Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Property Damage

---

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

 This order is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER ADDRESSING CERTAIN OF THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 1/11/07**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ASYST TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EMPAK, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 98-20451 JF

ORDER1 ADDRESSING CERTAIN

OF THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN

LIMINE

[re: doc. nos. 889, 892]

The Court conducted the final pretrial conference in this case on January 5, 2007, at

which time the Court provided oral rulings with respect to the majority of the parties’ motions in

limine. The Court reserved ruling on Jenoptik’s motion in limine number 2, seeking to preclude

evidence of copying or misappropriation of confidential information, and on Asyst’s motion in

limine number 3, seeking to preclude evidence regarding the reexamination of the ‘421 patent.

Jenoptik’s Motion In Limine Number 2: 

Jenoptik argues that the allegedly copied feature – the repositioning of ceiling-mounted

IRTs to the workstations – is not an element of any of the claims at issue, and therefore is

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1017 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER ADDRESSING CERTAIN OF THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC2)

irrelevant to the issue of whether the claims at issue are invalid for obviousness. Jenoptik further

argues that the defendants alleged to have had access to Asyst’s confidential information were

not involved in the design of the allegedly infringing IridNet System. Asyst argues that it is not

required to demonstrate copying of a particular element of the claims at issue, so long as Asyst

can demonstrate copying of Asyst’s preferred embodiment generally, and that there was a

sufficient relationship between the defendants that it can be inferred that confidential information

obtained by one defendant was used by other defendants in the design of the IridNet System.

The Court has reviewed the Akamai case cited by Asyst on the issue of copying, as well

as the parties’ briefs filed January 9, 10 and 11, 2007. Nothing in the Akamai case or in any

other case cited by the parties hold that a patentee may seek to show non-obviousness of a patent

claim by demonstrating copying of a feature that is not an element of such claim. In Akamai, the

allegedly copied feature – the location of the server selection software – was expressly recited in

the claims as to which obviousness was relevant. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Cable & Wireless

Internet Services, Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Asyst cites Amazon.com, Inc. v.

Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001), for the proposition that it is not

required to demonstrate copying of a particular element of the claims at issue, but only copying

of Asyst’s preferred embodiment generally. The Court concludes that Asyst reads Amazon.com

too broadly. The question before the court was whether evidence of copying of Amazon’s “1-

Click” feature was relevant to the question of obviousness. The court held that “evidence of

copying Amazon’s ‘1-Click®’ feature is legally irrelevant unless the ‘1-Click®’ feature is shown

to be an embodiment of the claims.” Id. at 1366. “An embodiment of the claims” at issue would

include all elements of those claims. Accordingly, Amazon.com does not stand for the

proposition that the copying of a feature that is not an element of the patent claims at issue

nonetheless is relevant to the obviousness of those claims.

The proposed evidence of copying would be highly prejudicial to Jenoptik. Accordingly,

in light of the absence of any authority holding that the copying of features that are not elements

of the claims at issue have relevance to the obviousness inquiry, and in light of Federal Rule of

Evidence 403, the Court will exclude evidence of copying of the placement of the IRTs. This

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1017 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER ADDRESSING CERTAIN OF THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC2)

ruling is without prejudice to Asyst’s introduction of evidence of copying of features that are

elements of the claims at issue, assuming the necessary foundation can by provided with respect

to the relationships of the defendant entities.

Asyst’s Motion In Limine Number 3:

The Court reserved ruling on Asyst’s motion in limine number 3, and requested that the

parties jointly draft appropriate limiting language that could be used to describe the legal effect of

the grant of reexamination of the ‘421 patent. The parties have not submitted any such language

to the Court. Accordingly, the Court cannot make a final determination with respect to Asyst’s

motion in limine number 3 at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/11/07

______________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1017 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER ADDRESSING CERTAIN OF THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(JFLC2)

Copies of this Order were served on the following persons:

Joseph Stephen Belichick jbelichick@fenwick.com, ssanford@fenwick.com

David Leon Bilsker bilskerd@howrey.com, fabianj@howrey.com

Henry C. Bunsow bunsowh@howrey.com, lim@howrey.com

Michael J. Sacksteder msacksteder@fenwick.com

David Douglas Schumann dschumann@fenwick.com, ncarroll@fenwick.com

Daniel T. Shvodian shvodiand@howrey.com, HockinL@howrey.com; cranes@howrey.com

James F. Valentine valentinej@howrey.com, hockinl@howrey.com

Darryl M. Woo dwoo@fenwick.com, anolen@fenwick.com; vschmitt@fenwick.com 

Floyd R. Nation

Arnold White & Durkee

600 Congress Ave

1900 One American Center

Austin, TX 78701

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 1017 Filed 01/11/07 Page 4 of 4