Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage Intacct, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HANTZ SOFTWARE, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SAGE INTACCT, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2022-1390
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 4:21-cv-01987-HSG,
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
______________________
Decided: March 20, 2023
______________________
L EWIS EMERY HUDNELL , III, Hudnell Law Group PC,
Mountain View, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
ROBERT C OURTNEY , Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneap-
olis, MN, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented
by L AUREN A NN D EGNAN, L AURA E. P OWELL , Washington,
DC.
______________________
Case: 22-1390 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 03/20/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

HANTZ SOFTWARE, LLC v. SAGE INTACCT , INC. 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, P ROST and HUGHES , Circuit
Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
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 as-
serted patent. Sage moved to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the
complaint asserted patent-ineligible claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Hantz opposed and also moved for leave
to file a second amended complaint. The district court
(1) concluded that the asserted patents are ineligible under
§ 101 and, on that basis, dismissed the operative com-
plaint; (2) denied Hantz leave to file a second amended
complaint; and (3) entered final judgment. Hantz appeals.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
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 com-
plaint.
Hantz maintains—and Sage agrees—that the district
court’s ineligibility judgment extended to all claims of the
asserted patents, not just claims 1 and 31–33. According
to Hantz, any ineligibility judgment should apply to only
claims 1 and 31–33 of the asserted patents because Hantz’s
operative complaint asserted infringement of only those
claims. We agree. Although Hantz’s operative complaint
alleged that Sage infringed “one or more claims” of each
asserted patent, it also stated that Sage’s infringement was
“detailed in Exhibit C” to the complaint—an exhibit that
supplied infringement claim charts for only claims 1 and
31–33 of the asserted patents. E.g., J.A. 263 ¶ 62; J.A. 265
¶ 71; see J.A. 390–421 (Ex. C). And, to the extent any lack
Case: 22-1390 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 03/20/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

HANTZ SOFTWARE, LLC v. SAGE INTACCT , INC. 3
of clarity persisted as to the specific claims the operative
complaint was and wasn’t asserting, Hantz dispelled it at
the district court’s hearing on Sage’s motion to dismiss,
where Hantz confirmed: “The only claims before the [dis-
trict] court are the independent claims [i.e., claims 1 and
31–33] that are set forth in the [first] amended complaint.
No dependent claims were asserted in the [first amended]
complaint and therefore [they] aren’t before the court.”
J.A. 574–75 (capitalization normalized).
Because, in view of the foregoing, we agree that the op-
erative 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 dis-
trict 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.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1390 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 03/20/2023

-- 3 of 3 --