On March 30, 2016, the District of New Jersey in Garfum.com v. Reflections by Ruth, 14-5919 also assessed 285 sanctions against the same plaintiff’s counsel as eDekka for similar conduct – in fact quoting from Judge Gilstrap’s opinion in eDekka. The timing of the resolution of the case is also interesting. That case dealt with one remaining defendant as opposed to over two dozen in eDekka, and was filed seven months earlier than eDekka, and the fees motion was filed four months earlier than eDekka. The 285 award was made over three months later than eDekka. Thus the resolution that took 18 months for a case initially filed against three defendants before a judge who had 35 patent cases filed in 2014 (which is when Garfum was filed) took only nine months in a case initially filed against 101 defendants before a judge who had 988 patent cases filed in 2014 (and 1,686 the next year, which is when eDekka was filed and the motion to dismiss heard, granted, and briefing on 285 sanctions filed). Interesting.
The finding in eDekka was also cited in another recent EDTX grant of a 101 motion, which found that the asserted claims were similarly directed to the abstract idea of gathering and labeling information, and that like eDekka, the claim limitations were insufficient to demonstrate that the claims amounted to more than patents on abstract ideas.