Microstrategy Incorporated v. Apttus Corporation, No. 3:2015cv00021 - Document 24 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 07/17/2015. (ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Microstrategy Incorporated v. Apttus Corporation Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MICROSTRATEGY INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 3:15-cv-21 -JAG APTTUS CORPORATION, Defendant. OPINION MicroStrategy brought suit against Apttus claiming infringement on three of MicroStrategy's patents. Based upon 35 U.S.C. 101,' the Court finds that the patents at issue claim patent-ineligible subject matter. The three patents are directed at the abstract ideas of report generation and data storage. Looking to the claims themselves, the Court finds nothing to transform these abstract ideas into patent-eligible subject matter under the Supreme Court's Alice decision. Consequently, the Court will GRANT the defendant's motion. I. Background MicroStrategy is a worldwide provider of enterprise software platforms for business intelligence and analytics, including mobile applications, offered in the cloud and on business' premises. MicroStrategy owns the three patents at issue, patents '798, '577, and '303.^ Apttus Corporation provides business intelligence systems including software, web based services, and ' Apttus also argues the complaint should be dismissed because MicroStrategy fails to state a claim under the Twombly and Iqbal pleading standards. Although the Court need not reach the issue, the Court notes the plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Twombly and Iqbal. If the case had proceeded, the Court would have granted the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. See Macronix International Co., v. Sponsion Inc., 4 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Va. 2014). ^These patents are continuations ofpatents originally filed in 2001. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
