05-31-2017 – And IPT loses its patents to boot. Ouch.

The Court DECLARES that Defendant IPT, LLC d/b/a Paylock’s (“Paylock”) U.S. Patent No. 7,988,046 entitled “Vehicle Violation Enforcement System and Method” and U.S. Patent No. 7,950,570 entitled “Parking Environment Management System and Method” are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SP PLUS CORPORATION     CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-2474

VERSUS     JUDGE FELDMAN

IPT, LLC, d/b/a PAYLOCK     MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WILKINSON, JR.

JUDGMENT

Upon notice duly given, Plaintiff SP Plus Corporation’s (“SP Plus”) and Third Party

Defendant Professional Account Management, LLC’s (“PAM”) Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) [Rec. Docs. 62, 67] came on for hearing before this Court without oral argument on May 17, 2017. After due consideration of the memoranda of the parties, and for reasons set forth in this Court’s Order and Reasons dated May 19, 2017 [Rec. Doc. 88];

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of Plaintiff SP Plus and Third Party Defendant PAM, and against Defendant IPT, LLC, d/b/a Paylock (“Paylock”), as follows:

1. Plaintiff SP Plus and Third Party Defendant PAM’s motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) [Rec. Docs. 62, 67] are

   GRANTED;

2. The Court DECLARES that Defendant IPT, LLC d/b/a Paylock’s (“Paylock”) U.S. Patent No. 7,988,046 entitled “Vehicle Violation Enforcement System and Method” and U.S. Patent No. 7,950,570 entitled “Parking Environment Management System

1

and Method” are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter;

1. SP Plus’s claim for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that SP Plus does not infringe upon U.S. Patent Nos. 7,988,046 and 7,950,570 [Rec. Doc. 1] is MOOT and therefore is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
2. Paylock’s Counterclaims against SP Plus and Third Party Demand against PAM [Rec.

   Doc. 46] are MOOT and therefore are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of _________ 2017. 31st    May

– 2 –

Respectfully submitted,

PHELPS DUNBAR LLP

BY: /s/ Christopher K. Ralston      Christopher K. Ralston, (Bar #26706)

Lindsay Calhoun, (Bar #35070)

Arthur R. Kraatz, (Bar #35194)

Canal Place | 365 Canal Street, Suite 2000

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6534

Telephone: 504-566-1311

Facsimile: 504-568-9130 Email: ralstonc@phelps.com lindsay.calhoun@phelps.com arthur.kraatz@phelps.com

ATTORNEYS FOR SP PLUS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on this 26th day of May, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing pleading with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to all participating counsel of record.

/s/ Christopher K. Ralston

– 3 –