also concluded that "the claims do not recite a new authentication technique, but rather combine nonspecific, conventional authentication techniques in a noninventive way." Id. at 1355., Similarly, PerDiem has not identified any specific improvements the '941 Patent claims that were not well-known and conventional ways to perform authentication.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the elements of the '941 Patent claims do not, individually and as an ordered combination, supply an "inventive concept" that transforms the abstract nature of the claim to a patent-eligible application. Because PerDiem's Complaint is based on Asserted Patents that are directed to ineligible subject matter, its claims against NexTraq fail as a matter of law.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant NexTraq LLC's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2024.


Summaries of

PerDiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Mar 13, 2024
720 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2024)
Case details for

PerDiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC

Case Details

Full title:PERDIEMCO LLC, Plaintiff, v. NEXTRAQ LLC, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

Date published: Mar 13, 2024

Citations

720 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2024)