Kaavo, Inc. v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, No. 14-cv-1192 (Burke, M.J.) (D. Del. Feb. 05, 2016)
8,271,974 | Entitled, “Cloud Computing Lifecycle Management for N-tier Applications.”
Magistrate judge recommended dismissing some claims due to unpatentable subject matter; denied motion as to remaining claims due to the need to further develop the record.
Methods, devices, and systems for management of a cloud computing environment for use by a software application.
The Court determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of setting up and managing a computing environment. In addressing patentee’s arguments that managing a cloud computing environment cannot be considered a longstanding business practice because cloud computing is new, the court held that it is the underlying conduct that must be considered, not the particular environment in which the conduct will occur. The court held that independent claim 1 was not directed to specific computer requirements, despite patentee’s insistence that references to “cloud environment” and “N-tier computing environment” implied the need for specific computing devices. Patentee argued strongly on the topic of lack of preemption because the claims did not monopolize the abstract idea of cloud computing and do not unduly preempt alternative was of managing such an environment, but the court ultimately found these arguments unavailing. Accordingly, the court found independent claim 1 directed to patent ineligible subject matter. After considering the remaining claims, the court recommended that claims 1, 12, 13, 24, and 35 should be dismissed as directed at patent ineligible subject matter.
As to the remaining claims, the court found that the record was not sufficient clear to come to a conclusion as to the patentability of those claims and recommended denying the motion as to those claims.