IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D. Cal.: British nanocoating technology supplier’s infringement claims against competitor dismissed, (Jun 23, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The asserted plasma deposition patent failed both steps of the Alice test under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

A federal district court in California granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Favored Tech USA Corporation and its co-defendants, invalidating P2i Ltd.’s plasma deposition patent on the grounds that it was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applying the two-step framework articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the court determined that the patent merely sought to scale up a known plasma deposition process for mass production and did not introduce any patent-eligible technological advance. The court also terminated P2i’s pending motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which would have dropped the second asserted patent and narrowed the suit (P2I Ltd. v. Favored Tech USA Corp., No. 3:23-cv-01690-AMO (N.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff, P2i Ltd., a UK-based company specializing in hydrophobic nanocoatings for consumer electronics, filed suit against defendants Favored Tech USA Corporation, Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd., and GN Audio USA, Inc., alleging infringement of two patents related to plasma deposition technology and misappropriation of trade secrets. The parties are commercial competitors in the plasma-based coatings industry.

P2i’s asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,389,070 (the ’070 patent) is titled “Coating of a Polymer Layer Using Low Power Pulsed Plasma in a Plasma Chamber of a Large Volume” and discloses a method for depositing polymeric coatings using pulsed plasma in a chamber with a volume of at least 0.5 m3;.

P2i filed the action in 2023 asserting infringement of both the ’070 and U.S. Patent No. 11,041,087. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the ’070 patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Separately, P2i moved to amend its complaint to eliminate the ’087 patent from the suit.

Abstract idea. At step one of the Alice framework, the court found that the '070 patent was directed to the abstract idea of mass production. The court noted that plasma deposition itself was not novel and that the patent merely described how to perform the known technique in a larger chamber. Citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the court held that applying an abstract idea to a particular technological context does not make the idea patentable. The court also cited Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017), distinguishing P2i’s claims from cases where new and useful techniques were found eligible.

Inventive concept. Turning to step two, the court concluded that the patent lacked an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Although P2i pointed to specific limitations in the claims, such as low power pulsed fields and a broad range of power densities, the court found these were routine and disclosed in prior art references, including Badyal, NASA, Winther-Jensen, and Christensen. Citing Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and TLI Commc’ns LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court emphasized that reciting generic components and conventional steps does not satisfy the inventive concept requirement.

The court also dismissed P2i’s reliance on a USPTO Notice of Allowance and a favorable IPR outcome (IPR2020-00478), holding that novelty under Sections 102 or 103 does not imply patent eligibility under Section 101. Citing SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and MyMail, Ltd. v. OoVoo, LLC, 613 F. Supp. 3d 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2020), the court reiterated that the Section 101 inquiry is separate and distinct.

Factual disputes. P2i argued that factual questions about whether the claim limitations were routine or conventional should preclude judgment at the pleadings stage. The court rejected this, relying on PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and noting that P2i failed to identify any specific factual allegations demonstrating inventiveness. It also cited Receivership Est. of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 22-CV-04756-EJD, 2024 WL 1975473 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2024), where similar conclusory claims of inventiveness were rejected.

Conclusion. Finding that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked any inventive concept, the court held the ’070 patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The judgment disposed of P2i’s claim for infringement of the ’070 patent. The court also terminated P2i’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, with leave to refile after a meet-and-confer. The remaining claim construction hearings and deadlines were vacated.

The Case is No. 3:23-cv-01690-AMO.

Judge: Olguín, A.

Attorneys: Scott Matthew Lowry (Lowry Blixseth APC) for P21 Ltd. Patrick John McKeever (Perkins Coie LLP) for Favored Tech USA Corp., Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd., and GN Audio USA, Inc.

Companies: P21 Ltd.; Favored Tech USA Corp.; Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd.; GN Audio USA, Inc.

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews