Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01523/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01523-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Film.ED 

l:Y2~ 

CLEflK 

L-~~~----:~~~ \;:~~ u1~: i !·~1C I COURT 

SOUTHEHN DIS I ff," Or CALIFORNIA 

BY DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

11 AUDATEX NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.: 3:13-cv-01523-BEN-BLM 

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL 

17 Plaintiff Audatex North America, Inc. ("Audatex") and Mitchell International, Inc. 

18 ("Mitchell"), are competitors in the insurance estimation and loss valuation industry. On 

19 February 6, 2012, Audatex commenced this suit asserting patent infringement involving 

20 computerized systems for automobile insurance claim analysis. (Doc. No. 1.) Audatex 

21 alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,912,740 B2 ("the '740 Patent"), claiming an 

22 invention entitled "System and Method for Processing Work Products for Vehicles via 

23 the World Wide Web." (Id. at 2-4.) 

24 On August 13, 2012, Audatex filed a First Amended Complaint adding a claim 

25 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,200,513 B2 ("the '513 Patent"). (Doc. No. 12 

26 at 4-6.) Thereafter, on April 23, 2014, Audatex filed its "Supplemented First Amended 

27 Complaint for Patent Infringement" ("Supplemented F AC"), the operative pleading in 

28 this case, adding a third claim alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,468,038 B2 

3: 13-cv-01523-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:13-cv-01523-BEN-BLM Document 220 Filed 05/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 ("the '038 Patent"). (Doc. No. 57 at 8-10.) In its Supplemented FAC, Audatex alleges 

2 that Mitchell infringes Audatex's '740, '513, and '038 patents by "making, using, selling 

3 and/or offering for sale" infringing products, "including Mitchell's 'Work Center' 

4 software and related services." (Id. at 4, 7, 9.) 

5 On February 19, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") issued its final 

6 decisions with respect to the three patents-in-suit. The PTAB determined that every 

7 claim in all three patent's was unpatentable under section 101, including claims 1-29 of 

8 the '740patent,claims 1-31 ofthe '513 patent and claims 1-31 ofthe '038patent. (Doc. 

9 No. 207, Ex. A at 23; Ex.Bat 22; Ex.Cat 23.) Additionally, the PTAB determined 

10 every claim in all three patent's was unpatentable under sections 102 and 103, including 

11 claims 1-29ofthe '740patent,claims 1-31 of '513patentandclaims 1-31 ofthe '038 

12 patent. (Id., Ex. A at 33; Ex.Bat 32; Ex. Cat 33.) 

13 Audatex sought appellate review of the PTAB's decisions on April 22, 2016. The 

14 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Circuit Court") issued its final 

15 Opinion and Judgment affirming in full the PT AB' s decisions with respect to the '7 40 

16 patent and '038 patents. Audatex declined to appeal to the Federal Circuit the prior final 

17 decision of the PT AB invalidating the '513 patent. 

18 On October 10, 2017, this Court Ordered Audatex to show cause why this case 

19 should not be dismissed. (Doc. No. 218.) Audatex responded on October 23, 2017, 

20 declaring that the Covered Business Method ("CBM") review of the patents was not final 

21 as Audatex had just petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the 

22 judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Doc. No. 219 at 

23 1.) The Supreme denied Audatex's petition for certiorari on April 30, 2018. 

24 Based on the decision of the PTAB, the Opinion and Judgment of the Circuit 

25 Court, and in accordance with the Supreme Courts denial of review, Audatex's '740, 

26 '513, and '038 patents are now invalid in their entirety. See e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., 

27 LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2143 (2016) ("[A] decision to cancel a patent [in an IPR] 

28 normally has the same effect as a district court's determination of a patent's invalidity. 

2 

3: 13-cv-01523-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:13-cv-01523-BEN-BLM Document 220 Filed 05/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 Therefore, this Court declines to proceed on Audatex's claims for patent infringement as 

2 each was deemed unenforceable and judgment is entered for defendant. See e.g., Game 

3 & Tech. Co. Ltd. v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 2:16-cv-06499-MLH (SKx) (C.D. Cal. 

4 Mar. 28, 2018). 

5 Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action with prejudice. 

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

7 ,,.. 

8 Date: May ~018 z 

9 U ited States District Judge 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

3: 13-cv-01523-BEN-BLM 

Case 3:13-cv-01523-BEN-BLM Document 220 Filed 05/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3