EMM Innovations v. Remind101: § 101 kills communication patent in 217 days
EMM Innovations LLC filed suit against education communication platform Remind101, asserting US10776756B2 covered communication platform products. The Central District of California dismissed the case with prejudice after finding the patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 — ending the dispute in under eight months.
Communication patent felled by § 101 before reaching merits
On November 19, 2024, EMM Innovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against Remind101, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The asserted patent — US10776756B2, filed under application number US14/149904 — covers communication platform technology, and EMM alleged that Remind101’s communication platform products infringed those claims. Remind101, defended by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, mounted a patent-eligibility challenge rather than contesting infringement on the merits.
On June 24, 2025, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint (FAC) with prejudice, ruling that the ‘756 Patent does not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dismissal with prejudice is a terminal disposition: EMM Innovations cannot refile the same claims against Remind101, and the patent’s enforceability in future actions may be materially undermined by this § 101 finding.
The case resolved in 217 days — a notably swift outcome consistent with courts disposing of § 101 challenges at the pleadings stage without full claim construction or discovery. What drove the court’s eligibility analysis — whether the claims were analogised to abstract ideas, and what the Alice step-two inquiry revealed — is not detailed in the public termination record but would carry significant weight for any future enforcement attempt by EMM Innovations.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 217 days
217 days — resolved faster than the median C.D. Cal. patent case at first instance
Dismissed with prejudice under § 101: what the ruling means for both parties
§ 101 dismissal with prejudice: a merits-equivalent termination
A dismissal with prejudice following a § 101 patent-eligibility ruling is not a procedural housekeeping step — it is a substantive finding that the asserted patent claims an abstract idea or other ineligible subject matter. The court concluded that the ‘756 Patent’s claims fail the Alice/Mayo framework, and the ‘with prejudice’ designation means EMM Innovations is barred from reasserting these specific claims against Remind101.
Final adjudication on eligibilityEMM Innovations loses enforcement rights — patent validity under cloud
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes EMM’s ability to re-sue Remind101 on US10776756B2. More broadly, a § 101 invalidity finding by a district court, while not formally binding on other courts, creates persuasive precedent that future defendants will cite. EMM’s litigation strategy with this patent against other targets is materially compromised. Whether EMM holds related continuation patents is not reflected in the public record.
Enforceability severely weakenedRemind101 achieves full dismissal without reaching infringement merits
Remind101 and Gibson Dunn secured a commercially optimal outcome: the case ended without any infringement finding, damages exposure, or injunction risk. By successfully challenging patent eligibility at the pleadings stage — before costly discovery — Remind101 avoided the expense and uncertainty of full litigation. The with-prejudice ruling also provides durable protection against any refiling by EMM on the same patent.
Full defence victory§ 101 remains a fast, effective shield for communication platform defendants
This outcome is consistent with a broader pattern of courts invalidating software-implemented communication patents under Alice at the pleadings stage. For companies operating in the education technology and communication platform sector, it suggests that early § 101 motions remain a viable and cost-efficient defence strategy. Patent holders asserting broadly-drafted communication technology claims face heightened risk of pre-discovery dismissal in the C.D. Cal.
EdTech / communication platform sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | EMM Innovations LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10776756B2, communication platform technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Remind101, Inc. | Company | Remind101, Inc. — provider of education-focused communication platform productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan L. Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for EMM Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven W. Ritcheson | Attorney | Counsel for EMM Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Travis Lynch | Attorney | Counsel for EMM Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Insight PLC | Law Firm | Representing EMM Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing EMM Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Hershkowitz | Attorney | Counsel for Remind101, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frank P. Cote | Attorney | Counsel for Remind101, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Isaac Margolin Rottman | Attorney | Counsel for Remind101, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason C. Lo | Attorney | Counsel for Remind101, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Remind101, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s ruling that the ‘756 Patent ‘does not claim patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101’ indicates that the claims failed the two-step Alice/Mayo framework — most likely characterised as directed to an abstract idea without a sufficiently inventive concept to transform them into patent-eligible subject matter. The dismissal of the FAC ‘with prejudice’ signals the court saw no amendment capable of curing the eligibility defect, a high bar that suggests the abstractness was fundamental to the claim structure rather than a drafting correctable flaw.
US10776756B2 — communication platform messaging and notification technology
US10776756B2, filed under application number US14/149904, protects inventions in the communication platform technology domain — specifically systems and methods relating to messaging and notification functionality deployed across platform products. The application’s filing date under the US14/149904 number situates the invention in an era of rapid mobile and cloud communication development. The patent’s claims, as construed by the Central District of California, were ultimately found to lack the inventive concept required to clear the § 101 eligibility threshold under the Alice/Mayo test.
Communication platform patents sit at a structurally exposed position in the patent landscape: the technology is commercially valuable, pervasively deployed across edtech, enterprise SaaS, and consumer messaging sectors, but the underlying concepts — routing, notifying, connecting users — are frequently characterised as abstract ideas by courts. The § 101 finding against US10776756B2 in this case is likely to be cited in future challenges to functionally similar patents. Any company operating a communication platform product that has received assertions referencing this patent family should treat this ruling as dispositive prior art on eligibility.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10776756B2?
If your company develops, licenses, or deploys communication platform products — including education technology messaging tools, enterprise notification systems, or SaaS communication infrastructure — US10776756B2 and related patents in the same family warrant FTO scrutiny. While this specific patent was found ineligible under § 101 in C.D. Cal., the ruling applies to EMM Innovations’ claims against Remind101 and does not constitute a formal USPTO cancellation. Related continuation patents may still be enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the US10776756B2 patent family, identify any live continuation or divisional applications sharing the US14/149904 priority chain, and flag claim language that survives § 101 scrutiny. R&D and product teams building communication platform features can use Eureka to scope design-around opportunities and assess whether adjacent claim sets pose residual infringement risk — before receiving a demand letter.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10776756B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar § 101 dismissals in communication platform patent litigation
Explore related patent infringement cases involving communication platform technology dismissed under § 101 in the Central District of California and comparable federal courts.
What this case signals for the communication platform IP landscape
A swift § 101 dismissal in C.D. Cal. carries lessons for both patent asserters and communication technology defendants.
Early § 101 motions continue to deliver full wins for platform defendants
Remind101’s success in obtaining a with-prejudice dismissal before discovery underscores that Alice-based pleadings challenges remain potent against broadly-drafted communication platform patents. Defendants in the edtech and SaaS communication space should assess § 101 eligibility before engaging in substantive claim construction.
A § 101 loss with prejudice is a serious reputational and litigation liability for PAEs
For patent assertion entities like EMM Innovations, a public district court finding of ineligibility weakens the patent’s value in any future licensing negotiation or enforcement campaign. Prospective licensees and defendants can now cite this ruling. PAEs holding similar communication-technology patents should audit their portfolios for § 101 exposure before filing.
EMM v Remind101 — key questions answered
The Central District of California ruled that US10776756B2 does not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applying the Alice/Mayo framework. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice on June 24, 2025, meaning EMM Innovations cannot refile the same claims against Remind101.
A with-prejudice dismissal following a § 101 ruling is a substantive finding of patent ineligibility, not a procedural dismissal. While it does not formally cancel the patent at the USPTO, it creates persuasive precedent that future defendants can cite. EMM Innovations’ ability to assert US10776756B2 against other parties is materially weakened, and licensing negotiations will be harder.
The case lasted 217 days, from filing on November 19, 2024 to dismissal on June 24, 2025. This is a relatively short duration consistent with § 101 challenges resolved at the pleadings stage, before claim construction or discovery, which typically compress case timelines significantly.
EMM Innovations was represented by Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC and Insight PLC, with attorneys Jonathan L. Hardt, Steven W. Ritcheson, and Travis Lynch. Remind101 was represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, with attorneys Benjamin Hershkowitz, Frank P. Cote, Isaac Margolin Rottman, and Jason C. Lo.
The ruling does not bind other courts, but it provides persuasive authority that defendants in future EMM Innovations actions involving US10776756B2 can use to support § 101 motions. Companies in the communication platform, edtech, and SaaS messaging sectors that have received demand letters referencing this patent should consult IP counsel and consider whether a similar eligibility challenge is viable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.