Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-16/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

ADJUDICATION OF U.S. PATENT NO.

4,317,956

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1245 Filed 03/19/07 Page 1 of 7
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

 Lucent titled the instant motions a "summary judgment." However, the Court treats it as a

motion for summary adjudication (or partial summary judgment) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) because

the motion does not encompass the entire case on the ‘956 patent.

2

I. INTRODUCTION

Lucent moves the Court for summary adjudication1

 regarding U.S. Patent No.

4,317,956 (“the ‘956 patent”) on the following issues: (1) no anticipation by the Telestrator

System; (2) no anticipation by the White article; (3) no invalidity under § 112; and (4)

dismissal of Defendants’ affirmative defenses which lack evidentiary support including

laches, equitable estoppel/implied license/waiver, exhaustion, prior settlements, patent

misuse, and unclean hands.

II. BACKGROUND

The ‘956 patent, titled “Remote Chalkboard Automatic Cursor,” relates to methods

and devices which allow a user to write on a special surface and have the image appear on a

remote screen. Lucent has asserted the ‘956 patent against Microsoft, Gateway and Dell,

alleging that the Microsoft’s software “NetMeeting” when used in conjunction with the

graphics/drawing applications “Paint” or “Whiteboard” on Dell’s and Gateway’s computers

infringe the claims of the ‘956 patent. The ‘956 patent expired on November 10, 2000. 

Defendants Dell, Gateway and Microsoft have counterclaimed for invalidity of the

‘956 patent on a number of grounds, as well as asserted a number of affirmative defenses.

Lucent now moves for summary adjudication on a number of grounds related to these

counterclaims and affirmative defenses. 

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

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1245 Filed 03/19/07 Page 2 of 7
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

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. ISSUES FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

1. Anticipation by the Telestrator System

Defendants have asserted that claims 1, 3, 5, 15, 17, 18, and 21 are anticipated by

the public use and sale of the Telestrator System (“the Telestrator”). Lucent now moves for

summary adjudication that the Telestrator does not anticipate these claims on the grounds

that Defendants have failed to provide a single reference or device that sets forth the

Telestrator. 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), a patent will not be granted if “the invention was known

or used by others in this country” or under § 102(b), if the invention was “in public use or

on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in

the United States.” Defendants have alleged that the Telestrator was known, used and on

sale many years before the ‘956 patent was filed. To support this contention, Defendants

offer deposition testimony by the inventor of the Telestrator, a patent related to the

Telestrator (U.S. Patent No. 3,617,630) and other reference articles and documents that

describe the Telestrator. 

Lucent argues that this evidence is insufficient because no single piece of evidence

demonstrates that the Telestrator anticipates. This argument however, has little merit. It is

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1245 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 7
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

the Telestrator device that Defendants are advancing as prior art, not the actual printed

references or patents per se. All Defendants need demonstrate is that this device possessed

the features of the claims as issue and the device was known, available or on sale before the

filing of the ‘956 patent. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1567-68 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

The Court finds no authority for the requirement that this demonstration must be

accomplished only by direct evidence, by a single piece of evidence or by a single printed

reference. The statute and supporting case law only support the rule that a single device or

a single publication must anticipate; here Defendants put forth a single device. How

Defendants choose to prove the features and existence of the device, in this case

circumstantially through a combination of deposition testimony, a patent and reference

articles, in no way contradicts the statute or any relevant law. In fact, it follows the general

principle that while oral testimony may be used to evidence prior knowledge and prior use,

it is more likely to meet the clear and convincing burden of proof if supporting evidence

such as physical documentation (e.g. notes, letters, sketches, invoices) is offered. 

Woodland Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lacks

Industries, Inc. v. McKechnie Vehicle Components USA, Inc., 322 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed.

Cir. 2003). Therefore, Lucent’s motion for summary adjudication on this ground is

DENIED.

2. Anticipation by the White Article

Lucent moves the Court for summary adjudication that the claims of the ‘956 patent

are not anticipated by the reference “The Article Design Considerations for

Teleconferencing Systems” authored by Andrew White (“the White article”). According to

Lucent, Defendants have failed to put forth evidence demonstrating that this reference

discloses each and every claim limitation.

Defendants do not oppose Lucent’s motion as it pertains to claims 1, 3, 5, 15, 17 and

21 of the ‘956 patent. Thus, as to these claims, Lucent’s motion is GRANTED.

With regard to claim 18, Lucent argues that the White article fails to disclose the

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1245 Filed 03/19/07 Page 4 of 7
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

 Although Lucent’s reply brief contends that other features of claim 18 may not be disclosed

by the White article, since these issues were not raised in Lucent’s opening brief and hence, did not

offer the Defendants an opportunity to respond, these issues are not be considered here. 

5

step of “generating separate from said drawn images distinctive graphic images” as set

forth in the claimed method because the White article does not disclose any drawn images.

The White article describes teleconferencing systems and some experiments and surveys to

assess desirable features of such systems. According to Defendants, the article discloses

“drawn images” where it refers in the conclusion to future conference images that may be

“computer generated graphics or image files drawn from remote data bases.” Although

Lucent argues that Defendants have misinterpreted this sentence, the determination of

whether this sentence sufficiently discloses the “drawn images” should be left to the jury. 

Additionally, although Lucent argues that the language cited by Defendants teaches away

from this claim limitation,“teaching away” is not a concept relevant to anticipation. 

Celeritas Technologies, Ltd. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed.

Cir.1998) (whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an

anticipation analysis). Hence, whether the White article makes reference that would

disparage this disclosure is irrelevant. Therefore, given that issues of genuine material fact

remain, Lucent’s motion as to claim 18 is DENIED.

2

3. Indefiniteness

Lucent’s motion appears to move for summary adjudication that claims 15 and 17 of

the ‘956 patent are not invalid for indefiniteness; there is some confusion however because

the title of Lucent’s motion refers to written description and enablement. To the extent that

this motion concerns only indefiniteness, it is not opposed by the Defendants. 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). Having considered this unopposed

motion, the Court finds it appropriate and therefore GRANTS Lucent’s motion for

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1245 Filed 03/19/07 Page 5 of 7
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

 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).

6

summary adjudication of no indefiniteness of claims 15 and 17.

4. Affirmative Defenses

Lucent moves for summary adjudication that several of Defendants’ affirmative

defenses lack evidentiary support. Defendants do not oppose these motions as to laches,

patent misuse, unclean hands and prior settlements.3

 Therefore, Lucent’s motion for

summary adjudication to dismiss these affirmative defenses is GRANTED.

As to the affirmative defenses of equitable estoppel, implied license, waiver and

exhaustion, the parties chose to address these related affirmative defenses together in their

briefs. To clarify the Court’s ruling herein, the Court separates these affirmative defenses

into two groups: (1) equitable estoppel, waiver and any implied license arising therefrom;

and (2) exhaustion and any implied license arising therefrom. 

As regards equitable estoppel, waiver and any implied license arising therefrom

Lucent argues that the these affirmative defenses lack evidentiary support. Dell contends

that it is not asserting the defense of equitable estoppel or in the alternative, that it relies on

the availability of these defenses as they pertain to Microsoft. Gateway also contends that

it relies on the availability of these defenses as they pertain to Microsoft. Microsoft offers

the identical arguments presented to the Court on this issue with respect to the motions for

summary adjudication on U.S. Patent No.4,701,954. Thus, in keeping with its earlier ruling

as well as for the reasons herein, the Court GRANTS Lucent’s motion as it pertains to

Microsoft, Dell, and Gateway.

With regard to exhaustion and any implied license arising therefrom only Defendant

Microsoft raised this defense in its pleadings and none of the Defendants have offered any

opposition to Lucent’s motion on this issue. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Lucent’s

motion as to no exhaustion and any implied license arising therefrom. 

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1245 Filed 03/19/07 Page 6 of 7
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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein, the Court rules on Lucent’s motions as follows. 

The Court GRANTS summary adjudication on the following:

a. No anticipation of claims 1, 3, 5, 15, 17 and 21 by the White article;

b. No invalidity for indefiniteness of claims 15 and 17;

c. No laches;

d. No patent misuse;

e. No unclean hands;

f. No prior settlements;

g. No equitable estoppel, waiver and any implied license arising therefrom;

h. No exhaustion and any implied license arising therefrom; 

The Court DENIES summary adjudication on the following:

a. No anticipation by the Telestrator;

b. No anticipation of claim 18 by the White article.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: March 19, 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 1245 Filed 03/19/07 Page 7 of 7