Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Local Interest, LLC v. PetSmart LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00256 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2026)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:25-cv-00256, Dkt. No. 56
Decided
February 20, 2026
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 31 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings for Failure to State a Claim filed by PetSmart LLC. (Motion(s)31 terminated)
Length
8 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant PetSmart LLC (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 31). In the Motion, Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings that the First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) fails to state a claim for patent infringement. (Id. at 1). Specifically, Defendant argues that the patents-in-suit claim patent ineligible subject matter. ( Id.). Plaintiff Local Interest, LLC (“Plaintiff”) opposes the Motion. (See Dkt. No. 35).