RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, Calif. — In the latest turn of events in ongoing legal battle between Finance Express, DealerTrack and RouteOne, the companies involved announced that the judge ruled this week that one of DealerTrack's patents involved in the dispute is invalid, meaning that the case will be dismissed.

The legal battle kicked off after discussions of a potential business arrangement between DealerTrack, RouteOne and Finance Express went sour several years ago.

After the deal fell through, DealerTrack apparently began exploring legal proceedings as it contended that despite differences in applications, both RouteOne and Finance Express were infringing on its patents and asked the court system for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.

Both RouteOne and Finance Express officials asserted their business models were not infringing on any patents owned by DealerTrack, and in response to DealerTrack's allegations these companies filed countersuits.

More specifically, the essence of the battle revolved around three patents related to DealerTrack's computer-assisted credit application analysis and decision routing systems, including the methods used by these systems.

Of the three patents covered in dispute, only one patent remained in contention, RouteOne highlighted.

DealerTrack is not completely out of legal options yet, though. The company indicated that it intends to appeal the judge's decision.

Basically, Judge Andrew Guilford, of the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, found that DealerTrack's ‘427 patent actually covers unpatentable subject matter (based on an earlier Bilski case decision). The judge also said that the company has not produced any evidence that Finance Express infringed upon ‘841 patent.

Therefore the judge found in favor of the motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

"We did not infringe. We have invalidated DealerTrack's patents," noted David Huber, of Finance Express.

Meanwhile, DealerTrack also issued a statement, with Mark O'Neil, chairman and chief executive officer, saying, "It's important to note that not one claim of any DealerTrack patent has been held invalid based on prior art, so if we are able to have the District Court's opinion reversed on appeal or obtain new claims in the patent office, DealerTrack will still have patents protecting its core business.

"We remain firmly committed to protecting our intellectual property rights and pursuing all possible avenues of appeal," he added.

The company also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari for the Bilski case, which the judge's decision revolving the unpatentable subject matter was based upon. This basically means that the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to uphold the Bilski standard when the judges' new term begins this fall.

DealerTrack also indicated that it has pending patent applications in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that it claimed would not be impacted by the Bilski decision.

For its part, RouteOne also issued a statement, saying that of the three patents DealerTrack has alleged RouteOne and Finance Express infringed upon, only one remained in dispute.

And on Wednesday of this week, the judge decided in favor of invalidating the last patent. RouteOne contends that this will bring an end to the five and a half years of litigation between the parties.

"We are very pleased but not surprised about the resolution in this case," said Mike Jurecki, RouteOne's CEO. "We remain steadfast in our original position announced in January 2004, that we did not, nor have we ever infringed any valid patent owned by DealerTrack.

"The court, through its rulings, has confirmed RouteOne's position in its summary judgments dismissing the case and rendering two DealerTrack patents invalid and holding the third non-infringed by RouteOne," he continued. "We are highly confident that we will continue to prevail on any future court action on the matter."

DealerTrack acknowledged the judge's decision and appears to have its hopes set on an appeal, especially if the Supreme Court decides not to uphold the Bilski standard.