{"cached_at":"2026-11-08T11:52:32.025883+00:00","cl_docket_id":"6539117","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","id":6539117,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nynd/","court_id":"nynd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/fjc-integrated-database/24496919/","date_created":"2018-11-21T09:49:30.215840-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-28T11:28:30.254940-08:00","dataset_source":9,"office":"1","docket_number":"1800549","origin":1,"date_filed":"2018-05-08","jurisdiction":3,"nature_of_suit":830,"title":"35","section":"0271","subsection":"","diversity_of_residence":null,"class_action":null,"monetary_demand":0,"county_of_residence":36083,"arbitration_at_filing":"","arbitration_at_termination":"","multidistrict_litigation_docket_number":"","plaintiff":"RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC , ET AL","defendant":"AMAZON.COM, INC.","date_transfer":null,"transfer_office":"","transfer_docket_number":"","transfer_origin":"","date_terminated":null,"termination_class_action_status":null,"procedural_progress":null,"disposition":null,"nature_of_judgement":null,"amount_received":null,"judgment":null,"pro_se":0,"year_of_tape":2099,"nature_of_offense":"","version":null,"circuit":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ca2/","district":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nynd/"},"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9846145/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9849823/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9849484/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9848106/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2840/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9431/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2018-05-09T11:23:48.923044-07:00","date_modified":"2025-12-31T06:04:52.475966-08:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Brenda K. Sannes","referred_to_str":"Therese Wiley Dancks","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-10T03:19:41.075148-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2018-05-08","date_terminated":"2024-03-18","date_last_filing":"2024-12-09","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute v. Amazon.com, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc","docket_number":"1:18-cv-00549","docket_number_core":"1800549","docket_number_raw":"1:18-cv-00549","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"BKS","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"TWD","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"114286","cause":"35:271 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"Patent","jury_demand":"Both","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13205637/","id":13205637,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209763/","attorney_id":6209763,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209765/","attorney_id":6209765,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6745924/","attorney_id":6745924,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209768/","attorney_id":6209768,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865236/","attorney_id":8865236,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Consolidated Respondent","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-12-07T15:46:48.219268-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-07T15:46:48.219278-08:00","name":"Greg Hart","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13205636/","id":13205636,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209763/","attorney_id":6209763,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209765/","attorney_id":6209765,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6745924/","attorney_id":6745924,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209768/","attorney_id":6209768,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865236/","attorney_id":8865236,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Consol Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Consolidated Respondent","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-12-07T15:46:48.148117-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-07T15:46:48.148124-08:00","name":"Al Lindsay","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13205635/","id":13205635,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"In Re","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"in re subpoena issued to Amazon.com Inc (from member case)","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2023-12-07T15:46:46.875084-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-07T15:46:46.875095-08:00","name":"Amazon.com Inc","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9389022/","id":9389022,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209763/","attorney_id":6209763,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209764/","attorney_id":6209764,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209765/","attorney_id":6209765,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209766/","attorney_id":6209766,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6745924/","attorney_id":6745924,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209767/","attorney_id":6209767,"date_action":"2021-10-18","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209768/","attorney_id":6209768,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7481916/","attorney_id":7481916,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865236/","attorney_id":8865236,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8020209/","attorney_id":8020209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Counter Claimant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-03-24T08:17:25.500940-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-24T08:17:25.500969-07:00","name":"Amazon.com, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9389021/","id":9389021,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865235/","attorney_id":8865235,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776399/","attorney_id":7776399,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776399/","attorney_id":7776399,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865234/","attorney_id":8865234,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865234/","attorney_id":8865234,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776400/","attorney_id":7776400,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776400/","attorney_id":7776400,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6745923/","attorney_id":6745923,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209755/","attorney_id":6209755,"date_action":"2022-07-11","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209757/","attorney_id":6209757,"date_action":"2022-07-11","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209758/","attorney_id":6209758,"date_action":"2022-06-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776401/","attorney_id":7776401,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209756/","attorney_id":6209756,"date_action":"2021-11-02","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8020208/","attorney_id":8020208,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209759/","attorney_id":6209759,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209760/","attorney_id":6209760,"date_action":"2022-05-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776402/","attorney_id":7776402,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209761/","attorney_id":6209761,"date_action":"2022-06-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/3235616/","attorney_id":3235616,"date_action":"2019-11-12","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209762/","attorney_id":6209762,"date_action":"2022-06-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Consol Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Consolidated Petitioner","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-03-24T08:17:25.380359-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-24T08:17:25.380380-07:00","name":"CF Dynamic Advances LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9389020/","id":9389020,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865235/","attorney_id":8865235,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776399/","attorney_id":7776399,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776399/","attorney_id":7776399,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865234/","attorney_id":8865234,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8865234/","attorney_id":8865234,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776400/","attorney_id":7776400,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776400/","attorney_id":7776400,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6745923/","attorney_id":6745923,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209755/","attorney_id":6209755,"date_action":"2022-07-11","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209757/","attorney_id":6209757,"date_action":"2022-07-11","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209758/","attorney_id":6209758,"date_action":"2022-06-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776401/","attorney_id":7776401,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209756/","attorney_id":6209756,"date_action":"2021-11-02","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8020208/","attorney_id":8020208,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209759/","attorney_id":6209759,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209760/","attorney_id":6209760,"date_action":"2022-05-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7776402/","attorney_id":7776402,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209761/","attorney_id":6209761,"date_action":"2022-06-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/3235616/","attorney_id":3235616,"date_action":"2019-11-12","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6209762/","attorney_id":6209762,"date_action":"2022-06-28","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Consol Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Consolidated Petitioner","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","docket_id":6539117,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-03-24T08:17:25.223926-07:00","date_modified":"2020-03-24T08:17:25.223951-07:00","name":"Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/410524044/","id":410524044,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/423275248/","id":423275248,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-12-09T14:22:03.095976-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-09T14:22:03.123258-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Letter Request","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-12-09T14:22:03.033554-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-09T14:22:03.033573-08:00","date_filed":"2024-12-09","time_filed":"16:42:23","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-12-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/410114470/","id":410114470,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/422744635/","id":422744635,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/458/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-12-04T17:25:15.751043-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-04T17:25:15.762576-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"458","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12507100614","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter Request/Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-12-04T17:25:15.736711-08:00","date_modified":"2024-12-04T17:25:15.741731-08:00","date_filed":"2024-12-04","time_filed":"19:32:22","entry_number":458,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-12-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":1550,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/407101033/","id":407101033,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/418649997/","id":418649997,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/457/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-11-04T09:01:27.781526-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-04T09:01:27.786897-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"457","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12507072244","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-11-04T09:01:27.761815-08:00","date_modified":"2024-11-04T09:01:27.767116-08:00","date_filed":"2024-11-04","time_filed":"11:17:16","entry_number":457,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-11-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":1546,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/404321045/","id":404321045,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/414822203/","id":414822203,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/456/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-10-04T14:23:26.765577-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-04T14:23:26.771524-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"456","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12507045051","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-10-04T14:23:26.754777-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-04T14:23:26.757562-07:00","date_filed":"2024-10-04","time_filed":"16:58:36","entry_number":456,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-10-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":1539,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/401417130/","id":401417130,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/410845812/","id":410845812,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-09-05T11:11:22.666887-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-05T11:11:22.670408-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Letter Request AND Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-09-05T11:11:22.658332-07:00","date_modified":"2024-09-05T11:11:22.658342-07:00","date_filed":"2024-09-05","time_filed":"13:24:01","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-09-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/382094692/","id":382094692,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389906169/","id":389906169,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/449/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-26T07:48:57.390060-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-26T07:48:57.394930-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"449","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506851448","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter Request/Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-26T07:48:57.363499-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-26T07:48:57.370278-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-25","time_filed":"17:17:33","entry_number":449,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":1507,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/382094248/","id":382094248,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389905725/","id":389905725,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-03-26T07:48:51.193689-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-26T07:48:51.197894-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Letter Request","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-26T07:48:51.178161-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-26T07:48:51.178176-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-26","time_filed":"09:29:18","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/381984190/","id":381984190,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389791995/","id":389791995,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/448/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-22T17:22:33.837850-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-22T17:22:33.843962-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"448","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506849789","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-22T17:22:33.817593-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-22T17:22:33.821008-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-22","time_filed":"20:00:32","entry_number":448,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":1505,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/381709767/","id":381709767,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389513320/","id":389513320,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/446/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-20T14:24:19.552250-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-20T14:24:19.558730-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"446","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506846192","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter Request/Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-20T14:24:19.506203-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-20T14:24:19.526614-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-20","time_filed":"16:57:45","entry_number":446,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":1487,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/381424943/","id":381424943,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389220965/","id":389220965,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/443/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-18T10:17:34.265973-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-13T20:44:35.836846-08:00","sha1":"a4dc7d7381245239dd11faab6952561aa58dc8e8","page_count":23,"file_size":297068,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286.443.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286.443.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286/389220965.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 23\n\n\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nNORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n\nRENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE and CF\nDYNAMIC ADVANCES LLC,\n                                                     1:18-cv-549 (BKS/TWD)\n                                    Plaintiffs,\n\nv.\n\nAMAZON.COM, INC.,\n\n                                    Defendant.\n\n\nAppearances:\n\nFor Plaintiffs:\nRonald J. Schutz\nCyrus A. Morton\nBenjamen C. Linden\nNavin Ramalingam\nRobins Kaplan LLP\n800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800\nMinneapolis, MN 55402\n\nAnnie Huang\nMiles Finn\nRobins Kaplan LLP\n900 Third Avenue, Suite 1900\nNew York, NY 10022\n\nLi Zhu\nRobins Kaplan LLP\n555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 310\nRedwood City, CA 94065\n\nLucas M. Walker\nMoloLamken LLP\n600 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 500\nWashington, DC 20037\n\nFor Defendant:\nJohn G. Powers\nJames P. Youngs\nMary L. D\u2019Agostino\n\f     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 23\n\n\n\n\nHancock Estabrook, LLP\nAXA Tower I, Suite 1800\n100 Madison Street\nSyracuse, NY 13202\n\nJoseph R. Re\nJeremy A. Anapol\nKnobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP\n2040 Main Street, 14th Floor\nIrvine, CA 92614\n\nColin B. Heideman\nNathan D. Reeves\nKnobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP\n925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2500\nSeattle, WA 98104\n\nYanna S. Bouris\nKnobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP\n1925 Century Park East, Suite 400\nLos Angeles, CA 90067\n\nJon W. Gurka\nCrowell & Moring LLP\n3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor\nIrvine, CA 92614\n\nHon. Brenda K. Sannes, Chief United States District Judge:\n\n                           MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER\n\nI.     INTRODUCTION\n\n       Plaintiffs Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (\u201cRPI\u201d) and CF Dynamic Advances LLC\n\n(\u201cCF Dynamic\u201d) bring this patent infringement action against Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.\n\n(\u201cAmazon\u201d). (Dkt. No. 1). Presently before the Court are the parties\u2019 motions for summary\n\njudgment. (Dkt. Nos. 384, 390). The parties have filed responsive briefing with respect to both\n\nmotions, (Dkt. Nos. 400, 407, 413, 414), and the Court heard oral argument on March 14, 2024,\n\n(Text Minute Entry, March 14, 2024). Also before the Court are the parties\u2019 related motions to\n\nstrike or otherwise exclude expert testimony and statements of material fact. (Dkt. Nos. 383, 386,\n\n\n\n                                                2\n\f      Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 23\n\n\n\n\n388, 390, 411). These motions are fully briefed as well. (Dkt. Nos. 400, 401, 403, 405, 413, 416,\n\n418, 420). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment is denied,\n\nDefendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the parties\u2019 related motions are\n\ndenied as moot.\n\nII.      BACKGROUND 1\n\n         A.       The Patent\n\n         The asserted patent in this infringement action, United States Patent No. 7,177,798 (the\n\n\u201c\u2019798 Patent\u201d), is titled \u201cNatural Language Interface Using Constrained Intermediate Dictionary\n\nof Results.\u201d \u2019798 Patent, col. 1 ll. 1\u20133. The \u2019798 Patent issued on February 13, 2007, and lists\n\nCheng Hsu and Veera Boonjing as the inventors and RPI as the assignee. (See Dkt. No. 89-2\n\n(2001 assignment of all rights from the inventors to RPI)). CF Dynamic holds exclusionary\n\nrights to the \u2019798 Patent. See Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-cv-549,\n\n2023 WL 6037877, at *1, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163947, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2023).\n\n         The \u2019798 Patent relates to the field of natural language processing (\u201cNLP\u201d). \u2019798 Patent,\n\ncol. 1 ll. 22\u201324. Research in this field aims to enable humans to interact with machines or\n\ncomputers using human natural language rather than computer languages or specialized\n\ncommands. Id. at col. 4 ll. 49\u201365. But the ambiguity inherent in natural language presents a\n\nchallenge. Id. at col. 5. ll. 19\u201342. To interpret and process a natural language query, a natural\n\nlanguage interface (\u201cNLI\u201d) must understand the natural articulation of the query or enumerate\n\nand evaluate all possible interpretations of it. Id. at col. 5 ll. 24\u201326. And because in either case\n\n\n\n1\n The facts are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Gilles v. Repicky, 511 F.3d 239, 243\n(2d Cir. 2007). That is, the facts are construed in the light most favorable to Defendant when the Court considers\nPlaintiffs\u2019 motion, and the facts are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs when the Court considers\nDefendant\u2019s motion. See Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, LLC, 628 F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir.\n2010).\n\n\n\n                                                          3\n\f      Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 23\n\n\n\n\nexperience can be used to improve interpretation, an effective NLI must learn from past\n\nperformance. Id. at col. 5 ll. 27\u201330.\n\n         The \u2019798 Patent details five approaches to NLIs known at the time of the invention. See\n\nid. at col. 5 l. 43 to col. 6 l. 34. Four of these approaches\u2014the template-based approach, syntax-\n\nbased approach, semantic-grammar-based approach, and intermediate-representation-language-\n\nbased approach\u2014restrict the syntax with which a user can pose a natural language query. Id. at\n\ncol. 5 l. 60 to col. 6 l. 2. The user must articulate a query using only sentence structures and\n\nwords known by the NLI. Id. at col. 4 ll. 58\u201361, col. 5 l. 60 to col. 6 l. 2. Properly articulated\n\nqueries are translated into standard database query language and processed. Id. at col. 5 ll. 43\u201353.\n\nBut improperly articulated queries are often interpreted and processed inaccurately, if at all. Id.\n\nat col. 5 ll. 60\u201366.\n\n         The fifth approach\u2014the semantic-model-based approach\u2014does not so depend on the\n\nrigid construction of a query. Id. at col. 6 ll. 3\u20135. Instead, keywords in a query are identified and\n\nassociated with database objects in a semantic model, with the semantic model acting as a\n\nroadmap to generate possible interpretations of the query. Id. at col. 6 ll. 8\u201310. However,\n\n\u201c[b]ecause a database object can be only a grossly simplistic element of the natural vocabulary,\n\nkeywords must shoulder the burden of representing naturalness.\u201d Id. at col. 6 ll. 28\u201331.\n\nTherefore, this approach requires a semantic model to predefine an impractically large number of\n\nkeywords to span the range of possible usages. 2 Id. at col. 6 ll. 28\u201334.\n\n         The \u2019798 Patent claims to offer an improved approach, paving the way for NLIs capable\n\nof generating all possible interpretations of a natural language query in a form suitable for\n\n\n\n\n2\n  Defendant\u2019s expert disputes the patent\u2019s assessment that the semantic-model-based approach leads to the exponential\ngrowth of keywords. (Dkt. No. 384-3, at 24). That dispute is immaterial to this decision.\n\n\n\n                                                         4\n\f     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 5 of 23\n\n\n\n\nevaluation while reducing the complexity and growth of keywords. Id. at col. 6 ll. 45\u201362. The\n\n\u2019798 Patent includes two independent claims\u2014Claims 1 and 9\u2014and nineteen dependent claims.\n\nId. at col. 36 l. 38 to col. 38 l. 37. The two independent claims are similar and each describe \u201c[a]\n\nmethod for processing a natural language input,\u201d though Claim 1 specifies that the input is\n\nprovided by a user and Claim 9 specifies that the method is computer-implemented. Id. at col. 36\n\nll. 38\u201339, col. 37 ll. 15\u201316. Claim 1 involves performing\u2014based only on the input and without\n\naugmentation\u2014a search of one or more language-based databases, including at least one\n\nmetadata database, and providing a result of the search to the user. Id. at col. 36 ll. 41\u201350. Claims\n\n1 and 9 require a metadata database comprised of four types of information: \u201ccase information,\u201d\n\n\u201ckeywords,\u201d \u201cinformation models,\u201d and \u201cdatabase values.\u201d Id. at col. 36 ll. 43\u201348, col. 37 ll. 22\u2013\n\n27. Claims 1 and 9 involve identifying a finite number of database objects and determining a\n\nplurality of combinations (Claim 1) or permutations (Claim 9) of the database objects. Id. at col.\n\n36 ll. 51\u201354, col. 37 ll. 18\u201327. And Claim 9 further involves interpreting at least one permutation\n\nto determine a result of the input. Id. at col. 37 ll. 28\u201329.\n\n        Claim 1 recites:\n\n         1. A method for processing a natural language input provided by a user, the method\n        comprising:\n               providing a natural language query input by the user;\n               performing, based on the input, without augmentation, a search of one or\n               more language-based databases including at least one metadata database\n               comprising at least one of a group of information types comprising:\n                       case information;\n                       keywords;\n                       information models; and\n                       database values;\n               providing, through a user interface, a result of the search to the user;\n               identifying, for the one or more language-based databases, a finite number\n               of database objects; and\n               determining a plurality of combinations of the finite number of database\n               objects.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   5\n\f     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 6 of 23\n\n\n\n\nId. at col. 36 ll. 38\u201354. Claim 9 recites:\n\n        9. A computer-implemented method for processing a natural language input\n        comprising:\n              receiving a natural language input;\n              providing from said natural language input a plurality of language-based\n              database objects;\n              identifying a finite number of permutations of the plurality of database\n              objects, the database objects being stored in a metadata database comprising\n              at least one of a group of information comprising\n                       case information,\n                       keywords,\n                       information models, and\n                       database values; and\n              interpreting at least one of the permutations to provide determination of a\n              result of the natural language input.\n\nId. at col. 37 ll. 15\u201329. The remaining claims are dependent claims based off Claim 1 or 9. See\n\nid. at col. 36 l. 38 to col. 38 l. 37.\n\n        B.       Procedural History\n\n        On May 8, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this suit alleging that certain of Defendant\u2019s products,\n\nincluding its Alexa Voice Service, infringe the \u2019798 Patent. (See generally Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiffs\n\ncontend that these products infringe \u201cat least Claim 1 . . . by at least employing a voice-based\n\ncommand system that allows the user to ask questions or provide commands for performing tasks\n\nusing speech.\u201d (Id. at 15).\n\n        On June 30, 2023, Defendant moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 384, at 1).\n\nDefendant argues that the \u2019798 Patent is invalid because it (1) recites subject matter not eligible\n\nfor patent protection under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101; and (2) fails to satisfy the written description and\n\nenablement requirements of \u00a7 112. (Dkt. No. 384-1, at 8). Defendant also argues that it is entitled\n\nto summary judgment on the basis of noninfringement. (Id. (\u201cEven if the Court were to find that\n\nthe patent satisfies both \u00a7 101 and \u00a7 112, Amazon would still be entitled to summary judgment\n\nbecause Plaintiffs cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding infringement.\u201d)). On\n\n\n\n                                                 6\n\f       Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 7 of 23\n\n\n\n\nJuly 1, 2023, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment as to Defendant\u2019s defenses and\n\ncounterclaims under \u00a7 101 and \u00a7 112. (Dkt. No. 390, at 1).\n\nIII.    STANDARD OF REVIEW\n\n        Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment may be granted only if\n\nall submissions taken together \u201cshow that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and\n\nthat the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477\n\nU.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247\u201348 (1986). A\n\nfact is material if it \u201cmight affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law\u201d and is\n\ngenuinely in dispute \u201cif the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the\n\nnonmoving party.\u201d Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d\n\n549, 553 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The moving party bears the initial\n\nburden of demonstrating \u201cthe absence of a genuine issue of material fact.\u201d Celotex, 477 U.S. at\n\n323. If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must \u201cset forth specific facts\n\nshowing that there is a genuine issue for trial.\u201d Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 250; see also Celotex,\n\n477 U.S. at 323\u201324; Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009).\n\n        \u201cWhen ruling on a summary judgment motion, the district court must construe the facts\n\nin the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all\n\nreasonable inferences against the movant.\u201d Dallas Aerospace, Inc. v. CIS Air Corp., 352 F.3d\n\n775, 780 (2d Cir. 2003). \u201cWhere . . . there are cross-motions for summary judgment, \u2018each\n\nparty\u2019s motion must be examined on its own merits, and in each case all reasonable inferences\n\nmust be drawn against the party whose motion is under consideration.\u2019\u201d Lumbermens, 628 F.3d\n\nat 51 (quoting Morales v. Quintel Ent. Inc., 249 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir. 2001)).\n\n\n\n\n                                                 7\n\f      Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 8 of 23\n\n\n\n\nIV.     ANALYSIS\n\n        A.       Motions for Summary Judgment as to Validity\n\n        A patent may be obtained for \u201cany new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or\n\ncomposition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof,\u201d 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101, but not for\n\nany law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.\n\nPrometheus Lab\u2019ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012). To determine whether a patent claims\n\nineligible subject matter, courts apply a two-step test. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int\u2019l, 573\n\nU.S. 208, 217 (2014). First, courts \u201cdetermine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of\n\nthose patent-ineligible concepts.\u201d Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). Then, if they are, courts\n\n\u201cconsider the elements of each claim both individually and \u2018as an ordered combination\u2019 to\n\ndetermine whether the additional elements \u2018transform the nature of the claim\u2019 into a patent-\n\neligible application.\u201d Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77\u201378).\n\n        Patent eligibility under \u00a7 101 is a question of law that may involve underlying questions\n\nof fact. PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2021). \u201cBut not\n\nevery \u00a7 101 determination contains genuine disputes over the underlying facts material to the \u00a7\n\n101 inquiry.\u201d Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). At the March 14,\n\n2024 hearing, Plaintiffs stated that in this case the Court can rely on the \u2019798 Patent and post-\n\nAlice caselaw and resolve Alice steps one and two as matters of law. The Court agrees. See, e.g.,\n\nMortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325\u201326 (Fed. Cir. 2016)\n\n(affirming grant of summary judgment that asserted claims recited patent-ineligible subject\n\nmatter where the district court relied only on the claims and specification of the patents-in-suit in\n\nmaking its validity determination). 3\n\n\n3\n The Court notes that in their motion for summary judgment Plaintiffs asked the Court to rule, as a matter of law,\nunder \u00a7 101, (Dkt. No. 390-1, at 6), but then, in response to Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment under \u00a7 101,\n\n\n                                                        8\n\f      Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 9 of 23\n\n\n\n\n                  1.       Alice Step One\n\n         To determine whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept\u2014relevant here, an\n\nabstract idea\u2014courts must examine \u201cwhat the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed\n\nadvance over the prior art.\u201d Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1356\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).\n\n\u201c[W]hile the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, . . . reliance on the\n\nspecification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus.\u201d Trinity Info\n\nMedia, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Charge-Point, Inc.\n\nv. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (first alteration in original)).\n\n         \u201cAt some level, all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature,\n\nnatural phenomena, or abstract ideas.\u201d Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quotation marks and citation\n\nomitted). Therefore, courts must \u201cavoid oversimplifying claims by looking at them generally and\n\nfailing to account for the specific requirements of the claims.\u201d McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco\n\nGames Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotes omitted). And because\n\nthe Supreme Court has not defined the \u201cprecise contours of the \u2018abstract ideas\u2019 category,\u201d Alice,\n\n573 U.S. at 221, courts \u201cexamine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature\n\ncan be seen\u2014what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided,\u201d Amdocs (Israel)\n\nLtd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Compare Elec. Power Grp.,\n\nLLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that claims were directed to\n\n\u201ccollecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and\n\nanalysis\u201d\u2014an abstract idea), with Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed.\n\n\n\nargued that the opinion of Plaintiffs\u2019 expert, Dr. Steven Shwartz, creates a genuine issue of material fact, (Dkt. No.\n407, at 38). As set forth below, the patent fails as a matter of law under \u00a7 101 and Dr. Shwartz\u2019s opinion does not raise\nany genuine issue over any underlying material fact.\n\n\n\n                                                           9\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 10 of 23\n\n\n\n\nCir. 2016) (finding that claims were directed to \u201ca specific type of data structure designed to\n\nimprove the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory\u201d\u2014not an abstract idea).\n\n       Defendant argues that the \u2019798 Patent claims are \u201cdirected to the abstract idea of\n\nanswering a question using four generic types of stored information.\u201d (Dkt. No. 384-1, at 22).\n\nPlaintiffs respond that the claims are in fact \u201cdirected to a specific technological solution to a\n\nconcrete problem within NLP.\u201d (Dkt. No. 407, at 16). While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that\n\nDefendant describes the patent \u201c\u2018at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the\n\nlanguage of the claims\u2019 in a way that \u2018all but ensures that the exceptions to \u00a7 101 swallow the\n\nrule,\u2019\u201d (id. at 17 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337)), the Court nevertheless concludes that the\n\n\u2019798 Patent claims are directed to an abstract idea: an approach for interpreting and responding\n\nto a natural language input by storing and searching certain types of information.\n\n       Claim 1 recites \u201c[a] method for processing a natural language input provided by a user.\u201d\n\n\u2019798 Patent, col. 36 ll. 38\u201341. The method entails \u201cperforming, based on [a natural language]\n\ninput, . . . a search of one or more language-based databases including at least one metadata\n\ndatabase comprising at least one of a group of information types comprising [four types of\n\ninformation].\u201d Id. at col. 36 ll. 41\u201348. From there, the method requires \u201cidentifying . . . database\n\nobjects,\u201d \u201cdetermining a plurality of combinations of the finite number of database objects,\u201d and\n\n\u201cproviding, through a user interface, a result of the search to the user.\u201d Id. at col. 36 ll. 49\u201354.\n\nClaim 9 recites a computer-implemented version of substantially the same method. See id. at col.\n\n37 ll. 15\u201329.\n\n       Where computer- and software-related claims are involved, Alice step one often turns on\n\n\u201cwhether the focus of the claims is on [a] specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities\n\n. . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an \u2018abstract idea\u2019 for which computers are invoked\n\n\n\n\n                                                  10\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 11 of 23\n\n\n\n\nmerely as a tool.\u201d Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335\u201336. Although Plaintiffs argue that \u201cthe \u2019798 Patent\n\nclaims are directed to a specific technological solution,\u201d (Dkt. No. 407, at 16), the claims\n\nthemselves suggest a broader focus.\n\n       Claim 1 requires the functional results of \u201cproviding\u201d an input, \u201cperforming . . . a\n\nsearch,\u201d \u201cidentifying . . . database objects,\u201d \u201cdetermining . . . a plurality of combinations,\u201d and\n\n\u201cproviding . . . a result,\u201d without adequately explaining in a non-abstract way how these results\n\nmight be achieved. \u2019798 Patent, col. 36 ll. 38\u201354. Claim 9 invokes the use of a computer but is\n\notherwise identical in this regard. See id. at col. 37 ll. 17\u201329. The focus of these claims,\n\ntherefore, is an improved approach to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information of a\n\nspecified content \u201cand not any particular assertedly inventive technology for [doing so].\u201d Elec.\n\nPower Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. This \u201cplaces [them] in the \u2018familiar class of claims \u201cdirected to\u201d\n\n[an abstract idea].\u2019\u201d Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1362 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at\n\n1353) (finding that claims reciting \u201ca poll-based networking system that connects users based on\n\nsimilarities as determined through poll answering and provides real-time results to the users\u201d\n\nwere directed to an abstract idea and not improvements to the functionality of a computer or\n\nnetwork platform); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353\u201354 (\u201c[W]e have treated\n\ncollecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its\n\ncharacter as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. . . . And we have recognized that\n\nmerely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,\n\nwithout more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary\n\npart of such collection and analysis.\u201d (citations omitted)); Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem.\n\nCo., 850 F.3d 1315, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (\u201cWe have previously held other patent claims\n\nineligible for reciting similar abstract concepts that merely collect, classify, or otherwise filter\n\n\n\n\n                                                  11\n\f     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 12 of 23\n\n\n\n\ndata.\u201d); Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1366 (noting that \u201cparsing, comparing, storing, and editing\n\ndata\u201d is an abstract idea); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167\u201368 (Fed. Cir.\n\n2018) (finding that claims directed to \u201cthe selection and mathematical analysis of information,\n\nfollowed by reporting or display of the results,\u201d were not focused on \u201cphysical-realm\n\nimprovements\u201d to computers as tools but on improvements to \u201cwholly abstract ideas\u201d).\n\n        The specification provides further evidence that the focus of the \u2019798 Patent claims is\n\nbroader than a specific technological solution\u2014and that \u201ccomputers are invoked merely as a\n\ntool.\u201d Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335\u201336. The specification explains that then-existing NLIs restricted\n\nthe syntax with which users could pose natural language queries and that then-existing NLP\n\nsystems \u201cha[d] not achieved the accuracy and reliability expected of them.\u201d \u2019798 Patent, col. 1 ll.\n\n66\u201367, col. 2 ll. 23\u201331. But the specification frames this problem in conceptual\u2014not\n\ntechnological\u2014terms, highlighting \u201c[a] handful of basic approaches\u201d and explaining the\n\nshortcomings of each. Id. at col. 5 l. 43 to col. 6 l. 34. In describing the claimed advance,\n\nmoreover, the specification emphasizes its own conceptual underpinnings. See, e.g., id. at col. 12\n\nll. 36\u201338 (\u201cCase-based reasoning adds to the search to achieve maximum naturalness with\n\nminimum enumeration.\u201d); id. at col. 14 ll. 20\u201322 (\u201cA learning mechanism allows richer\n\nkeywords and cases to provide more accurate performance.\u201d); id. at col. 16 ll. 60\u201365 (\u201cThe\n\nsystem uses cases to resolve ambiguity in the recognition of meaningful terms . . . in the input\n\nand to help determine the solution among multiple possible interpretations.\u201d). 4 And the\n\nspecification repeatedly notes that the claimed advance is not limited to a particular\n\ntechnological solution and does not require specialized computer components. See, e.g., id. at\n\n\n\n\n4\n At the Markman hearing, Plaintiffs similarly characterized the claimed advance as a \u201cparadigm shift.\u201d (Dkt. No. 162,\nat 21 \u00b6\u00b6 6\u201315).\n\n\n\n                                                        12\n\f     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 13 of 23\n\n\n\n\ncol. 9 ll. 56\u201357 (\u201c[T]he invention is not limited to any particular implementation.\u201d); id. at col. 9\n\nll. 58\u201364 (\u201c[T]he invention is not limited to a particular computer system platform, processor,\n\noperating system, or network . . . [and] the present invention is not limited to a specific\n\nprogramming language or computer system and that other appropriate programming languages\n\nand other appropriate computer systems could also be used.\u201d); id. at col. 36 ll. 29\u201336 (\u201c[T]he\n\nbreadth and scope of the present invention are not limited by any of the above exemplary\n\nembodiments\u201d); id. at col. 9 ll. 18\u201320 (\u201cComputer system [] may be a general purpose computer\n\nsystem.\u201d). 5 Therefore, the specification confirms what the claims suggest: the inventors\n\nconfronted an abstract problem, not one specific to computer technology.\n\n         In addition, \u201c[a] \u2018telltale sign of abstraction\u2019 is when the claimed functions are \u2018mental\n\nprocesses that \u201ccan be performed in the human mind\u201d or \u201cusing a pencil and paper.\u201d\u2019\u201d Trinity\n\nInfo Media, 72 F.4th at 1361\u201362 (quoting PersonalWeb Techs., 8 F.4th at 1316). And \u201cwith the\n\nexception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in [the \u2019798 Patent claims]\n\nthat forecloses [each step] from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.\u201d\n\nIntell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It matters not\n\nthat each step might be confined to a technological environment, Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367\n\n(\u201cLimiting the invention to a technological environment does \u2018not make an abstract concept any\n\nless abstract under step one.\u2019\u201d (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d\n\n1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017))), or performed more efficiently by a computer than a human,\n\nCustomedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020)\n\n(\u201c\u2018[C]laiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a\n\n\n\n5\n  The specification is consistent in this respect with the position Plaintiffs took at the Markman hearing, where they\nasserted that each step within an embodiment of the invention may be implemented \u201cusing a wide range of possible\nstrategies and algorithms.\u201d (Dkt. No. 162, at 21 \u00b6\u00b6 15\u201324).\n\n\n\n                                                         13\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 14 of 23\n\n\n\n\ncomputer\u2019 [is] insufficient to render the claims patent eligible as an improvement to computer\n\nfunctionality.\u201d (quoting Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2015))). \u201c[C]laims can be directed to an abstract idea even if [they] require generic\n\ncomputer components or require operations that a human could not perform as quickly as a\n\ncomputer.\u201d Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1364 (emphases added).\n\n       Plaintiffs point to claims deemed patent eligible in Enfish and Data Engine Technologies\n\nLLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1007\u201308 (Fed. Cir. 2018). But those claims are\n\ndistinguishable. There is no question that \u201csoftware can make non-abstract improvements to\n\ncomputer technology just as hardware improvements can.\u201d Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. But for a\n\nclaim to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer technology, its focus must be\n\nan improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. DDR Holdings,\n\nLLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257\u201359 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Enfish claims were\n\ndirected to a specific self-referential table for a computer database. 822 F.3d at 1336\u201339.\n\nSimilarly, the Data Engine claims were directed to a particular tool for navigating three-\n\ndimensional electronic spreadsheets. 906 F.3d at 1007\u201308. In both cases, the claims offered\n\nconcrete solutions to then-existing technological problems with \u201cthe specificity required to\n\ntransform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it.\u201d\n\nInvestPic, 898 F.3d at 1167 (describing Data Engine). By contrast, the \u2019798 Patent claims offer a\n\ngeneral approach, not a specific technological solution.\n\n       Finally, Defendant argues, (Dkt. No. 384-1, at 29\u201332), and the Court agrees, that Claim 1\n\nis representative of all \u2019798 Patent claims and that each claim is directed to the same abstract\n\nidea. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n, 776 F.3d\n\n1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that a detailed assessment of each claim is not always\n\n\n\n\n                                                 14\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 15 of 23\n\n\n\n\nnecessary where the asserted claims are \u201csubstantially similar and linked to the same abstract\n\nidea\u201d (quoting Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat\u2019l Ass\u2019n, No.\n\n12-2501, 2013 WL 3964909, at *5, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107184, at *16 (D.N.J. July 31,\n\n2013) (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612), aff\u2019d, 776 F.3d 1343)). Plaintiffs do not\n\naddress Defendant\u2019s argument in their briefing, see id. (noting a party\u2019s failure to argue against\n\nrepresentative claim contentions while affirming the district court\u2019s representative claim\n\ndetermination), and at the March 14, 2024 hearing identified only Claims 2, 5, and 6 as not\n\nrepresented by Claim 1. Having reviewed each of the claims, including Claims 2, 5, and 6, the\n\nCourt finds that none of the claims meaningfully shift the focus away from the underlying\n\nabstract idea. Some of the claims specify generic steps for analyzing information (e.g., Claims 2\n\nand 6). \u2019798 Patent, col. 36 ll. 54\u201356, col. 37 ll. 4\u20137. Some refer to desired results (e.g., Claims 5\n\nand 6). Id. at col. 37 ll. 1\u20137. And others require a technological environment (e.g., Claims 9 and\n\n12). Id. at col. 37 ll. 15\u201316, , col. 37 ll. 37\u201339. But limiting an abstract idea in these ways \u201cdoes\n\n\u2018not make [the idea] any less abstract under step one.\u2019\u201d Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367 (quoting\n\nCap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d at 1340).\n\n               2.      Alice Step Two\n\n       Because the \u2019798 Patent claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Court must proceed to\n\nstep two of the Alice inquiry and search for an inventive concept sufficient to transform the\n\nabstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573 U.S. at 222. The inventive concept may\n\narise in one or more of the claim elements or in their ordered combination but must in either case\n\nbe significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Id. at 217\u201318. Moreover, the inventive concept\n\nmust be evident in the claims themselves. Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc\u2019ns,\n\nLLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (\u201cThe main problem that Two-Way Media cannot\n\novercome is that the claim\u2014as opposed to something purportedly described in the\n\n\n                                                  15\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 16 of 23\n\n\n\n\nspecification\u2014is missing an inventive concept.\u201d (citing RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855\n\nF.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017))); see also Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1322 (\u201cThe district court\n\nerred in relying on technological details set forth in the patent\u2019s specification and not set forth in\n\nthe claims to find an inventive concept.\u201d).\n\n       Plaintiffs argue that \u201cthe \u2019798 Patent marries case-based reasoning with natural language\n\nprocessing (two distinct technologies at the time of the invention) in the novel combination\n\ndisclosed in the \u2019798 Patent\u2014cases, keywords, information models, and database values,\n\ncombined together in a metadata database.\u201d (Dkt. No. 407, at 30). According to Plaintiffs, this\n\n\u201cordered combination . . . provides an \u2018inventive concept\u2019 under BASCOM.\u201d Id. (citing BASCOM\n\nGlobal Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349\u201350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The\n\nCourt disagrees. The \u2019798 Patent claim elements\u2014considered individually and as an ordered\n\ncombination\u2014fail to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573\n\nU.S. at 222.\n\n       As the Court explained at step one, the \u2019798 Patent claims recite an approach to\n\ncollecting, analyzing, and displaying information and are therefore directed to an abstract idea.\n\nTrinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1362. To be sure, this approach is limited to the context of NLP.\n\nSee e.g., \u2019798 Patent, col. 36 l. 38 (\u201cA method for processing a natural language input\u201d). But\n\n\u201climiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . [does] not make [an abstract] concept\n\npatentable.\u201d Bilski, 561 U.S. at 612; see also Cap. One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d at 1340 (\u201c[Field of\n\nuse] limitations do not render an otherwise abstract concept any less abstract.\u201d).\n\n       Certain claim elements specify the information to be collected and analyzed. See, e.g.,\n\n\u2019798 Patent, col. 36 ll. 41\u201348 (\u201cinformation types comprising: case information; keywords;\n\ninformation models; and database values\u201d). But this information seems \u201cwell-understood,\n\n\n\n\n                                                  16\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 17 of 23\n\n\n\n\nroutine, [and] conventional.\u201d Alice, 573 U.S. at 225; see, e.g., \u2019798 Patent, col. 12 ll. 12\u201314\n\n(\u201c[I]nformation models are webs of concepts for enterprise databases.\u201d); id. at col. 11 ll. 48\u201351\n\n(Keywords are \u201csignificant words and phrases\u201d); id. at col. 30 ll. 27\u201328 (Database values refer to\n\n\u201cdatabase computational operators\u201d); Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-\n\ncv-549, 2022 WL 819231, at *7, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48998, at *22 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18,\n\n2022) (adopting the claim construction for \u201ccase information\u201d as \u201cinformation about prior\n\ninstances of use of the natural language processing method\u201d). And, in any event, \u201cmerely\n\nselecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing\n\nsignificant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion\n\nfrom \u00a7 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.\u201d Elec. Power Grp., 830\n\nF.3d at 1355; see also BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\n\n(\u201c[A]n improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement\n\nin the database\u2019s functionality.\u201d).\n\n       Other claim elements require computer implementation. See, e.g., \u2019798 Patent, col. 37 ll.\n\n15\u201316. But these elements do not call for specialized computer components. See, e.g., id. at\n\ncol. 9 ll. 18\u201320 (\u201cComputer system [] may be a general purpose computer system.\u201d). In fact, they\n\nadd nothing more than \u201cconventional computer and network components operating according to\n\ntheir ordinary functions.\u201d Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339. Databases and user interfaces, for\n\nexample, are generic. See Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324\u201325 (stating that the addition of\n\n\u201cgeneric computer components\u201d such as an \u201cinterface\u201d and \u201cdatabase\u201d do not \u201cmake an\n\notherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible\u201d); Cap. One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d at 1370 (\u201c[T]he\n\ninteractive interface limitation is a generic computer element.\u201d). And \u201c[t]he use of meta[data] . . .\n\n\n\n\n                                                 17\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 18 of 23\n\n\n\n\nis . . . [a] natural consequence of carrying out [an] abstract idea in a computing environment.\u201d\n\nErie, 850 F.3d at 1329.\n\n           Consequently, although individual claim elements narrow to some extent the scope of the\n\n\u2019798 Patent, they nevertheless fail to transform the underlying abstract idea into a patent-eligible\n\napplication. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223\u201324. (\u201c[W]holly generic computer implementation is not\n\ngenerally the sort of \u2018additional featur[e]\u2019 that provides any \u2018practical assurance that the process\n\nis more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.\u2019\u201d (quoting Mayo,\n\n566 U.S. at 77 (first and third alteration in original))); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d\n\n709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (\u201cAlthough certain additional limitations . . . add a degree of\n\nparticularity, the concept embodied by the majority of the limitations describes only the abstract\n\nidea.\u201d).\n\n           As an ordered combination, the \u2019798 Patent claim elements \u201cadd[] nothing . . . that is not\n\nalready present when [they] are considered separately.\u201d Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The elements are\n\nordered in a predictable manner for collecting, analyzing, and displaying information, meaning\n\nthey simply \u201cspell[] out what was inherent in the abstract idea itself[,] [which] is not an inventive\n\nconcept within the meaning of Mayo/Alice.\u201d Island Intell. Prop., LLC v. StoneCastle Asset\n\nMgmt. LLC, 463 F. Supp. 3d 490, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see also Fitbit Inc. v. AliphCom, No. 16-\n\ncv-118, 2017 WL 819235, at *17, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30721, at *54 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2017)\n\n(finding no inventive concept in the \u201cconventional order of how data is usually analyzed: data is\n\nfirst received, then processed, then compared against a condition, and the notification is triggered\n\nwhen the condition is met\u201d); Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339 (finding no inventive concept in\n\na \u201cclaim [that] uses a conventional ordering of steps\u2014first processing the data, then routing it,\n\n\n\n\n                                                   18\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 19 of 23\n\n\n\n\ncontrolling it, and monitoring its reception\u2014with conventional technology to achieve its desired\n\nresult\u201d).\n\n        Moreover, nothing in the ordered combination of claim elements \u201cpurport[s] to improve\n\nthe functioning of the computer itself.\u201d Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit\n\nupheld claims directed to the abstract idea of \u201cfiltering content on the internet\u201d because \u201cthe non-\n\nconventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces\u201d amounted to a\n\nspecific solution: a \u201cdiscrete implementation of the abstract idea.\u201d 827 F.3d at 1349\u201350. This\n\nspecificity\u2014\u201cthe installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users,\n\nwith customizable filtering features specific to each end user\u201d\u2014reassured the Federal Circuit that\n\nthe plaintiff was not attempting to \u201cpreempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet.\u201d Id. at\n\n1350. By contrast, the \u2019798 Patent claims are similarly directed to an abstract idea (an approach\n\nfor interpreting and responding to a natural language input by storing and searching certain types\n\nof information), but the claim elements offer no specific solution, in ordered combination or\n\notherwise. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (invalidating claims directed to the abstract\n\nidea of \u201cgathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results,\n\nand not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions\u201d).\n\n        Plaintiffs argue that the ordered combination disclosed in the \u2019798 Patent does solve a\n\nspecific technical challenge plaguing the prior art. (See Dkt. No. 407, at 33). But much of this\n\npurported solution lies in the use of case-based reasoning and, as an initial matter, it is not\n\naltogether clear that case-based reasoning is meaningfully reflected in the claims. The\n\nspecification states that \u201can NLI [] needs to be able to learn from its performance.\u201d \u2019798 Patent,\n\ncol. 5 ll. 27\u201331. And, citing the specification, Plaintiffs exalt a \u201clearning mechanism that allows\n\nricher keywords and cases to provide more accurate performance,\u201d (Dkt. No. 407, at 13 (quoting\n\n\n\n\n                                                  19\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 20 of 23\n\n\n\n\n\u2019798 Patent, col. 14 ll. 20\u201322)); an \u201cexemplary \u2018search and learn\u2019 system that can \u2018learn from the\n\nusers in a way that improves both effectiveness and efficiency,\u2019\u201d (id. at 12 (quoting \u2019798 Patent,\n\ncol. 6 ll. 35\u201339)). But the claims include only oblique references to \u201ccases\u201d and \u201ccase\n\ninformation\u201d as information to be searched or stored as part of an analysis. See e.g., \u2019798 Patent,\n\ncol. 36 l. 45; col. 38 l. 22). \u201cCase information\u201d is simply a type of information, specifically\n\n\u201cinformation about prior instances of use of the natural language processing method.\u201d\n\nRensselaer, 2022 WL 819231, at *7, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48998, at *22. And \u201cselecting\n\ninformation, by content or source,\u201d does not suffice under Alice. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at\n\n1355; see also EDPA, LLC v. Geopath, Inc., 543 F. Supp. 3d 4, 23 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (\u201c[T]he fact\n\nthat the data to be collected and analyzed is germane to a specific, narrowly defined problem\n\ncannot save the eligibility of the claims.\u201d).\n\n       Even assuming case-based reasoning is sufficiently reflected in the claims to warrant\n\nserious consideration, and assuming further that case-based reasoning was at the time of the\n\ninvention novel as applied to NLP, Plaintiffs characterize case-based reasoning as \u201ca problem-\n\nsolving methodology conceived in the 1970s that uses past experiences or cases to solve new\n\nproblems\u201d and that \u201cwas not analytically difficult for researchers to implement or practice.\u201d\n\n(Dkt. No. 407, at 11). Therefore, in \u201cmarrying case-based reasoning with natural language\n\nprocessing,\u201d the \u2019798 Patent claims at most transpose an existing method for collecting,\n\nanalyzing, and displaying information into the NLP context. Moreover, humans routinely engage\n\nin case-based reasoning of sorts when interpreting and responding to a natural language input,\n\nusing past experiences to solve new problems, meaning the application of case-based reasoning\n\nto NLP is not a solution \u201cnecessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a\n\n\n\n\n                                                 20\n\f     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 21 of 23\n\n\n\n\nproblem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.\u201d DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at\n\n1257.\n\n         \u201cIn sum, there is a critical difference between patenting a particular concrete solution to a\n\nproblem and attempting to patent the abstract idea of a solution to the problem in general.\u201d Elec.\n\nPower Grp., LLC v. Alstom, S.A., No. 1206365, 2015 WL 12720309, at *7, 2015 U.S. Dist.\n\nLEXIS 67232, at *21 (C.D. Cal. May 21, 2015), aff\u2019d, 830 F.3d 1350. In this instance, the\n\nproblem is how to interpret and respond to a natural language input by storing and searching\n\ncertain types of information. While certain concrete solutions to this problem might be\n\npatentable, the abstract idea of solving this problem is not. By its own terms, the \u2019798 Patent\n\noffers an approach, not a specific technological solution, and the \u2019798 Patent claim language is\n\n\u201cso result-focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution.\u201d Elec. Power Grp., 830\n\nF.3d at 1356. While certain claim elements narrow to some extent the scope of the patent, they\n\ndo not \u201censure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than\u201d the underlying\n\nabstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217\u201318; see also BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1352 (noting that\n\nFederal Circuit decisions have explained \u201cthat simply because some of the claims narrowed the\n\nscope of protection through additional \u2018conventional\u2019 steps for performing the abstract idea, they\n\ndid not make those claims any less abstract\u201d). The Court concludes that the \u2019798 Patent claims\n\ncontain no inventive concept and that the \u2019798 Patent is invalid for reciting subject matter not\n\neligible for patent protection under \u00a7 101. 6\n\n\n6\n  In their memorandum opposing Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs contend that \u201cDr. Shwartz\u2019s\nopinion creates a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the claimed ordered combination was non-\nconventional and non-generic.\u201d (Dkt. No. 407, at 38). The Court disagrees. The \u2019798 Patent claim elements offer no\nspecific solution to a technological challenge, in ordered combination or otherwise. This is true whether or not the\nordered combination was at the time of the invention non-conventional and non-generic. See, e.g., Mortg. Grader, 811\nF.3d at 1325\u201326 (observing that \u201c[t]he mere existence in the record of dueling expert testimony does not necessarily\nraise a genuine issue of material fact\u201d and affirming grant of summary judgment that asserted claims recited patent-\nineligible subject matter where the district court relied only on the claims and specification of the patents-in-suit in\nmaking its validity determination).\n\n\n\n                                                          21\n\f     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 22 of 23\n\n\n\n\n        On this basis, the Court denies Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment and grants\n\nDefendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Given this holding, the Court does not address the\n\nparties\u2019 motions for summary judgment as to enablement, written description, and infringement.\n\n        B.     Related Motions\n\n        The parties\u2019 related motions to strike or otherwise exclude testimony and statements of\n\nmaterial fact are also before the Court. (Dkt. Nos. 383, 386, 388, 390, 411). Two of these\n\nmotions seek to exclude the expert reports and testimony proffered by the parties\u2019 damages\n\nexperts, Dr. Devrim Ikizler and Mr. Jeffrey Kinrich, which are not relevant to the Court\u2019s \u00a7 101\n\nanalysis. (Dkt. Nos. 386, 388). Given the Court\u2019s finding of invalidity, damages do not need to\n\nbe addressed. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot.\n\n        The remaining motions seek to exclude testimony proffered by the parties\u2019 technical\n\nexperts, Dr. Steven Shwartz and Dr. James Allen, and to strike certain of Plaintiffs\u2019 responses to\n\nthe facts set forth in Defendant\u2019s statement of material facts and certain of Plaintiffs\u2019 additional\n\nmaterial facts in dispute. (Dkt. Nos. 383, 390, 411). The expert testimony at issue does not\n\nintroduce any genuine dispute of material fact from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude\n\nthat the \u2019798 Patent is valid under \u00a7 101. And the Court has relied only on the \u2019798 Patent\n\nclaims, its specification, and the post-Alice caselaw in reaching its validity determination.\n\nFinally, the Court has not relied on the testimony or statements of material fact that either party\n\nwishes to exclude in reaching its conclusion that the \u2019798 Patent is invalid for reciting subject\n\nmatter not eligible for patent protection under \u00a7 101. Therefore, these motions are also denied as\n\nmoot.\n\nV.      CONCLUSION\n\n        For these reasons, it is hereby\n\n        ORDERED that Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 390), is DENIED;\n\n\n                                                 22\n\f    Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD Document 443 Filed 03/18/24 Page 23 of 23\n\n\n\n\nand it is further\n\n          ORDERED that Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 384), is\n\nGRANTED and Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, (Dkt. No. 1), is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is\n\nfurther\n\n          ORDERED that the parties\u2019 related motions, (Dkt. Nos. 383, 386, 388, 390, 411), are\n\nDENIED as moot; and it is further\n\n          ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with\n\nthe Local Rules; and it is further\n\n          ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to close this case.\n\n          IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\nDated: March 18, 2024\n       Syracuse, New York\n\n\n\n\n                                                23\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2024-03-19T01:37:25.725072-07:00","document_number":"443","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506841946","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion for Summary Judgment AND Order on Motion to Strike AND Order on Motion to Strike","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-18T10:17:34.231642-07:00","date_modified":"2024-11-13T20:44:35.812783-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-18","time_filed":"13:07:55","entry_number":443,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":1473,"description":" MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No.  390 ), is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No.  384 ), is GRANTED and  Plaintiffs& #039; complaint, (Dkt. No.  1 ), is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that the parties' related motions, (Dkt. Nos.  383 ,  386 ,  388 ,  390 ,  411 ), are DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 3/18/2024.   (nmk)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/381424927/","id":381424927,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/389220949/","id":389220949,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/444/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-18T10:17:33.307659-07:00","date_modified":"2026-01-04T07:36:44.650252-08:00","sha1":"fa8d8834b6ae8828d83b1722a242ac5a98046842","page_count":2,"file_size":181794,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286.444.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286/gov.uscourts.nynd.114286.444.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"     Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD         Document 444       Filed 03/18/24    Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\n                             JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE\n\n\n\n\nRENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE and CF\nDYNAMIC ADVANCES LLC,\n                                                                  1:18-cv-549 (BKS/TWD)\n                                   Plaintiffs,\n\nv.\n\nAMAZON.COM, INC.,\n\n                                   Defendant.\n\n\n\nDecision by Court. This action came to a hearing before the Court. The issues have been heard\nand a decision has been rendered.\n\nIT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No.\n390), is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt.\nNo. 384), is GRANTED and Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, (Dkt. No. 1), is DISMISSED with prejudice,\nall in accordance with the Order of the Honorable Brenda K. Sannes issued March 18, 2024.\n\nDATED: March 18, 2024\n\n\n\n\n                                                  N. Eallonardo\n                                                  Deputy Clerk\n\f                Case 1:18-cv-00549-BKS-TWD                        Document 444             Filed 03/18/24          Page 2 of 2\n\nFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure\nRule 4. Appeal as of Right\n\n(a) Appeal in a Civil Case.\n\n1. (1) Time for Filing a Notice of Appeal.                                   of appeal\u2014in compliance with Rule 3(c)\u2014within the time prescribed\n(A) In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and    by this Rule measured from the entry of the order disposing of the last\n4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the         such remaining motion.\ndistrict clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order           (5) Motion for Extension of Time.\nappealed from.\n                                                                             (A) The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal\n(B) The notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after      if:\nentry of the judgment or order appealed from if one of the parties is:\n                                                                             (i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by\n(i) the United States;                                                       this Rule 4(a) expires; and\n(ii) a United States agency;\n(iii) a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity; or   (ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30\n(iv) a current or former United States officer or employee sued in an        days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party\nindividual capacity for an act or omission occurring in connection with      shows excusable neglect or good cause.\nduties performed on the United States' behalf \u2014 including all instances      (B) A motion filed before the expiration of the time prescribed in\nin which the United States represents that person when the judgment          Rule 4(a)(1) or (3) may be ex parte unless the court requires\nor order is entered or files the appeal for that person.                     otherwise. If the motion is filed after the expiration of the prescribed\n(C) An appeal from an order granting or denying an application for a         time, notice must be given to the other parties in accordance with\nwrit of error coram nobis is an appeal in a civil case for purposes of       local rules.\nRule 4(a).                                                                   (C) No extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after\n(2) Filing Before Entry of Judgment. A notice of appeal filed after the      the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting\ncourt announces a decision or order\u2014but before the entry of the              the motion is entered, whichever is later.\njudgment or order\u2014is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.    (6) Reopening the Time to File an Appeal. The district court may\n(3) Multiple Appeals. If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any      reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the date\nother party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date        when its order to reopen is entered, but only if all the following\nwhen the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed     conditions are satisfied:\nby this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later.                              (A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under\n(4) Effect of a Motion on a Notice of Appeal.                                Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77 (d) of the entry of the judgment\n                                                                             or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry;\n(A) If a party timely files in the district court any of the following\nmotions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the time to file an      (B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is\nappeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing of the     entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under\nlast such remaining motion:                                                  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77 (d) of the entry, whichever is\n                                                                             earlier; and\n(i) for judgment under Rule 50(b);\n                                                                             (C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.\n(ii) to amend or make additional factual findings under Rule 52(b),\nwhether or not granting the motion would alter the judgment;                 (7) Entry Defined.\n(iii) for attorney's fees under Rule 54 if the district court extends the    (A) A judgment or order is entered for purposes of this Rule 4(a):\ntime to appeal under Rule 58;                                                (i) if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (a) does not require a\n(iv) to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59;                           separate document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil\n                                                                             docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79 (a); or\n(v) for a new trial under Rule 59; or\n                                                                             (ii) if Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (a) requires a separate\n(vi) for relief under Rule 60 if the motion is filed no later than 28 days   document, when the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket\nafter the judgment is entered.                                               under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a) and when the earlier of\n(B)(i) If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or      these events occurs:\nenters a judgment\u2014but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule        \u2022 the judgment or order is set forth on a separate document, or\n4(a)(4)(A)\u2014the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or\norder, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such        \u2022 150 days have run from entry of the judgment or order in the civil\nremaining motion is entered.                                                 docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79 (a).\n(ii) A party intending to challenge an order disposing of any motion         (B) A failure to set forth a judgment or order on a separate document\nlisted in Rule 4(a)(4)(A), or a judgment's alteration or amendment           when required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 (a) does not\nupon such a motion, must file a notice of appeal, or an amended notice       affect the validity of an appeal from that judgment or order.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-12-31T06:04:52.345752-08:00","document_number":"444","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506841961","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-18T10:17:33.259319-07:00","date_modified":"2024-03-18T10:17:33.275129-07:00","date_filed":"2024-03-18","time_filed":"13:13:54","entry_number":444,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":1480,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/380541503/","id":380541503,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/388314184/","id":388314184,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/440/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-03-07T14:27:09.774227-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-07T14:27:09.781043-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"440","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506830730","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-07T14:27:09.736222-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-07T14:27:09.745820-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-07","time_filed":"16:27:08","entry_number":440,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":1447,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/380495754/","id":380495754,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/388267211/","id":388267211,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-03-07T10:25:22.682153-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-07T10:25:22.688681-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-07T10:25:22.660198-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-07T10:25:22.660214-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-07","time_filed":"12:58:39","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/380265589/","id":380265589,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/388031291/","id":388031291,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-03-05T11:21:25.265367-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-05T11:21:25.269264-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Letter Request","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-03-05T11:21:25.256256-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-05T11:21:25.256275-08:00","date_filed":"2024-03-05","time_filed":"13:22:59","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-03-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/379484186/","id":379484186,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/387202968/","id":387202968,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/437/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-02-26T12:21:29.907910-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T12:21:29.916437-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"437","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506817318","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter Request/Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-26T12:21:29.861760-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-26T12:21:29.869639-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-26","time_filed":"14:59:14","entry_number":437,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":1441,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/378303576/","id":378303576,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/385970543/","id":385970543,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2024-02-13T09:23:13.441251-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-13T09:23:13.452448-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-13T09:23:13.415031-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-13T09:23:13.415049-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-13","time_filed":"11:38:45","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/378101533/","id":378101533,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/385764536/","id":385764536,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/435/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2024-02-09T15:26:07.267161-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-09T15:26:07.270050-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"435","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"12506801148","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Withdraw as Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2024-02-09T15:26:07.256871-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-09T15:26:07.258908-08:00","date_filed":"2024-02-09","time_filed":"17:33:07","entry_number":435,"recap_sequence_number":"2024-02-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":1433,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/373755811/","id":373755811,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/381314609/","id":381314609,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-12-20T08:23:34.906431-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-20T08:23:34.917495-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-12-20T08:23:34.863199-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-20T08:23:34.863218-08:00","date_filed":"2023-12-20","time_filed":"10:21:45","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-12-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/373295682/","id":373295682,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/380845704/","id":380845704,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2023-12-14T13:27:09.163024-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-14T13:27:09.168020-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-12-14T13:27:09.149114-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-14T13:27:09.149130-08:00","date_filed":"2023-12-14","time_filed":"16:07:19","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-12-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/372687747/","id":372687747,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/6539117/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/380227980/","id":380227980,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/6539117/432/rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-v-amazoncom-inc/","date_created":"2023-12-07T15:46:46.787341-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-07T15:46:46.795399-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"432","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2023-12-07T15:46:46.774769-08:00","date_modified":"2023-12-07T15:46:46.778403-08:00","date_filed":"2023-12-07","time_filed":null,"entry_number":432,"recap_sequence_number":"2023-12-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"TEXT ORDER: In anticipation of the scheduling of a settlement conference in this matter, the Court ORDERS the following: Not later than December 20, 2023, the parties shall submit directly to Judge Peebles' chambers a short, concise statement setting forth the material facts of the case, together with an indication of which if any are disputed; providing a synopsis of the parties' respective legal positions concerning any issues presented in the case; and outlining any settlement discussions which have occurred. This can be done by emailing the Judge's Courtroom Deputy at Rose_Pieklik@nynd.uscourts.gov. That confidential statement, which shall not be filed with the court clerk and need not be served upon opposing counsel, should also include an assessment of the strength and weaknesses of the party's position in the case together with a candid indication of the party's settlement position and a brief description of any settlement negotiations that have occurred. The statement shall not exceed ten pages and should not include any attachments. If the parties refer to materials that are already on the docket, which are readily available to the Court, they are to reference the docket numbers in their statements. It is hereby SO ORDERED by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on December 7, 2023. (rep) (Entered: 12/07/2023)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=6539117&page_size=40"}