The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hochberg, District Judge:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Toys "R" Us, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6). The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and held oral argument on the motion on April 25, 2011.
Plaintiff Glory Licensing LLC brings this action alleging three counts of patent infringement. Glory is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,570,383 (the "'383 Patent"), 7,619,768 (the "'768 Patent"), and 7,672,007 (the "'007 Patent") (collectively, the "Glory Patents").*fn1
The Glory Patents protect a system for processing information from a template file to an application program using "content instructions" and "customizable transmission format instructions" on a programmed computer.
Glory alleges that the Toys "R" Us ("TRU") website -- which allows customers to input information into a template as part of the purchase process -- infringes the Glory Patents.
To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 'to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
I. THE VALIDITY OF THE GLORY PATENTS Section 101, Title 35 provides that "[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court has outlined "three specific exceptions to § 101's broad patent-eligibility principles: laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas." In re Bilski, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). "Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 is an issue of law." In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Here, Defendant argues that the Glory Patents are invalid because they claim abstract ideas.
A. The Machine or Transformation Test Courts have frequently relied on the "machine or transformation test," to determine whether a method claim is patentable under § 101.*fn2 Under this test, a process is patentable only if "'(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.'" In re Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3225-26 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 182 (1981)).
The Supreme Court has cautioned that this "is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible 'process,'" though it "is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool" for making ...