No Determination of Data Compression Patents’ Validity Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Prior to Claim Construction

The magistrate judge recommended denying without prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss the asserted claims of plaintiff’s data compression patents because claim construction had not occurred and defendant failed to establish that the claims were directed toward an abstract idea. "Defendants urge the Court to read the patents as to conclude that the data to be compressed is so simple that it can be performed mentally or with pencil and paper and that the output described within the patents requires no 'particular tangible form.'. . . The parties’ disagreements revolving around these claim terms indicate that claim construction is necessary. It would be improper for the Court to accept Defendants’ interpretation of the claim terms without determining how a person of ordinary skill in the art would do so. Further, an assessment of the claims at issue — by a careful reading of the claims themselves — does not clearly reveal that the patents are abstract, that they have 'no particular concrete or tangible form,' which further prevents the Court from summarily finding the claims to be abstract prior to claim construction."

Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. Actian Corporation et al, 6-15-cv-00463 (TXED November 30, 2015, Order) (Love, M.J.)