Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-29/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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

MULTIMEDIA PATENT TRUST

TECHNOLOGIES INC., and

MULTIMEDIA PATENT TRUST INC. 

 Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-defendants,

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,

_____________________________________

AND CONSOLIDATED CASES

_____________________________________

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

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 SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF NO INFRINGEMENT

ON U.S. PATENT NO. 4,383,272

I. INTRODUCTION

Microsoft, joined by Dell and Gateway, move the Court for summary judgment of

no infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,383,272 (“the ‘272 patent”). Multimedia Patent Trust

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1921 Filed 06/27/07 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

 MPT is the current asserted owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,383,272. The Court recognizes that

Defendants have reserved their right to challenge this ownership and to pursue any defenses that relate

to MPT in this regard; the instant motions and oppositions in no way waive those rights.

2

 The encoders are not accused here. 

2

Technologies, Inc. and Multimedia Patent Trust (collectively “MPT”) oppose the motion.1

For the reasons herein, Microsoft’s motion is GRANTED as to no infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents and DENIED as to no literal infringement.

II. BACKGROUND

The ‘272 patent is directed to techniques for video compression. Claim 13, the only

claim at issue, is directed to a method of estimating the intensities of picture elements

(pixels) in a picture. It was construed by the Court as follows:

A method of estimating [determining roughly the size, extent, or nature of] the

intensities of elements (pels) [picture elements, also referred to as pixels] in a

picture [an image that occupies a frame] in accordance with information defining intensities [values describing the different color components of a composite signal

or combinations thereof] of pels in preceding and succeeding versions of the picture

including the step of

determining by interpolation intensities of pels in said picture in accordance

with intensities of pels in related locations in said preceding and succeeding

versions, [determining by intensity of pels in the picture by averaging the intensities

of pels in locations at which the same object is expected to be in the preceding and

succeeding versions],

characterized in that said determining step includes selecting said related locations

as a function of the displacement of objects in said picture [the change of position

of objects between said versions of the picture].

The accused devices are MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 video decoders: the Mediamatics

MPEG-1 decoder, the Cyberlink MPEG-2 decoder and the Intervideo MPEG-2 decoder. 

These decoders work with encoders to achieve video compression.2

 The encoders perform

the motion estimation of objects between preceding and succeeding frames of a video. The

encoders generate forward and backward motion vectors; these vectors indicate the location

of a moving object in the preceding and succeeding frames. The decoder fetches the

appropriate blocks of pels (picture elements/pixels) from preceding and succeeding frames

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1921 Filed 06/27/07 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

using these motion vectors, averages them and recreates the missing image in the

intervening frame.

III. STANDARD OF LAW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that 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.” In

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

to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). If

the Court is unable to render summary judgment upon an entire case and finds that a trial is

necessary, it shall if practicable grant summary adjudication for any issues as to which,

standing alone, summary judgment would be appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

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.

IV. ISSUES FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

A. Literal Infringement

At issue is whether the accused devices perform the final limitation of claim 13,

“selecting said related locations.” Microsoft argues that the accused decoders do not

perform “selecting,” instead this step is performed by the encoders. MPT responds in

opposition that Microsoft’s definition of “selecting” is too limited. MPT argues that

because the accused decoders use the forward and backward motion vectors to obtain the

proper block of pels, this constitutes “selecting.”

Microsoft sets forth several arguments in support of no infringement. First, it argues

that the ‘272 patent describes a “smart” decoder, one that must analyze the displacement of

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1921 Filed 06/27/07 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

objects itself rather than rely on motion vectors provided by the encoder. Microsoft

contends that the only embodiment offered by the ‘272 patent is one where the encoder

drops whole frames which the smart decoder must reconstruct using motion estimation. 

The danger in this argument is the importation of limitations of preferred embodiments into

the claims. See Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1331 (Fed. Cir.

2004) (“While claims must be construed in light of the specification, . . . limitations from

the specification are not to be read into the claims”). Even where a patent discloses only a

single embodiment, this does not necessarily limit the scope of the claims absent a

disclaimer or other evidence of intent to limit the scope of the invention. Id. at 1331-32. 

Here, Microsoft has not pointed to any disavowals in the ‘272 specification. Hence, other

than the absence of additional embodiments, the patent itself does not suggest that

“selecting related locations” should be limited to require the decoder to perform motion

estimation.

Microsoft’s second argument contends that the importance of calculating the

displacement of objects by the decoder is evidenced by the USPTO examiner’s

characterization of the ‘272 invention which stated: “In order to locate the same intensity

elements of an object in motion, it is necessary to know the displacement function of the

object in the two transmitted fields or frames.” (Dec. Vyas. Ex. 6 at LUC 0001425.) Even

if this statement arguendo suggests the decoder performs motion estimation, prosecution

history estoppel is created by statements of the patentee, not the examiner. Absent a

showing that patentee agreed or acquiesced to the examiner’s interpretation, this statement

cannot be used to limit the scope of the claims. See Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414

F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (examiner’s unilateral remarks alone do not affect the

scope of the claim); AquaTex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1383

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (stating that without patentee’s agreement or disagreement to the

examiner’s statement, prosecution history estoppel could not be imposed);

Microsoft’s third argument depends on claim differentiation. Dependent claim 17

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1921 Filed 06/27/07 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

3

 MPT also argues with respect to the comparison of claims 13 and 17 that the "storing" and

"addressing" steps of claim 17 are just details of how related locations are selected. This argument

is unsupported by the claim language. Claim 17 specifically states "wherein said determining step

further includes," indicating that additional steps are added as part of the "determining step. Such

5

reads:

The method defined in claim 13 wherein said determining step further includes: 

storing the intensity values for pels in said preceding and succeeding versions, and

addressing selected ones of said stored values in response to said present

displacement estimate.

Microsoft argues that claim 13 and 17 must differ in scope, i.e. that the steps of storing and

addressing in claim 17 must mean something different from the “selecting related

locations” that is already defined as part of the “determining” step in claim 13. Microsoft

thus concludes that because the accused decoders only perform storing and addressing, they

cannot be performing the “selecting” step of claim 13. 

MPT contrasts Microsoft’s claim differentiation argument with one of its own,

arguing that if the patentee meant for claim 13 to encompass the decoder estimating object

displacement, it would have included this step in claim 13; instead, estimating displacement

of objects is set out as a separate step in claim 18:

A method of estimating the intensity values of each element (pel) of a picture being

processed by interpolating between the intensity values of related pels in first and

second other versions of said picture, including the steps of 

estimating the displacement of objects in said picture occurring between said other 

versions, and 

selecting said related pels in accordance with said displacement estimate. 

As Microsoft argues, there are several differences in the overall language between claims

13 and 18 that make a direct comparison difficult (claim 13 recites “selecting related

locations” whereas claim 18 contains “selecting related pels”; claim 13 selects the related

locations “as a function of the displacement of objects” whereas claim 18 includes

“estimating the displacement of objects” and selecting related pels according to the

displacement estimate). In sum, the claim comparisons are not dispositive on the issue of

non-infringement.”3

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1921 Filed 06/27/07 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

language is in contrast, for example, to dependent claim 16 which states "wherein said selecting step

includes," indicating that the ‘272 patent used other language to indicate additions to the selecting

step. 

6

Microsoft’s final argument contends that the plain meaning of “selecting” involves

“choosing,” i.e., making a choice rather than simply using the selection already provided. 

According to Microsoft, the accused decoders do not choose the related locations, they

simply use the vectors provided by the encoders, fetch the blocks of pels from the

preceding and successive frames according the vectors, and average these values together. 

As MPT argues in response, a reasonable jury could decide otherwise - that applying the

motion vectors which reflect changes in a position of an object meets the plain definition of

“selecting” as it is used in the ‘272 patent and claims; selecting need not require that the

decoder have the independence to make the selection in the absence of such information

from the encoder. Given the issues of fact remaining, Microsoft’s motion as to no literal

infringement is DENIED. 

B. Doctrine of Equivalents

Microsoft also contends that MPT cannot succeed under an infringement theory

based on the doctrine of equivalents. Microsoft argues that Lucent/MPT failed to put this

theory forward in its infringement contentions. MPT does not dispute this point. 

Accordingly, Microsoft’s motion for no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is

GRANTED.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1921 Filed 06/27/07 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 Defendants’ joint motion is DENIED as to no literal

infringement and GRANTED as to no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 27, 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 1921 Filed 06/27/07 Page 7 of 7