This morning the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming-in-part and vacating-in-part a judgment of the Northern District of California in a patent case. Here is the introduction to the opinion.
Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage Intacct, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Hantz Software, LLC (“Hantz”) sued Sage Intacct, Inc. (“Sage”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Sage infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,055,559 and 8,055,560 (the “asserted patents”). Hantz’s first amended complaint (the operative complaint) alleged that Sage infringed claims 1 and 31–33 of each asserted patent. . . . The district court (1) concluded that the asserted patents are ineligible under § 101 and, on that basis, dismissed the operative complaint; (2) denied Hantz leave to file a second amended complaint; and (3) entered final judgment. Hantz appeals. . . .
We affirm the district court’s decisions holding claims 1 and 31–33 of the asserted patents ineligible under § 101 and denying Hantz leave to file a second amended complaint. . . . Because, in view of the foregoing, we agree that the operative complaint asserted infringement of only claims 1 and 31–33 of each asserted patent, and because Sage did not file any counterclaim of its own (instead, it simply moved to dismiss Hantz’s complaint), we conclude that the ineligibility judgment should apply to only claims 1 and 31–33 of the asserted patents. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment insofar as it held any claim other than claims 1 and 31–33 of each asserted patent ineligible and affirm in all other respects.