Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-22/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 LUCENT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO.

4,763,356

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1790 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

 Microsoft, Dell and Gateway are referred to collectively herein as “Defendants.”

2

 The affirmative defense of prior settlements is asserted only by Gateway; the defense of

patent misuse is asserted only by Microsoft and Gateway (not Dell).

2

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 26, 2007, Lucent moved the Court for summary judgment regarding

U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356 (“the ‘356 patent”) on the following grounds: (1) no anticipation

by Home Accountant, Apple Lisa and Xerox Star; (2) dismissal of Defendants’1

 affirmative

defenses which lack evidentiary support including laches, equitable estoppel/implied

license/waiver, exhaustion, prior settlements, patent misuse, and unclean hands; and (3) a

determination of the actual date of notice of infringement to Microsoft. This motion was

deferred along with the remaining motions on the ‘356 patent, pending a supplemental

claim construction hearing. Having resolved the claim construction issue, the Court now

rules on the pending motions. The instant order addresses grounds (2) and (3) above; the

motion pertaining to no anticipation is addressed in a separate order in conjunction with

Microsoft’s cross-motion on anticipation.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Affirmative Defenses

Lucent moves the Court to dismiss Defendants’ affirmative defenses which it claims

lack evidentiary support: laches; equitable estoppel/implied license/waiver; exhaustion;

prior settlements; patent misuse; and unclean hands. Defendants do not oppose the motions

as to laches, patent misuse, unclean hands and prior settlements.2

 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if an adverse party does not respond to

a motion for summary adjudication, the Court may enter judgment against the adverse party

if it is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (West 2006). Here, Defendants have chosen not

to oppose a number of issues presented by Lucent for summary adjudication. Having

considered these unopposed motions, the Court finds it appropriate and GRANTS

summary adjudication in Lucent’s favor on the following unopposed motions: laches;

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1790 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

patent misuse; unclean hands; and prior settlements.

Regarding the affirmative defenses of equitable estoppel, implied license, waiver

and exhaustion, the parties raise the same issues as set forth in Lucent’s motion for

summary adjudication regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,347,295 (“the ‘295 patent”) and the

oppositions thereon. Thus, these defenses stand or fall based on their determination with

respect to the ‘295 patent. 

On March 8, 2007, the Court granted summary adjudication on the ‘295 patent as

follows: no equitable estoppel, waiver and any implied license arising therefrom as to all

Defendants, no exhaustion and any implied license arising therefrom as to Microsoft, and

no have-made rights. The Court denied summary adjudication as to no exhaustion and any

implied license arising therefrom as to Gateway. Therefore, the Court now rules identically

with regard to these defenses as they apply to the ‘356 patent.

B. Date of Notice

Lucent moves the Court for summary adjudication that its date of actual notice of

infringement to Microsoft is January 13, 2003. Lucent’s arguments are based on the same

grounds as provided in Lucent’s motion for ‘295 patent. In its Order of March 8, 2007, the

Court denied Lucent’s motion on the date of actual notice with regard to the ‘295 patent. 

For the reasons therein, the Court now DENIES Lucent’s motion on the date of actual

notice as it pertains to the instant ‘356 patent, based on a material issue of fact.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS summary adjudication on the following

grounds:

1. No laches;

2. No unclean hands;

3. No patent misuse as to Microsoft and Gateway;

4. No prior settlements as to Gateway;

5. No equitable estoppel, waiver and any implied license arising

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1790 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

therefrom (as to all Defendants);

6. No exhaustion and any implied license arising therefrom (as to

Microsoft);

7. No have-made rights. 

The Court DENIES summary adjudication on the following grounds:

1. No exhaustion and any implied license arising therefrom (as to

Gateway); 

2. Date of actual notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: May 15, 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 1790 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 4