Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04472/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04472-6/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 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FORTERRA SYSTEMS, INC., a

California Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

AVATAR FACTORY, a California

Corporation, IMVU, inc., a Delaware

corporation, and WILLIAM D. HARVEY,

an individual

Defendants.

__________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C-05-04472 PVT

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT TO STRIKE

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF

INVALIDITY

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Forterra Systems, Inc. (“Forterra”) is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,901

(“the ’901 patent). 1 The invention of the ’901 patent relates to a method, system and computer

program for delivering electronic chat messages in a three-dimensional (“3D”) multi-user

environment. Forterra claims that Defendant IMVU, Inc. (“IMVU”) operates an on-line chat

system that infringes the ‘901 patent. Presently before the court is Forterra’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment. Forterra moves to strike Defendants’ assertion of the affirmative defense of

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 66 Filed 09/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

 

2This motion was set for hearing on September 19, 2006. The Court vacated the hearing date

and decides the motions on the papers submitted.

ORDER, page 2

invalidity. Forterra argues that the doctrine of assignor estoppel precludes Defendants from

asserting an invalidity defense.2

Assignor estoppel “is an equitable doctrine that prevents one who has assigned the rights

to a patent from later contending that what was assigned is a nullity. The estoppel also operates

to bar other parties in privity with the assignor, such as a corporation founded by the assignor.”

See Diamond Scientific v. Ambico, Inc., 848 F.2d 1220, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Defendants filed

a “Statement in Response” as opposed to an Opposition to the motion. Defendants candidly

admit that: “ under the fairest reading of the binding precedent of Diamond Scientific v. Ambico,

Inc., 848 F.2d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and its Federal Circuit progeny, this Court has little choice

but to grant Forterra's Motion.” (Statement at 2.) Defendants, however, also expressed their

belief that this case might present circumstances that would warrant an exception to the assignor

estoppel doctrine and reserved their right to argue on appeal for such an exception.

The binding precedent is clear that assignor estoppel precludes Defendants from asserting

an invalidity defense. At this time, no circumstances exist that would justify this Court making

an exception to the doctrine. Accordingly, It Is Hereby Ordered that Forterra’s Motion is granted

and Summary Judgement is granted in favor of Forterra as to Defendants’ asserted affirmative

defense of invalidity. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15 , 2006

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04472-PVT Document 66 Filed 09/15/06 Page 2 of 2