Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-894-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 14-895-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. Atlantic Broadband Group LLC, 14-896-SLR;  v. Cable One Inc., 14-897-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v.CSC Holdings LLC, 14-898-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. CenturyLink Communications, LLC, 14-899-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. Sprint Corp., 14-901-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. T-Mobile US Inc., 14-902-SLR;Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. U.S. Cellular Corp., 14-903-SLR; Network Congestion Solutions, LLC v. WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, 14-904-SLR June 4, 2015

Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim are denied.  Claim 1 is a method claim and the accused network congestion management practices are used by defendants internally. The court questions whether there is any way for a patentee to provide the level of detail defendants claim is required by Iqbal and Twombly. Defendants’ reasoning could deny an entire class of patent holders the opportunity to get before a court to test their IP rights.  Plaintiff’s responsive papers provide more information that form the basis of the infringement contentions. Under the current law defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied without prejudice to renew if plaintiff fails to amend the complaints.  The court notes that the overarching issue of whether inventions expressed through software should have been patented is being reexamined on a national level and is not currently before the court.