Kaavo Inc. v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al.,  C.A. Nos. 14-1192 – LPS- CJB; 14-1193 LPS-CJB, March 31, 2016.

Stark, C. J. Court rules on objections to magistrate’s report and recommendations regarding defendants’ assertions that asserted claims in the patents-in-suit were directed to unpatentable subject matter.  Briefing on objections was completed on March 10, 2016.

The court agrees with the report’s articulation of a narrower abstract idea than that proposed by defendants and concludes that certain asserted claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “setting up and managing a cloud computing environment.” Also, Alice steps 2 and 3 do not provide the inventive concepts needed to impart patentability.  Plaintiff’s arguments on point were not considered since they had not been presented to the magistrate. The fact that the report adopted a narrower abstract idea than that proposed does not excuse plaintiff’s failure to raise all of its arguments to the magistrate.  The magistrate did not err in finding he lacked an adequate basis to assess the patentability of the remaining dependent claims. Should the parties seek leave to file an early motion for summary judgment they must follow the court’s procedures and local rules and those issues are referred to the magistrate.