Verna IP Holdings LLC v. Pocketstop LLC

Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
VERNA IP HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
POCKETSTOP, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-2408-L-BW
ORDER
On December 22, 2025, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 29) was filed, recommending that the court deny
without prejudice Defendant Pocketstop, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim (“Motion”) (Doc. 18) and grant Defendant leave to file a motion for
summary judgment after the close of fact discovery, and with the benefit of expert reports. No
objections to the Report have been filed, and the 14-day period to object after service of the Report
has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Magistrate Judge Brian McKay determined that this case is not one “where it is appropriate
to resolve the § 101 eligibility of the asserted patent at the Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss stage.”
Report at 11-12. The court agrees.
In making his determination, Magistrate Judge McKay applied the two step Alice test. See
Report (citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)). First, Magistrate Judge
McKay found the patent at issue to fall within the patent eligible subject-matter of 35 U.S.C. §
101. Id. at 12. Regarding the second step, he found that the court’s analysis “would benefit from a
robust factual record developed through the discovery process” and such a determination at this
Case 3:24-cv-02408-L-BW Document 33 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 2
stage would be premature. Id. at 13-14. “Delaying the patent eligibility inquiry would allow the
[court] to spend more time with the ‘932 patent, developing a more complete understanding of the
nuances of its claimed process through claim construction, the discovery process, and the filing of
subsequent motions.” Id. at 16. Magistrate Judge McKay concluded that proper claim construction
is needed so that this action is not prematurely disposed of in a motion to dismiss and, “as pleaded,
factual allegations remain sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss. But ATAC should be granted
leave to file a motion for summary judgment after the close of fact discovery and with the benefit
of expert reports.” Id. at 18. The court agrees.
After considering the pleadings, file, record, Report, and applicable law, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies without prejudice Defendant’s Motion and
grants Defendant leave to file a motion for summary judgment after the close of fact discovery,
and with the benefit of expert reports.
It is so ordered this 25th day of March, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-02408-L-BW Document 33 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>