Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00669/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00669-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

- 1 - 08cv669

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DR SYSTEMS, INC., a California

Corporation,

Plaintiff / Counterclaim-Defendant,

CASE NO. 08-CV-669-H (BLM)

ORDER 

(1) DENYING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT MOTIONS; 

(2) GRANTING PARTIAL

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;

AND

(3) DENYING MOTIONS TO

STRIKE

vs.

EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, a New

Jersey Corporation,

Defendant / Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

Before the Court are Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant DR Systems, Inc.’s (“DR

Systems”) motions for summary judgment and partial summary judgment, and motions to

strike. 

On September 21, 2009, DR Systems filed its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. (Doc. No. 148.) Kodak filed its response in opposition on October 9, 2009.

(Doc. No. 168.) On October 19, 2009, DR Systems filed its reply. (Doc. No. 182.) On

September 21, 2009, DR Systems filed its motion for summary judgment of a finding of

invalidity of the '811 patent as indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112. (Doc. No. 147.) Kodak

filed its response in opposition on October 9, 2009. (Doc. No. 166.) On October 19, 2009, DR

Systems filed its reply. (Doc. No. 183.) On September 21, 2009, DR Systems filed its motion

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 1 of 23
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 - 08cv669

for summary judgment of a finding of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,414,811 pursuant to 35

U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. (Doc. No. 151.) Kodak filed its response in opposition on October

9, 2009. (Doc. No. 171.) On October 19, 2009, DR Systems filed its reply. (Doc. No. 185.)

On the same day, DR Systems also filed its objections to and motion to strike Richard F.

Ferraro’s declaration in opposition to DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity

under §§ 102 and 103. (Doc. No. 186.) On September 21, 2009, DR Systems filed its motion

for partial summary judgment of no willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,414,811. (Doc.

No. 146.) On October 9, 2009, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Eastman Kodak

Company (“Kodak”) filed its response in opposition. (Doc. No. 164.) On October 19, 2009,

DR Systems filed its reply. (Doc. No. 184.) On September 21, 2009, DR Systems filed its

motion to strike the expert report and deposition testimony of Jeffrey M. Silverman, M.D.

(Doc. No. 149.) Kodak filed its response in opposition on October 9, 2009. (Doc. No. 161.)

The Court held a hearing on the matter on October 26, 2009. Frederick Laney and

Joseph Culig of Niro Scavone Haller & Niro, and Allison Goddard of Jaczko Goddard

appeared on behalf of DR Systems. Stephen Hankins and Paul Previde of Schiff Hardin LLP

appeared on behalf of Kodak. After the hearing, the Court issued a scheduling order setting

deadlines for Kodak to file its opposition to DR Systems’ motion to strike the Ferraro

declaration, and for DR Systems to file its reply. (Doc. No. 189.) On October 28, 2009,

Kodak filed its opposition to DR Systems’ motion to strike the Ferraro declaration. (Doc. No.

195.) On October 30, 2009, DR Systems filed its reply in support of its motion to strike the

Ferraro declaration. (Doc. No. 197.) 

 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES DR Systems’ motions for summary

judgment, GRANTS DR Systems’ motion for partial summary judgment, and DENIES DR

Systems’ motions to strike.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 2 of 23
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 - 08cv669

Background

The ‘811 patent was filed on February 25, 1994 and issued on May 9, 1995. (‘811

patent.) It is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Controlling Rapid Display of Multiple

Images from a Digital Image Database” and claims a technology that decreases the time

necessary for an electronic display device to sequentially display images in a database and

allows for multiple images to be displayed and manipulated simultaneously. Claims 1, 10, 15,

16, 17, 18 and 20 in the ‘811 patent are independent claims, each containing limitations

referring to “image memories.” (‘811 patent.) Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 19 ultimately depend

from the above-listed independent claims. 

Defendant Eastman Kodak is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,414,811 (“the ‘811

patent”) by assignment. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10; Ex. A [‘811 Patent].) DR Systems first became

aware of Kodak’s ‘811 patent in October of 2007, when Kodak sent a letter to Dr. Reicher and

Messrs. Porritt and Zuckerman of DR Systems. (Doc. No. 145 at 6.)

DR Systems commenced this action on April 14, 2008 by filing a complaint for

declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 5,414,811. (Doc.

No. 1.) Kodak filed its answer and a counterclaim for patent infringement against DR Systems

on May 7, 2008. (Doc. No. 9.) Kodak identified Dr. Jeffrey Silverman (“Dr. Silverman”) and

Mr. Richard F. Ferraro (“Mr. Ferraro”) as experts on the issues of patent validity and

infringement. 

On January 8, 2009 and February 18, 2009, the Court conducted a claim construction

hearing in this matter for the ‘811 patent. The Court issued a claim construction order on May

22, 2009. (Doc. No. 85.) The matter is set for trial on February 5, 2010. 

DR Systems has moved for partial summary judgment of no willful infringement,

summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘811 patent as indefinite, invalidity because of

anticipation and obviousness, and non-infringement. DR Systems moved to strike Dr.

Silverman’s expert report and deposition testimony. Kodak opposes the motions. Kodak

relies on the October 9, 2009 declaration of Mr. Ferraro, (Doc. No. 172), to oppose DR

Systems’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 3 of 23
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 - 08cv669

(Doc. No. 171.) In its reply, DR Systems moves to strike the October 9, 2009 declaration of

Mr. Ferraro. (Doc. No. 186.)

Kodak’s response in opposition to DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment of

invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 asks the Court to grant summary judgment in

Kodak’s favor that the Chang patent does not anticipate any Claim of the ‘811 patent. 

I. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure if the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and

entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

A fact is material when, under the governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of

the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Freeman v. Arpaio, 125

F.3d 732, 735 (9th Cir.1997). A dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict

for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. 

A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden of establishing the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The moving party can

satisfy this burden in two ways: (1) by presenting evidence that negates an essential element

of the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to

establish an essential element of the nonmoving party's case on which the nonmoving party

bears the burden of proving at trial. Id. at 322-23. “Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary

facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec.

Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Once the moving party establishes the

absence of genuine issues of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth

facts showing that a genuine issue of disputed fact remains. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. The

nonmoving party cannot oppose a properly supported summary judgment motion by “rest[ing]

on mere allegations or denials of his pleadings.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. 

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must view all inferences drawn

from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec.

Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court does not make

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 4 of 23
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 - 08cv669

credibility determinations with respect to evidence offered. See T.W. Elec., 809 F.2d at

630-31 (citing Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587). Summary judgment is therefore not appropriate

“where contradictory inferences may reasonably be drawn from undisputed evidentiary

facts....” Hollingsworth Solderless Terminal Co. v. Turley, 622 F.2d 1324, 1335 (9th Cir.

1980).

II. Discussion

A. Non-Infringement

Literal infringement of a claim is established when it is determined that “every

limitation in the claim is literally met by the accused device.” Kahn v. General Motors Corp.,

135 F.3d 1472, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1998). An accused device “that does not literally infringe upon

the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is

‘equivalence’ between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed

elements of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520

U.S. 17, 17 (1997). “In determining whether there has been infringement, a two step analysis

is required. First, the claims must be correctly construed to determine the scope of the claims.

Second, the claims must be compared to the accused device.” Kahn, 135 F.3d at 1476. In a

motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, “[t]he movant bears the burden of

demonstrating absence of all genuine issues of material fact, the district court must view the

evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in its

favor, and must resolve all doubt over factual issues in favor of the party opposing summary

judgment.” SRI Int’l. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus,

to prevail against DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment, Kodak needs to show that a

genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the accused device infringes one or more

Claims of the ‘811 patent. Id. 

DR Systems alleges that it is entitled summary judgment of non-infringement because

Kodak cannot prove that the accused products meet every limitation of the claims of the ‘811

patent. (Doc. No. 148, Attach 1 at 4.) Specifically, DR Systems argues that Kodak cannot

establish that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether DR Systems’ products have the

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 5 of 23
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 - 08cv669

following claim limitations: (1) image memories, (2) allocating or displaying, or (3)

manipulating select images at the same time. (Id.) 

1. Image Memories

DR first argues that summary judgment of non-infringement is warranted because

Kodak cannot prove that DR Systems’ products have “image memories” as the Court has

construed that term. (Doc. No. 148, Attach. 1 at 4.) The Court construed “image memories”

as “[m]emory devices each capable of storing one image.” (Doc. No. 85 at 6.) Independent

Claims 1, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 in the ‘811 patent each contain limitations referring to

“image memories.” (‘811 patent.) Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-14, and 19 ultimately depend

from these independent claims. Therefore, all claims in the ‘811 patent contain the “image

memories” limitation. 

In opposition to the motion, Kodak presented screen shots of the accused DR Systems’

products, pointing out the words “image memory” in DR Systems’ software. (Doc. No. 168

at 5.) Kodak’s expert, Richard F. Ferraro, concluded that the accused DR Systems’ products

have image memories as construed by the Court. Mr. Ferraro observed the operation of the

accused DR Systems products and analyzed the DR Systems source code to determine

whether the accused products use image memories. (Decl. of Richard F. Ferraro in Opp. of

DR Systems’ Mot. for Summ. J. of Non-Infringement (“Ferraro Decl.”) at ¶ 18.) As a result

of his analysis, Ferraro concluded that the accused products operate by reading image data

from image files, and loading that image data “from one and only one image” into each image

memory. (Ferraro Decl. ¶ 22.) Ferraro also opined that “[u]nique, dedicated, separate and

distinct memory that stores the image data for one and only image is the ‘image memory’

recited in the asserted 20 claims.” (Id. ¶ 23.) 

Viewing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, the Court concludes that a

triable issue exists as to whether DR Systems’ accused products have “image memories” and

therefore infringe on all of the claims in the ‘811 patent. 

///

///

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 6 of 23
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

- 7 - 08cv669

2. Allocate or Display

DR next argues that summary judgment of non-infringement is warranted because DR

Systems’ products cannot be found to infringe Claims 1, 15, or 16 for two additional reasons:

(1) the image memories are not assigned to respective screen sections; and (2) the image data

that is displayed is not the same image data that is loaded into the system memory. (Doc. No.

148, Attach 1 at 18.) Claims 1, 15, and 16 of the ‘811 patent include allocating and displaying

limitations. (‘811 patent.) Specifically, the Court has construed the term “allocating at least

two image memories containing image data to at least two sections of the screen respectively”

in Claims 1, 15 and 16 as “assigning image memories to respective screen sections.” (Doc.

No. 85 at 6.) The Court has construed the term “displaying the image data from the at least

two image memories on the respective screen sections” in Claim 1 as “displaying the image

data contained in the image memories on the screen sections to which the image memories are

assigned.” (Id.) Claims 15 and 16 contain similar displaying limitations. (Id. at 17, 19.)

Dependent Claims 2-9, ultimately depend from independent Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 1-9,

15, and 16 contain the allocating and displaying limitations. 

In its opposition, Kodak presents screen shots of the accused products that appear to

show image data being assigned and displayed on respective sections of the accused product’s

screen. (Doc. No. 168 at 11.) Kodak states that DR Systems’ products infringe because

“multiple images are read from individual files, their image data is loaded into one image

memory for each image, the images are assigned to screen sections, and then the images are

displayed in their respective sections.” (Id.) Furthermore, Kodak states that the source code

in the accused DR Systems’ products contains a “DisplayImage” function that “that makes it

clear that the software is assigning a screen section to an image and then displaying that image

in the screen section.” (Id. at 12.) 

Viewing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, the Court concludes that a

triable issue exists as to whether DR Systems’ accused products perform the allocating and

displaying limitations of Claims 1-9, 15, and 16 of the ‘811 patent.

///

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 7 of 23
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

- 8 - 08cv669

3. Manipulating Select Images at the Same Time 

Finally, DR Systems argues that summary judgment is appropriate because DR

Systems’ products do not apply the same manipulation to each selected image at the same time.

(Doc. No. 148, Attach 1 at 22.) Claims 1, 15, and 16 of the ‘811 patent include the limitation

“manipulating each of the selected images responsive to a single user command so that each

selected image is manipulated in the same way at the same time.” (‘811 patent.) The Court

construed this term to mean “manipulating each of the selected images so that the same

manipulation is applied to each selected image at the same time without need for another user

command.” (Doc. No. 85 at 7.) Dependent Claims 2-9, ultimately depend from independent

Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 1-9, 15, and 16 contain the manipulation of images at the same

time limitation. 

In its opposition, Kodak provides excerpts from the accused products’ User Guide that

refers to “simultaneous” manipulation of images. (Doc. No. 168 at 21-22.) For example, the

guide describes product features such as “Magnifying Portions of Adjacent Images

Simultaneously” and as “Roaming [aka panning] Adjacent Images Simultaneously.” (Id. at

22.) Kodak also states that the source code for the accused product shows that manipulation

for selected images begins at the same time, ends at the same time, and some instructions are

executed once for all selected images. (Id. at 17.) Viewing all inferences in favor of the

nonmoving party, the Court concludes that a triable issue exists as to whether DR Systems’

accused products perform the manipulation of images at the same time limitation of Claims 1-

9, 15, and 16 of the ‘811 patent.

For the reasons discussed above, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the

infringement of all claims in the ‘811 patent. Accordingly, the Court DENIES DR Systems’

motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. 

B. Invalidity for Indefiniteness

DR Systems next moves the Court to find Claims 10-14 and 17-19 of the ‘811 patent

invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 2 and 6. (Doc. No. 147.) To prevail on its

motion for summary judgment, DR Systems must prove, by clear and convincing evidence,

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 8 of 23
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

- 9 - 08cv669

that the specification in the '811 patent lacks adequate disclosure of structure to be understood

by one skilled in the art as able to perform the recited functions. Intel Corp. v. VIA

Technologies, Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Issued patents are presumed valid,

and “therefore the evidence to show invalidity must be clear and convincing.” Med.

Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1220 (Fed. Cir.2003).

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, a patent “shall conclude with one or more claims particularly

pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his

invention.” A claim expressed in means-plus-function language “shall be construed to cover

the corresponding structure. . . described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35

U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. A means-plus-function claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 if the

patent specification does not adequately disclose structure to perform the claimed function.

In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). 

In cases involving computer-implemented inventions, “the structure disclosed in the

specification [is required to] be more than simply a general purpose computer or

microprocessor.” Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,

1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “[T]he corresponding structure for a § 112 ¶ 6 claim for a

computer-implemented function is the algorithm disclosed in the specification.” Harris Corp.

v. Ericsson Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[A]lgorithms in the specification need

only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to

one of ordinary skill in the art.” AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504

F.3d 1236, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2007.) The sufficiency of structure disclosure is assessed from the

viewpoint of one skilled in the art. Id. at1240. Therefore, a means-plus-function claim is

indefinite only “if a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to recognize the

structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim.”

Id. at 1241. 

DR Systems argues that Kodak’s patent is invalid as indefinite under Aristocrat

Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008), because

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 9 of 23
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

- 10 - 08cv669

the ‘811 patent does not disclose adequate structure. (Doc. No. 147 at 8.) Specifically, DR

Systems argues that Kodak’s proposed structure is nothing more than a restatement of the

function as recited in the claims. In other words, according to DR Systems, the recited

structure simply describes the outcome, rather than the means for achieving that outcome. In

Aristocrat, the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment that claims directed to a

computerized game of chance requiring a “game control means” were invalid for being

indefinite where as structure for performing the required functions the specification only

disclosed a microprocessor with “appropriate programming,” but did not disclose any

algorithms specifically programmed into the microprocessor to carry out the functions. 521

F.3d at 1333-34. In short, under Aristrocrat, the structure must disclose more than a general

purpose computer with “appropriate programming.”

Following Aristocrat, the Federal Circuit affirmed an invalidity finding for failing to

disclose adequate corresponding structure in Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d

1323, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and in Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371,

1382-86 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In Finisar, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that

claims reciting a “database editing means ... for generating a hierarchically arranged set of

indices ... and for embedding said indices in said information database” were invalid for

indefiniteness. The Circuit Court reasoned that the specification failed to disclose sufficient

corresponding structure for the means-plus-function where it only disclosed that software

performed the recited functions, and did not disclose the algorithms implemented by the

software:

The ‘505 patent discloses very little about the purported structure corresponding

to this claim term. For instance, column 6, lines 37-40, of the ‘505 patent recites

that “software 132 (executed by CPU 130) generates a hierarchical set of indices

referencing all the data in the information database 112 and embeds those

indices in the information database.”

Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the trial court that the disclosed

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 10 of 23
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

- 11 - 08cv669

structure provided “nothing more than a restatement of the function, as recited in the claim.”

Id. (quoting Markman Order, 416 F. Supp. 2d 512, 519 (E.D. Tex. 2006)). 

In Blackboard, the claims at issue had a limitation reciting “means for assigning a level

of access to and control of each data file ...” Id. at 1382. The patent owner argued before the

trial court that “access control manager” represented the corresponding structure: “We suggest

that the corresponding structure for [the function of assigning a level of access to and control

of each data file] is the access control manager.” Id. at 1383. The corresponding structure

described as “access control manager” performed the functions of the assigning means:

Access control manager 151 creates an access control list (ACL) for one

or more subsystems in response to a request from a subsystem to have its

resources protected through adherence to an ACL. Education support system

100 provides multiple levels of access restrictions to enable different types of

users to effectively interact with the system (e.g. access web pages, upload or

download files, view grade information) while preserving confidentiality of

information. 

Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1382. The Federal Circuit noted that “the ‘access control manager’

is simply an abstraction that describes the function of controlling access to course materials,

which is performed by some undefined component of the system. The ACM is essentially a

black box that performs a recited function. But how it does so is left undisclosed.” Id. at 1383.

Other courts applying Aristocrat have found that means-plus-function claims lack

sufficient structure where the proposed structure merely references a computer, or a computer

database. See Simplification LLC v. Block Financial Corp., 593 F. Supp. 2d 700, 716-18 (D.

Del. 2009) (finding that the claim lacked sufficient disclosure of structure as required for

definiteness of patent where the disclosed corresponding structure for claims directed to an

electronic tax preparation program was “a data processing system comprising a general

purpose computer programmed with code segments to operate the general purpose computer”);

Keithley v. Homestore.com, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 2d 978, 993-95 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (granting

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 11 of 23
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

- 12 - 08cv669

summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness where the specification merely described

the presence of a database and a server computer, and the functions the two components

performed).

Unlike the patent owner in Aristocrat, in this case Kodak agrees that an algorithm is

required. Furthermore, unlike in Finisar and Blackboard, the algorithm in the ‘811 patent

contains more than “a restatement of the function, as recited in the claim.” Finisar, 523 F.3d

at 1340. Claim 10 of the ‘811 patent contains a means-plus-function clause:

control means responsive to the particular read command for reading the

selected image data file and storing the corresponding image data in one of the

image memories for subsequent display on the display device, wherein said

control means is further responsive to said particular read command for reading

one or more image data files sequentially adjacent to the selected image data file

and storing the corresponding one or more sequentially adjacent digitized image

data in one or more of the remaining image memories without displaying said

sequentially adjacent data files until said subsequent user command is registered.

(‘811 patent, col. 15:3-15.) Kodak’s patent, as construed by the Court, discloses the following

step-by-step process for implementing the control means function:

(1) images are arranged in numerical order, such as the order in which the

images appeared on film, or an order determined by the user and stored in an

electrically erasable memory (8:48-58), 

(2) responsive to a read command, data for a first image is read, 

(3) image data for a first image is stored in a first image memory, 

(4) the first image is displayed, 

(5) data for a second sequentially adjacent image is read, 

(6) image data for the second image is stored in a second image memory, and 

(7) responsive to a subsequent user command, the second image is accessed from the

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 12 of 23
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

- 13 - 08cv669

second image memory. (2:54-64)

(Doc. No. 85 at 13-14.) Kodak contends that the step-by-step process is an algorithm that

supplies sufficient structure for the control means limitation. Kodak points out that its

algorithm is not a mere restatement of the desired outcome, but a step-by-step protocol for

achieving the claimed function. Thus, it appears that the structure provided by the ‘811 patent

exceeds the inadequate disclosures of the patents at issue in Finisar and Blackboard. 

Additionally, Kodak’s expert, Mr. Ferraro, opined that:

The algorithms that processors or microcontrollers use to perform the reading,

loading, and arranging functions of the various “control means” claimed in the

‘811 Patent are the software equivalent of specific off-the-shelf parts. There are

any number of commercially available software routines that perform these

functions when executed on a processor and would have been known to, and

immediately recognized by, any person of ordinary skill in the art.

(Doc. No. 170, Ex. E ¶ 18.) Viewing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, the Court

concludes that a triable issue exists as to whether Kodak’s patent discloses an algorithm which

a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to correspond to the control means

function. Accordingly, the Court DENIES DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment of a

finding of invalidity of the '811 patent as indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112. 

C. Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103

DR Systems moves for summary judgment of invalidity of Kodak’s ‘811 patent on the

grounds that the ‘811 patent is anticipated and rendered obvious by prior art reference U.S.

Patent No. 5,027,110 (issued on June, 25, 1991 to Christina Chang, et al.) (“Chang patent”).

In its opposition to DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment, Kodak asks the Court to grant

summary judgment in Kodak’s favor that the Chang patent does not anticipate any claim of the

‘811 patent. 

/// 

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 13 of 23
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

- 14 - 08cv669

1. Anticipation of the ‘811 patent

“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,

either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc.

v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Anticipation is a factual

determination. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Turn-Key-Tech., LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir.

2004) (reh’g and reh’g en banc denied, Oct. 27, 2004). A party seeking to invalidate an issued

patent as anticipated must overcome the presumption of validity by clear and convincing

evidence. Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Accordingly,

in order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment of invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §

102, DR Systems must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Chang patent discloses

each limitation of the ‘811 Claims. Koito Mfg., 381 F.3d at 1149; RCA Corp. v. Applied

Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

DR Systems contends that the Chang patent anticipates each and every element of all

twenty claims from the ‘811 patent, thus making the ‘811 patent invalid. (Doc. No. 151 at 2.)

DR Systems provides an element-by-element and claim-by-claim analysis of the ‘811 patent

and asserts that each claim limitation is disclosed by the Chang patent. (Id. at 4-24.) 

 In response, Kodak argues that the Chang patent does not disclose the following seven

claim limitations: (1) the “image memories” limitation of Claims 1-20; (2) the “manipulating...

at the same time” limitation of Claims 1-9 and 15-16; (3) the “manipulating” limitations of

Claims 5 and 8; (4) the “rotating” limitations of Claim 9; (5) the “zooming over time”

limitation of Claim 15; (6) the “panning over time” limitation of Claim 16; and (7) the “control

means” limitation of Claims 10-14 and 17-19. (Doc. No. 171.) The Court notes that the

“image memories” limitation is incorporated into every claim of the ‘811 patent. Thus, if the

Chang patent does not disclose “image memories,” DR Systems’ anticipation argument cannot

succeed. 

With respect to the first disputed limitation, the Court construed “image memories” as

“memory devices each capable of storing one image.” (Doc. No. 85 at 6). The parties agree

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 14 of 23
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

- 15 - 08cv669

that the Chang patent discloses a display processor that is associated with a dynamic random

access memory, or DRAM. (See Doc. Nos. 171 at 5-6; 151 at 5-6.) However, the parties

disagree as to whether the DRAM recited by the Chang patent constitutes memory devices that

are capable of storing one image. (See Doc. Nos. 171 at 5-6; 151 at 5-6.) 

DR Systems contends that the following passage demonstrates that the DRAM

disclosed by the Chang patent constitutes a memory device capable of storing one image:

Central processor 100 then sends to one of its graphic system processors, e.g.,

graphic processor 150-1, a command requesting the DRAM memory location at

which the image is to be stored. Responsive to receipt of the location, central

processor 100 causes the image stored in the bus 105 bus buffer to be stored in

the DRAM memory associated with graphic system processor 150-1 starting at

the priorly identified location.

(Doc. No. 152, Ex. N, Chang Patent at col. 3:30-38). 

In its opposition, Kodak argues that the DRAM disclosed by the Chang patent is not a

memory device that is capable of storing one image. (Doc. No. 171 at 5.) According to

Kodak, the disclosure of the Chang patent is limited to images being stored in the DRAM.

(Doc. No. 172 at 12.) Kodak disputes whether disclosure of DRAM, in and of itself, is

sufficient disclosure of a memory device capable of storing one image. (Doc. No. 171 at 7.)

Thus, a factual dispute exists as to whether the DRAM disclosed by the Chang patent

constitutes “image memories” within the meaning of the ‘811 Claims. 

In ruling on DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw all

factual inferences in the light most favorable to Kodak. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. Here,

there is a factual dispute over whether the DRAM disclosed in the Chang patent constitutes

“image memories.” Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff DR Systems’ motion for

summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘811 patent for anticipation by the Chang patent.

Because the Court concludes that the Chang patent does not disclose the first disputed

limitation and therefore denies DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment, the Court declines

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 15 of 23
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

- 16 - 08cv669

to address whether the Chang patent discloses the remaining five disputed claim limitations.

The Court declines sua sponte to grant summary judgment in Kodak’s favor that the Chang

patent does not anticipate any Claim of the ‘811 patent.

2. Obviousness of the ‘811 Patent

A claim is invalid for obviousness “if the differences between the subject matter sought

to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been

obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which

said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on

factual findings, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences

between the prior art and the claims at issue; and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art.

Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1338-1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing

Graham v. John Deere Co.. 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)). Secondary considerations of nonobviousness can be included in the invalidity analysis, such as failure of others, long-felt need,

and commercial success. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406-07 (2007).

Obviousness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd.

v. Alphapharm Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is

appropriate if “the content of the prior art, the scope of the patent claim, and the level of

ordinary skill in the art are not in material dispute, and the obviousness of the claim is apparent

in light of these factors.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 427.

DR Systems argues that the Chang patent renders obvious all twenty claims from the

‘811 patent. (Doc. No. 151 at 2.) DR Systems provides an element-by-element and claim-byclaim analysis of the ‘811 patent and asserts that each claim limitation is disclosed by the

Chang patent. (Id. at 4-24.) This type of analysis is proper for determining anticipation. 

Verdegaal, 814 F.2d at 631. While “anticipation is the ultimate of obviousness,” In re Baxter

Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991), DR Systems has not carried its burden of

showing invalidity of the ‘811 patent as anticipated by the Chang patent. DR Systems does

not articulate why the claims of the ‘811 patent are obvious in light of the content of the Chang

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 16 of 23
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

- 17 - 08cv669

patent, the scope of the ‘811 claims, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S.

at 427. 

Kodak disputes DR Systems’ allegations of obviousness. (Doc. No. 171 at 10-11, 21.)

Kodak argues that the Chang patent teaches away from the “at the same time” limitations of

Claims 1-9 and 15-16. (Doc. No. 171 at 10-11.) According to Kodak, the Chang system lacks

appropriate memory architecture and hardware for carrying out the “at the same time”

limitation. (Id. at 11.) In addition, Kodak contends that the “control means” of Claims 10-14

and 17-19 is not rendered obvious by the disclosure of the Chang patent. (Doc. No. 171 at 21.)

Kodak argues that the prior art discloses a system that immediately displays images without

a subsequent use command, which does not render the “control means” limitation obvious.

(Id.) 

Thus, there is a factual dispute over whether the ‘811 patent is obvious in light of the

Chang patent. In ruling on DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw

all factual inferences in the light most favorable to Kodak. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment of

invalidity of the ‘811 patent as obvious in view of the Chang patent. 

D. Willful Infringement

DR Systems moves for partial summary judgment of no willful infringement, arguing

that facts in the record do not support Kodak’s contentions that DR Systems engaged in

objectively reckless behavior. In its opposition, Kodak argues that the investigation of the

‘811 patent performed by DR Systems was cursory, and thus could not provide DR Systems

with a reasonable basis for a belief of non-infringement. 

“[T]o establish willful infringement, a patentee must show by clear and convincing

evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions

constituted infringement of a valid patent.” In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360,

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As a threshold matter, the patentee must make a showing of “objective

recklessness,” and if this standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 17 of 23
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

- 18 - 08cv669

objectively-defined risk was “either known or so obvious that it should have been known to

the accused infringer.” Id. While the accused infringer no longer has an affirmative obligation

to obtain opinion of counsel, this fact may be considered in the totality of circumstances to

assess whether any infringement was willful. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d

683, 699 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Here, Kodak has not presented any evidence that DR Systems knew about the ‘811

patent prior to receiving a letter from Kodak in October, 2007. DR Systems submitted

testimony that it was not aware of the ‘811 patent prior to October, 2007. (Charles Zuckerman

Dep., DR Systems Rule 30(b)(6) Witness at 18:1-3.) After DR Systems first learned of

Kodak’s patent infringement allegations, it immediately conducted a technical investigation,

and as a result of the investigation formed its belief that the ‘811 patent was not infringed by

any DR Systems’ product. (Doc. No. 145 at 7-8.) DR Systems’ Chief Financial Officer, Mr.

Charles Zuckerman, and Kent Curtis, DR Systems’ Vice President and Chief Operating

Officer, became involved in investigating the patent. (Doc. No. 170, Hankins Decl., Ex. L, at

202:16-18.) Charles Zuckerman, testified that to investigate the patent, 

DR Systems reviewed the patent, reviewed the file history, reviewed Chang.

Mr. Curtis and myself went through the patent. Mr. Curtis advised me on

technical information about the patent and about our products. We checked

additional technical information with Dale Seegmiller. And we had a reasonable

basis to assume that we were not infringing on the ‘811 patent.

(Charles Zuckerman Dep., DR Systems Rule 30(b)(6) Witness at 23:12-18.) Mr. Curtis and

Mr. Zuckerman analyzed the patent “claim by claim and then element by element.” (Doc. No.

181, Attach. 1, Ex. X, Kent Curtis Dep. at 119:1-2.) Mr. Curtis also reviewed and analyzed

prior art patents, including the Arenson, Chang, and Taffe, in connection with the ‘811 patent

claims. (Id. at 41:13-19.) 

Kodak argues that DR Systems’ investigation was not conducted by a ‘technical

executive” of the company. (Doc. No. 164 at 6.) However, there is sufficient evidence in the

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 18 of 23
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

- 19 - 08cv669

record that DR Systems involved qualified staff in its investigation. Mr. Curtis’s duties at DR

Systems included “managing the project management, development, engineering, and

production operations organizations and the information technology group,” and he also had

served as the head of software development group for DR Systems. (Doc. No. 181, Attach.

1, Ex. X, Kent Curtis Dep. at 29:22-25, 30:8-9.) Additionally, Mr. Curtis was familiar with

source code and had written code for some of the DR Systems’ products. (Doc. No. 181,

Attach. 1, Ex. Z, Kent Curtis Dep. at 249:24-250:19.) 

Finally, Kodak argues that DR Systems’ failed to obtain an opinion letter from a lawyer

regarding the alleged infringement. This factor, as compared to the totality of circumstances

surrounding this case, does not weigh in favor of Kodak’s argument that DR Systems’

investigation was inadequate. 

In sum, Kodak has not presented sufficient facts to support a finding that DR Systems

acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid

patent, and this objectively defined risk was known, or should have been known, to DR

Systems. In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d at 1371. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS DR Systems’ motion for partial summary judgment of no willful infringement.

E. DR Systems’ Motion to Strike Dr. Silverman’s Expert Report and Testimony

DR Systems moves to strike the expert report and testimony of Dr. Silverman relied

upon by Kodak pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. (Doc. No. 149.) DR Systems

argues that Dr. Silverman’s opinions are “fatally defective,” “insufficiently reliable,” and “in

no way helpful to the trier of fact.” (Id. Attach 1 at 2.) Specifically, DR Systems argues that

Dr. Silverman (1) cannot provide a reliable expert opinion as to the relevant market or PACS

industry or opine as to the commercial viability of PACS products; (2) does not cite specific

facts or data on which his opinions rely; (3) fails to articulate a theory or technique relied on

in forming his opinions. 

Expert testimony must meet the standards of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which

requires: (1) that the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (2) that the testimony is the

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 19 of 23
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

- 20 - 08cv669

product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) that the witness applied the principles and

methods reliably to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702. The issue of expert testimony

admissibility is left to the trial judge and reversed only for abuse of discretion. See Gen. Elec.

Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141 (1997). 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. imposed a gatekeeping obligation on trial

judges to engage in objective screening designed to ensure that scientific evidence that is put

before the jury “is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). The Supreme Court in Daubert listed four nonexclusive factors

that a trial court might, in the exercise of its discretion, consider to assess reliability: 1)

whether a theory or technique can be tested; 2) whether it has been subjected to peer review

and publication; 3) the known or potential error rate of the theory or technique; and 4) whether

the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.

Id. at 593-94. 

In Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, the Supreme Court revisited admissibility of

expert testimony and emphasized that trial judges are entitled to broad discretion, and should

not mechanically apply the Daubert factors to testimony, scientific or otherwise, as if the

factors were a “definite checklist or test.” 526 U.S. 137, 150-51 (1999). Instead, the

gatekeeping must be tailored to the facts of each case, and a judge should apply the Daubert

factors “where they are reasonable measures of the reliability of expert testimony.” Id. at 150,

152. Not only must the trial court be given broad discretion to decide whether an expert's

testimony is reliable, it “must have the same kind of latitude in deciding how to test an expert's

reliability.” Id. at 152. 

In this case, Kodak retained Dr. Silverman to provide expert opinions on Picture

Archiving and Communications Systems (PACS) systems and particular features that are

important to users of such systems. Dr. Silverman is an experienced radiologist who has

worked with PACS for over ten years. (Doc. No. 170, Ex. P at 3.) Dr. Silverman is also a

member of a group of physicians responsible for making purchasing decisions regarding PACS

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 20 of 23
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

- 21 - 08cv669

systems. (Id.) Dr. Silverman has experience working with various functions of PACS

systems, including manipulation of multiple images, prefetching of a series of images, and

creation of key images and related reports. (Id.) His specialized knowledge can assist the trier

of fact to understand the use of PACS by the radiology personnel. Exercising its discretion,

the Court concludes that Dr. Silverman’s report and testimony satisfies the requirements of

Rule 702. Accordingly, the Court DENIES DR Systems’ motion to strike the expert report and

deposition testimony of Dr. Silverman. 

F. DR Systems’ Motion to Strike Mr. Ferraro’s Declaration

On October 19, 2009 DR Systems filed its objection to, and motion to strike Mr.

Ferraro’s declaration. (Doc. No. 186.) On October 28, 2009, Kodak filed its opposition to DR

Systems’ motion to strike. (Doc. No. 195.) On October 30, 2009, DR Systems’ filed its reply

in support of its motion to strike Mr. Ferraro’s declaration. (Doc. No. 197.) 

DR Systems argues that the October 9, 2009 declaration contains “entirely new

opinions” which were not previously disclosed in Mr. Ferraro’s reports. (Id. at 3.) DR

Systems argues that Kodak cannot show that the disclosure of the allegedly new opinions was

justified, because the October 9, 2009 declaration does not indicate whether the opinions in it

were formed in response to DR Systems’ expert testimony. (Id. at 8.) In its opposition, Kodak

argues that Mr. Ferraro’s declaration contains further explanations of his previously disclosed

opinions. (Doc. No. 195 at 4.) Kodak also argues that any new material in the Ferraro

declaration is responsive to the new specific arguments disclosed by DR Systems for the first

time in its motion for summary judgment of invalidity under §§ 102 and 103. (Id.) DR

Systems’ reply alleges that Kodak should have disclosed its contentions regarding the prior art

references cited by DR Systems in response to several contention interrogatories. (Doc. No.

197 at 2.) 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) requires that all expert testimony be

accompanied by a written report containing “a complete statement of all opinions the witness

will express and the basis and reasons for them,” as well as the data or other information

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 21 of 23
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

- 22 - 08cv669

considered by the witness in forming them, and any exhibits that will be used to summarize

or support them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B). The Ninth Circuit uses a five-factor test to

determine whether evidence should be excluded as a sanction: 1) the public's interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; 2) the court's need to manage its docket; 3) the risk of

prejudice to the defendants; 4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Wendt v. Host Intern., Inc., 125 F.3d 806, 814 (9th

Cir. 1997). Exclusion of testimony for failure to make required disclosure should only be

imposed if the party seeking exclusion suffered some prejudice. See Pfingston v. Ronan Eng'g

Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Using its discretion, the Court declines to strike the declaration under the totality of

circumstances in this case. To the extent the declaration allegedly identifies previously

undisclosed opinions by the expert, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding

scheduling a deposition of Mr. Ferraro. (Doc. No. 189 at 2.) Additionally, public policy

reasons weigh in favor of deciding the matter on the merits, rather than through imposition of

evidentiary sanctions. See Wendt, 125 F.3d at 814. Accordingly, the Court DENIES DR

Systems’ motion to strike the declaration of Richard F. Ferraro in opposition to DR Systems’

motion for summary judgment of invalidity under §§ 102 and 103. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court

(1) DENIES DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement; 

(2) DENIES DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment of a finding of invalidity of

U.S. Patent No. 5,414,811 as indefinite pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112;

(3) DENIES DR Systems’ motion for summary judgment of a finding of invalidity of

U.S. Patent No. 5,414,811 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103;

(4) GRANTS DR Systems’ motion for partial summary judgment of no willful

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,414,811;

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 22 of 23
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

- 23 - 08cv669

(5) DENIES DR Systems’ motion to strike the expert report and deposition testimony

of Dr. Silverman; and 

(6) DENIES DR Systems’ motion to strike the October 9, 2009 declaration of Mr.

Ferraro. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2009

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-00669-H-BLM Document 207 Filed 11/09/09 Page 23 of 23