Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 02CV2060-B (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.

GATEWAY, INC. and GATEWAY

COUNTRY STORES LLC, GATEWAY

COMPANIES, INC., GATEWAY

MANUFACTURING LLC and

COWABUNGA ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Defendants and Counter-claimants,

and

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Intervenor and Counter-claimant,

_____________________________________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Defendant and Counter-claimant

_____________________________________

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Civil No: 02CV2060-B(CAB)

consolidated with

Civil No: 03CV0699-B (CAB) and

Civil No: 03CV1108-B (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND

DENYING-IN-PART MICROSOFT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OF NO INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 5,347,295

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1260 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

I. INTRODUCTION

Microsoft moves the Court for summary judgment of no indirect infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 5,347,295 (“the ‘295 patent”). On March 2, 2007, the Court heard and

granted Dell’s motion for summary adjudication that its Axim® line of PDAs does not

infringe. Microsoft, accused by Lucent of indirectly infringing the ‘295 patent, joined

Dell’s motion and its motion was granted to the extent of Dell’s judgment only. In the

instant motion, Microsoft moves the Court for summary judgment that there is no indirect

infringement as it pertains to all th remaining accused devices. For the reasons herein, the

Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART the motion.

II. BACKGROUND

 Lucent has accused Defendant Microsoft of indirectly infringing the ‘295 patent by

making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing Windows Mobile and Pocket PC

operating software (“Windows Mobile OS”) included in the accused personal digital

assistants (PDAs) and Windows XP Tablet PC Edition operating system (“Windows Tablet

OS”) included in the accused Tablet PCs.

The ‘295 patent is directed to a notebook computer that is controlled by a stylus. 

Using the stylus, the user can enter commands. The computer and stylus contain

complementary circuitry to detect proximity with, contact and movement of the stylus on

the computer screen The claims at issue in the ‘295 patent are apparatus claims drafted in

mean-plus-function language. At the March 2, 2007 hearing, the Court found that “the first

detecting means” excluded devices that contain a front mounted digitizer; these devices did

not perform the identical function to the first detecting means because the stylus did not

come into contact with the screen. The Court found that since there was no direct

infringement of Dell’s Axim® line of PDAs which contain a front mounted digitizer, there

could be no indirect infringement by Microsoft with respect to these devices. 

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1260 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

III. DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF LAW

Summary judgment is appropriate if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (West 2006). A dispute about a material fact is

genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In

considering the motion, the court must examine all the evidence in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party and “all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 257 (1986). 

When the moving party does not bear the burden of proof, summary judgment is

warranted by demonstration of an absence of facts to support the non-moving party’s case.” 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Summary judgment must be granted if

the party responding to the motion fails “to make a sufficient showing on an essential

element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Id. at 323.

B. Analysis 

1. Contributory Infringement

Under 35 U.S.C 217(c), contributory infringement requires a showing that the

defendant sold or offered to sell or imported into the United States a component of a

patented invention that constitutes a material part of the invention, knowing it to be

especially made or especially adapted an infringing use and that the component is not a

staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 

On the element of substantial noninfringing use, it is the plaintiff’s burden to make a

prima facie showing that there is no substantial non-infringing use, which the defendant

must then rebut. Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., 438 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed.

Cir. 2006). The question focuses on “the thing sold” by the one accused of contributing to

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1260 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

infringement. Hodosh v. Block Drug Co., Inc., 833 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see

also Aquatex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1380 n.** (Fed. Cir.

2005) (noting that the proper question for contributory infringement was whether

defendant’s product as sold was a staple article, not whether the product contained

components that themselves could have other noninfringing uses).

Here, Microsoft contends that Lucent has failed to provide any evidence that there

are no substantial noninfringing uses of the components Microsoft sells. The accused

components fall into two classes. The first class, Windows Mobile OS is used in PDAs and

can be used in PDAs with either front or rear mounted digitizers. The Court found that the

front mounted digitizers do not infringe the claims of the ‘295 patent. Thus, the PDAs

containing front mounting digitizers constitute a substantial noninfringing use of Windows

Mobile OS. Therefore, as to Windows Mobile OS, there is no contributory infringement by

Microsoft; Microsoft’s motion for no contributory infringement is GRANTED as to

Windows Mobile OS.

The second class of accused component is the Windows Tablet OS. As to this

software, the parties’ evidence is conflicting as to whether there is no substantial

noninfringing use of this software or whether the software is adapted and sold especially

for use in the accused devices. A genuine issue of material fact thus exists which precludes

summary judgment. Microsoft’s motion for no contributory infringement is DENIED as to

the Windows Tablet OS. 

2. Inducing Infringement

Proof of inducing infringement requires the establishment of a high level of specific

intent. Plaintiff must establish that the defendant “actively and knowingly aided and

abetted” another to directly infringe the patent. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471

F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Mere “knowledge of the acts alleged to constitute

infringement is not enough. . . mere knowledge of possible infringement by others does not

amount to inducement.” Id. This high standard breaks down into four elements that must

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1260 Filed 03/21/07 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

be proven:

(1) an act of direct infringement;

(2) the defendant knowingly induced infringement with the intent to encourage

the infringement;

(3) the defendant must have intended to cause the acts that constitute the direct

infringement; 

(4) the defendant must have known or should have known that its action would

cause the direct infringement.

As the Court concluded with respect to Dell’s motion, since there is no direct

infringement by Dell’s Axim® line of PDAs, there is no inducement of infringement with

respect to these devices. Therefore, with respect to Dell’s Axim® line of PDAs, the Court 

GRANTS Microsoft’s motion.

With respect to the remaining accused devices, Microsoft argues that Lucent has

failed to provide any evidence that Microsoft encouraged anyone to use its operating

systems with a rear mounted digitizer or that Microsoft had the required specific intent for

inducing infringement. In response, Lucent offers evidence of encouragement by

Microsoft for developers and vendors to incorporate its software and evidence of specific

assistance by Microsoft for the use of the software with the accused devices. Additionally,

according to Lucent, Microsoft was aware of the ‘295 patent at least as of January 13, 2003

and yet continued these actions. 

Lucent’s evidence demonstrates more than mere knowledge of another’s acts, it

supports Lucent’s theory that Microsoft actively encouraged those acts. Moreover, coupled

with Microsoft’s knowledge of the ‘295 patent, this leads to an inference that Microsoft

possessed the requisite intent. While it is by no means definitive proof, it is sufficient

under the standard here, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving

party, to raise a genuine issue of material fact and preclude summary judgment. 

Microsoft’s motion on this ground is therefore DENIED.

//

//

//

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1260 Filed 03/21/07 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein, the Court rules on Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment

of no indirect infringement of the ‘295 patent as follows:

No Contributory Infringement by Microsoft:

As to Windows Mobile OS GRANTED

As to the Windows Tablet OS DENIED

No Inducing Infringement by Microsoft:

As to Dell’s Axim® line of PDAs GRANTED

As to all other accused devices DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: March 21, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1260 Filed 03/21/07 Page 6 of 6