Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TECHNOLOGY LICENSING

CORPORATION, a California

corporation, and AV

TECHNOLOGIES LLC, an Illinois

Limited Liability Company,

NO. CIV. S-03-1329 WBS PAN

Plaintiffs, 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE

TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

THOMSON, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges that defendant

infringed four patents. Four motions are presently before the

court: 

• Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of no

damages prior to the filing of plaintiff Technology

Licensing Corporation’s original complaint;

• Plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s defense of res

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 1 of 13
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

judicata found in defendant’s May 19, 2005 answer to

plaintiffs’ amended complaint;

• Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment based on res

judicata;

• Defendant’s motion to limit plaintiffs’ direct infringement

evidence to products containing certain integrated circuits

and to eliminate reference to infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The four patents alleged to be infringed were issued to

J. Carl Cooper, who assigned his rights under those patents to

plaintiff Technology Licensing Corporation (“TLC”). (Am. Compl.) 

The infringement claims regarding two of those patents were

stayed by court order on September 20, 2004. The claims

regarding patents 4,573,070 (“the ‘070 patent”) and 5,459,524

(“the ‘524 patent”) have not been stayed. 

Subsequent to the filing of this suit, TLC assigned its

rights in the ‘070 patent to AV Technologies LLC (“AVT”). 

Plaintiff TLC filed an unopposed motion to amend its complaint to

substitute AVT as a plaintiff to allow AVT to pursue its rights

under the ‘070 patent. The court granted that motion by an order

entered May 6, 2005. Plaintiffs subsequently submitted an

amended complaint. Defendant filed an answer to plaintiffs’

amended complaint in which defendant claimed that it has a res

judicata defense based on another case dismissed with prejudice

from the Southern District of Indiana in May 2004. (Answer to

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59-63). This res judicata defense was not in the

answer to the original complaint.

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 2 of 13
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 Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or

selling within the United States any patented article

for or under them . . . may give notice to the public

[by marking the article]. In the event of failure so

to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee

in any action for infringement, except on proof that

the infringer was notified of the infringement and

continued to infringe thereafter, in which even damages

may be recovered only for infringement occurring after

such notice. Filing of an action for infringement

shall constitute such notice.

35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

3

II. Discussion

A. Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Due

to Lack of Notice of Possible Infringement

35 U.S.C. § 287(a)1 (“§ 287(a)”) provides that a

patentee may recover damages in an action for infringement only

after the date that the alleged infringer received actual notice

or constructive notice of the patent. The patentee in an

infringement case has the burden of “pleading and proving at

trial that [patentee] complied with the statutory requirements

[of § 287(a)].” Maxwell v. Baker, 86 F.3d 1098, 1111 (Fed. Cir.

1996). Defendant contends that it did not receive notice, actual

or constructive, of the existence of plaintiffs’ patents on the

devices allegedly infringed before plaintiff TLC originally filed

suit on June 20, 2003. Defendant further contends that

plaintiffs did not plead notice.

Plaintiff TLC did not adequately plead that defendant

had notice prior to the filing of the original complaint. 

Paragraph 12 of the original TLC complaint reads:

Thomson, on information and belief, manufactures, uses, and

sells products with demodulation capabilities for recovering

information content from a modulated signal, including, but

not limited to, the Thomson Grass Valley 8960 DEC. On

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 3 of 13
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

information and belief, Thomson has in the past infringed,

and continues to infringe directly, by inducement, and/or by

contributing to the infringement of one or more claims of

the ‘524 patent, including, but not limited to, claims 11,

27, and 41 by manufacturing, using, and selling such

products.

There is a similar paragraph alleging infringement of the ‘070

patent. (Compl. ¶ 13). These paragraphs do not plead that TLC

had previously provided defendant actual or constructive notice

of infringement. Cf. Sentry Prot. Prods., Inc. v. Eagle Mfg.

Co., 400 F.3d 910, 918 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(holding that plaintiff’s

pleading that defendant’s infringements were “willful and with

full knowledge” of plaintiff’s patents sufficiently pleaded that

defendants had notice).

Plaintiffs argue that TLC, by pleading that defendant

induced others to infringe, implicitly alleged that defendant had

notice of the ‘070 and ‘524 patents and its infringement thereof. 

To prove inducement,

[i]t must be established that the defendant possessed

specific intent to encourage another’s infringement and not

merely that the defendant had knowledge of the acts alleged

to constitute inducement. The plaintiff has the burden of

showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced

infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his

actions would induce actual infringements.

Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553

(Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original). Plaintiffs do not cite a

single case holding that pleading inducement is sufficient to

plead notice. Further, it is not defendant’s knowledge that is

the relevant inquiry under § 287(a). Rather, it is the

patentee’s action of notifying the defendant that is the relevant

inquiry. Amsted Indus., Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24

F.3d 178, 187 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(“It is irrelevant . . . whether

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 4 of 13
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 Plaintiffs also contend that a document it submitted on

June 8, 2005 entitled “Plaintiffs’ Response to Thomson, Inc.’s

First Amended Answer and Counterclaim” effectively pleads that

Thomson had actual notice prior to the filing of the original

complaint.

This document is evidence that plaintiffs know they did

not effectively plead notice prior to the original complaint. 

There is no amended counterclaim from Thomson in the record.

Thomson’s answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which does not

contain any counterclaims, was filed on May 19, 2005.

5

the defendant knew of the patent or knew of his own infringement. 

The correct approach to determining notice under section 287 must

focus on the action of the patentee, not the knowledge or

understanding of the infringer.”). Plaintiff TLC’s claim of

inducement does not make any affirmative statement that plaintiff

notified defendant, either constructively or actually, of any

infringement.

Plaintiffs also argue that defendant’s pleading of an

equitable estoppel defense is sufficient to meet plaintiffs’

burden under Maxwell to plead notice. The language quoted in the

prior paragraph from Amsted, indicating that what must be pleaded

is patentee’s actions and not defendant’s knowledge, is also

enough to defeat this argument. See 24 F.3d at 187.2 

Since the pleading itself could serve as notice under §

287, the alleged infringer should be entitled to rely on

plaintiff’s implicit assertion that the pleading is notice in the

absence of any allegations to the contrary. The requirement that

patentee plead notice effectively serves to put the alleged

infringer on notice as to the scope of the litigation and the

extent of the damages alleged. If plaintiff TLC had pleaded that

defendant had notice as of a certain date, or even if TLC had

pleaded that defendant had notice at an unspecified date prior to

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 5 of 13
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 To the extent that plaintiffs’ opposition to this

motion moves for leave to amend the complaint, such motion is

denied. Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for amending their

complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b); Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992).

6

the complaint, defendant could have conducted discovery to test

the truth of plaintiff TLC’s allegations. 

Defendant would be prejudiced if plaintiffs were

allowed to proceed in seeking damages prior to the filing of the

original complaint. Defendant’s counsel has represented to the

court that, in reliance on plaintiffs’ failure to plead notice,

he conducted no discovery on the issue of when notice occurred. 

(See Redano Decl. in Supp. of Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. for

Partial Summ. J. of No Damages Prior to the Filing of Pls.’

Original Compl. ¶¶ 4, 7). To allow plaintiffs to seek damages

now for infringement prior to the filing of the original

complaint would necessitate either reopening discovery or

permitting plaintiffs to conduct a trial by ambush.3 Neither is

acceptable.

Thus, the court limits damages to those arising after

the original complaint was filed on June 20, 2003. Plaintiffs

concede that the ‘070 patent expired on February 25, 2003. 

(Pls.’ Response to Def.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts in Supp.

of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. of No Damages Prior to the Filing of

Pls.’ Original Compl. ¶ 8). Therefore, this order effectively

precludes plaintiffs from recovering any damages for infringement

of the ‘070 patent.

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 6 of 13
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

B. Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on

Res Judicata Grounds and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike

Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of no

infringement of the ‘070 patent on the grounds of res judicata is

moot since, due to this order, plaintiffs can recover no damages

for infringement of the ‘070 patent. Also moot is plaintiffs’

motion to strike defendant’s res judicata defense.

C. Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Certain Evidence 

Defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(c)(1) for an order sanctioning plaintiffs for their

failure to respond appropriately to discovery requests. 

Defendant seeks an order excluding any evidence offered by

plaintiffs to support direct infringement by products not

containing either defendant’s TMC22x5y integrated circuit or

defendant’s TVP 5000 family of integrated circuits. Defendant

also seeks an order excluding any evidence of infringement under

the doctrine of equivalents.

Following the parties’ arguments is like following a

tennis match. Defendant argues that it cannot adequately defend

itself on claims of infringement where it does not know either

the specific products that plaintiffs, at trial, will allege

infringe plaintiffs’ patents, or the specific patent claims that

plaintiffs allege those products infringe. Defendant’s

interrogatory number one requested, “[f]or each product made,

used, sold, or offered for sale by Thomson which TLC contends

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 7 of 13
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 TLC interpreted this to mean the ‘524 patent. (Maze

Decl. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Limit Pls.’ Evidence of Direct

Infringement Ex. E (TLC’s response to to Thomson’s First Set of

Interrog.) at 3)

8

literally infringes any claim of the ‘547 Patent [sic],4 provide

a claim chart which reads each allegedly infringed claim on each

allegedly infringing Thomson product on a limitation by

limitation basis.” (Maze Decl. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Limit

Pls.’ Evidence of Direct Infringement Ex. E (TLC’s Response to

Thomson’s First Set of Interrog.) at 3). It is undisputed that

plaintiffs never provided a claim chart for any product other

than the Thomson Grass Valley 8960 DEC, which contains the

TMC22x5y integrated circuit. (See id. at 3-6). However,

plaintiffs contend the reason they did not provide the requested

claim chart was that Thomson had not complied with TLC’s

discovery request that Thomson provide “identification of the

integrated circuits found within” a whole host of defendant’s

products. (See Pls.’ Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Limit Pls.’

Evidence of Direct Infringement Ex. D at 2-3 (First Supplemental

Response to Thomson’s Interrogatory No. 1). Thomson, in turn,

contends that it did not identify the integrated circuits found

within that set of products identified by TLC because “each TLC

interrogatory as applied to each separate product constitutes a

separate interrogatory” and therefore the number of

interrogatories propounded by TLC constituted more than 25. (See

id. Ex. K (May 6, 2005 letter from Thomson counsel to TLC

counsel)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P 33(a)(limiting number of

interrogatories).

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 8 of 13
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

5 A party that without substantial justification fails to

disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or

26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as

required by Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure

is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial,

at a hearing, or on a motion any witness or information

not so disclosed. . . . 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

6 A party is under a duty seasonably to amend a prior

response to an interrogatory, request for production,

or request for admission if the party learns that the

response is in some material respect incomplete or

incorrect and if the additional or corrective

information has not otherwise been made known to the

other parties during the discovery process. . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(2).

9

Rule 37(c)(1)5 prohibits the introduction of evidence

that should have been disclosed and was not disclosed pursuant to

Rule 26(e)(2)6 if the failure to disclose was not harmless and

was not substantially justified. There is no question that the

only claim chart plaintiffs produced concerned defendant’s

TMC22x5y integrated circuit. The question is whether plaintiffs

were substantially justified in not providing claim charts for

other products of defendant that plaintiffs allege infringe. The

court finds they were not.

First, the court notes the impact that denial of

defendant’s motion would have on the trial. Plaintiffs’ amended

complaint states that

Thomson, on information and belief, manufactures, uses, and

sells products with demodulation capabilities for recovering

information content from a modulated signal, including, but

not limited to the Thomson Grass Valley 8960 DEC. On

information and belief, Thomson has in the past infringed,

and continues to infringe directly, by inducement, and/or by

contributing to the infringement of one or more claims of

the ‘524 patent, including, but not limited to claims 11,

27, and 41 by manufacturing, using and selling such

products.

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 9 of 13
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

10

(Am. Compl. ¶ 13)(emphasis added). Plaintiffs’ complaint is

extremely broad. If defendant were not permitted to narrow

plaintiffs’ allegations through the discovery process, plaintiffs

could surprise defendant at trial by choosing to focus on claims

and products that defendant had no way of anticipating were at

issue. Such a result would be against the intent of the Federal

Rules. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)(“Mutual

knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is

essential to proper litigation.”); United States v. Procter &

Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958)(rules of discovery make “a

trial less a game of blind man’s buff [sic] and more a fair

contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest

practicable extent.”).

Defendant’s interrogatories requesting claim charts

went to the very heart of this matter. Which of defendant’s

products are alleged to infringe, and what patent claims are

those products alleged to infringe? If defendant cannot know

this information before trial, then the Federal Rules have failed

in their objectives. See Hickman, 329 U.S. at 507; Procter &

Gamble, 356 U.S. at 682.

Plaintiff TLC was ordered by Magistrate Judge Nowinski

to “supplement all discovery responses,” including its response

to Thomson’s interrogatories seeking claim charts, “in strict

conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (June 29,

2004 Order at 2). TLC was further cautioned that, to comply with

the order, its “supplementation must be complete, so that no

objections shall limit its responses except for attorney client

and work product privileges.” To this date, plaintiffs have not

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 10 of 13
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

11

produced the claim charts they were ordered to produce for any

product other than the TMC22x5y integrated circuit. 

Plaintiffs contend that defendant did not identify the

circuits contained in some of defendant’s devices, and that

therefore plaintiffs’ failure to perform their discovery

obligations is excused. This issue could have and should have

been raised to the magistrate judge in a motion to compel. A

party may object to answering interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P.

33(b)(1). If a party does so, as defendant did in this case, it

becomes the opposing party’s duty to seek a motion to compel. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Plaintiffs in this case, after

receiving Thomson’s objections to the interrogatories, chose not

to seek such an order, but instead now elect to use defendant’s

alleged wrongful withholding of information to justify their

conduct of a trial by ambush. In other words, plaintiffs seek a

much greater benefit from defendant’s alleged failure to provide

discovery than an order compelling defendant to produce the

information would have provided.

To conclude, plaintiff TLC was ordered by the

magistrate judge to provide a claim chart to Thomson listing the

specific products alleged to infringe and the patent claims that

those products allegedly infringed. TLC only answered that

interrogatory with a claim chart alleging infringement by the

TMC22x5y integrated circuit. Therefore, defendant’s motion to

limit plaintiffs’ evidence at trial to evidence of infringement

by the TMC22x5y integrated circuit and by the TVP 5000 family of

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 11 of 13
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 Defendant does not argue that plaintiffs may not

present evidence regarding infringement by defendant’s products

containing the TVP5000 family of integrated circuits. The nature

of plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the TVP5000 family of

integrated circuits was apparently made clear to defendant by the

Supplemental Expert Report of J. Carl Cooper. (See Maze Decl. in

Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Limit Pls.’ Evidence of Direct

Infringement Ex. L (Cooper expert report) at 2)(stating opinion

regarding infringement by TVP5000 family of integrated circuits

of the ‘070 and ‘524 patents).

12

integrated circuits will be granted.7

The next issue is whether plaintiffs may introduce

evidence of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Plaintiffs have disclosed to defendant that they are not relying

on the doctrine of equivalents, and have not amended that

disclosure. (Maze Decl. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Limit Pls.’

Evidence of Direct Infringement Ex. E (TLC Response to Thomson’s

First Set of Interrogatories) at 7(“TLC is not relying on the

Doctrine of Equivalents in its infringement analysis.”). The

court holds plaintiffs to their word, and grants defendant’s

motion in limine to exclude evidence of infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) defendant’s motion to limit infringement damages to

those accruing after June 20, 2003 be, and the same hereby is,

GRANTED;

(2) plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendant’s res

judicata defense as to the ‘070 patent be, and the same hereby

is, DENIED as MOOT;

(3) defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on

the grounds of res judicata as to the ‘070 patent be, and the

same hereby is, DENIED as MOOT;

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 12 of 13
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

13

(4) defendant’s motion to limit plaintiffs’

presentation of evidence of infringement to allegedly infringing

products containing either the TMC22x5y integrated circuit or the

TVP 5000 family of integrated circuits be, and the same hereby

is, GRANTED;

(5) defendant’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’

presentation of evidence regarding infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 

DATED: June 30, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 170 Filed 07/01/05 Page 13 of 13