Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-116/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief,” filed October 8, 2007, is hereby

DENIED as moot. By said motion, plaintiff seeks leave to reply to an assertedly new

argument made in defendants’ reply at page 5:7-13. To the extent the Court has granted

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court has not relied on such argument.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., et

al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-0162 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is defendants’ Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

September 21, 2007, by which defendants seek summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim that

defendants willfully infringed the patents at issue herein. Plaintiff Nichia Corporation has

filed opposition, to which defendants have replied.1 Having considered the parties’

submissions in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows:

1. To the extent plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement is based on defendants’ offer

made to Kopin Corporation in January 2005, (see Stonework Decl., filed September 12,

2007, Ex. 4), defendants are entitled to summary judgment because such act occurred

prior to March 11, 2005, the date on which defendants obtained knowledge of plaintiff’s

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 834 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

As defendants note, however, the sales at issue are “miniscule.” (See Defs.’ Mot.

at 7:10.) Such factor may be a relevant consideration in determining whether, if the trier of

fact were to find willful infringement, an award of enhanced damages is appropriate. See

Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F. 2d 816, 827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding finding of

willfulness does not “mandate enhancement of damages”; stating one factor district court

should consider in determining whether willful infringer is liable for enhanced damages is

“duration of defendant’s misconduct”).

2

patents, (see id. Ex. 2). See Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersystems Industrial Prods., Inc., 897 F.

2d 508, 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (holding “party cannot be found to have ‘willfully’ infringed a

patent of which the party had no knowledge”).

2. To the extent plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement is based on defendants’ offer 

made to Three-Five Systems in 2004, (see Stonework Decl., filed September 12, 2007, Ex.

5), defendants are entitled to summary judgment because such act occurred prior to March

11, 2005, the date on which defendants obtained knowledge of plaintiff’s patents, (see id.

Ex. 2). See Gustafson, 897 F. 2d at 511.

3. To the extent plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement is based on statements

included on defendants’ website, (see Stonework Decl., filed September 21, 2007, Exs. F.

J), defendants are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff has not identified any

statement therein that a trier of fact could reasonably find constitutes an “offer to sell,” i.e.,

a “manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person

in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.” See Rotec

Industries, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F. 3d 1246, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

4. To the extent plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement is based on sales to General

Dynamics Land Systems and NanoScience Exchange, defendants have not shown plaintiff

is foreclosed from establishing a claim. Although it appears to be undisputed that the

particular employees involved in both sales had no knowledge of plaintiff’s patents, it is

undisputed that defendants’ Director Chung Hoo Lee had such knowledge, (see Stonework

Decl., filed September 12, 2007, Ex. 2); defendants have cited no authority addressing their

implicit argument that knowledge of a principal, as a matter of law, cannot be imputed to

the principal’s agents, and vice-versa, under the circumstances presented.2

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 834 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion for summary judgment on

plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as

follows:

1. To the extent plaintiff’s claim of willful infringement is based on an offer to sell to

Kopin Corporation, an offer to sell to Three-Five Systems, and statements included on

defendants’ website, the motion is GRANTED; and

2. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 834 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 3