Cronos Technologies, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-1538 – LPS; C.A. No. 13-1541 – LPS; C.A. No. 13-1544 - LPS, September 9, 2015.
Stark, C. J. Defendants’ Rule 12 (c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied without prejudice.
The disputed technology relates to methods and systems for remote ordering of products. The court held a Markman hearing and issued a claim construction opinion prior to issuing this opinion. Argument on patent eligibility under Alice and Mayo also took place during theMarkman hearing. The court decides the motion for judgment on the pleadings is not adequately presented at this time and denies the motion without prejudice to renew at a later stage of the proceedings. Defendants have not adequately explained why the claim discussed in the briefing is representative of all of the asserted dependent claims, or why these claims lack an inventive concept. Some meaningful analysis is required for each of the challenged claims. Neither side has briefed the section 101 arguments with the benefit of the court’s claim constructions.