Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-70/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

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 LTD., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-0162 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION

Before the Court are two motions for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) defendants Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., and

Seoul Semiconductor’s (collectively, “Seoul”) “Motion for Claim Construction and for

Summary Judgment,” filed June 15, 2007; and (2) plaintiff Nichia Corporation’s (“Nichia”)

“Motions for Summary Judgment of Patent Infringement, Validity, and Seoul’s Equitable

Defenses.” Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

above-described motions, the Court finds that neither party has provided the Court with a

proposed claim construction in the manner set forth by the Federal Circuit, and hereby

DIRECTS the parties to file supplemental briefing, for the limited purpose of providing a

proposed claim construction, as set forth below.

In the instant action, Nichia alleges it owns four design patents, each of which

asserts a claim of an ornamental design for a light emitting diode. Both parties seek, inter

alia, summary judgment on the issue of whether the accused products sold or offered for

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 492 Filed 08/01/07 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

1

In support of its motion, Nichia offers an expert report in which Nichia’s expert sets

forth his verbal description of each claimed design. (See Krosin Decl., filed June 16, 2007,

Ex. 19.) Such descriptions, however, are not identified as constructions in Nichia’s motion

and, consequently, it is unclear whether Nichia is relying on said descriptions for such

purpose. In support of its opposition to Nichia’s motion, Seoul offers excerpts from an

expert report in which Seoul’s expert takes issue with certain aspects of the verbal

descriptions provided by Nichia’s expert. (See Parker Decl., filed June 29, 2007, Ex. 19.) 

In its opposition, however, Seoul does not refer to such differences in the context of claim

construction, and, in any event, Seoul’s expert has not, at least in the excerpts provided by

Seoul, set forth an alternative verbal description.

2

sale by Seoul infringe the subject design patents.

The first step in determining whether a design patent is infringed is to construe the

design patent’s claim. See Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F. 3d 1277,

1286 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “In construing a design patent claim, the scope of the claimed

design encompasses its visual appearance as a whole, and in particular the visual

impression it creates.” Contessa Food Products, Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F. 3d 1370,

1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A proper claim construction

consists of a “verbal description” of the visual impression created by the claimed design. 

See Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F. 3d 100, 104 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (construing

claimed design for “sectional sofa group with a corner table and integral end tables”; setting

forth in detail “visual appearance,” including “each sofa section has a double front rail that

begins at the end adjacent to the corner table, follows along the bottom of the sofa towards

the other end, and curves upwardly (i.e., sweeps upward) through a 90E angle to truncate

at a horizontal plane upon which the end table rests”).

By the instant motion, Seoul addresses the issue of claim construction only to the

extent of requesting that the Court construe one claimed design as being limited to an

“opaque” window and construe each claimed design as being limited to “rounded”

electrodes. (See Proposed Order Granting [Seoul’s] Motion for Claim Construction and for

Summary J. at 1:11-13.) Such proposed construction is not a sufficient “verbal description”

of the visual impression created by the claimed designs, but rather, at best, a description of

parts of the claimed designs. Nichia does not address claim construction in any manner. 

In short, neither party has adequately addressed the threshold issue of claim construction.1

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 492 Filed 08/01/07 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

Accordingly, the parties are hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than August 7, 2007

by 4:00 p.m., supplemental briefing consisting of a proposed claim construction for each of

the four subject design patent claims, specifically, a proposed “verbal description” of the

visual impression created by each design, in the manner set forth in Durling. No further

argument nor evidence may be offered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 492 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 3