Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-33/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

02CV2060-B (CAB)

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 DENYING GATEWAY’S

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT THAT U.S. PATENT NO.

4,383,272 IS INVALID UNDER 35 U.S.C §

102(g) AND GRANTING SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION ON CERTAIN

PREDICATE ISSUES PERTAINING TO

THIS DEFENSE

I. INTRODUCTION

Gateway moves the Court for summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 4,383,272

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1948 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 6
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

02CV2060-B (CAB)

(“the ‘272 patent”) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102(g). Multimedia Patent Trust

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

MPT also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment of no invalidity; the Court denied

MPT’s cross-motion on June 27, 2007. The Court now DENIES Gateway’s motion as to

invalidity but GRANTS summary adjudication on certain predicate issues related to this

defense. 

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Summary Judgment

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).

B. Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)

Under 35 U.S.C. §102(g)(2), “a person is entitled to a patent . . . unless before such

person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who

had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it.” The determination of first to invent

compares the dates of conception and reduction to practice between the patent’s inventors

and the alleged prior inventor. 35 U.S.C. §102(g)(2). The inquiry also considers “the

reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a

time prior to conception by the other.” Id. To succeed on an affirmative defense under

§102(g), defendant must show prior reduction to practice or prior conception and

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1948 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 6
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 raised a procedural objection to Gateway’s motion and moved to strike the motion and

Gateway’s §102(g) defense. The Court addressed this issue in its Order of June 27, 2007 and denied

MPT’s motion to strike Gateway’s motion for summary judgment and bar the invalidity defense.

3

02CV2060-B (CAB)

reasonable diligence in reducing the invention to practice. See Mycogen Plant Science v.

Monsanto Co., 243 F.3d 1316, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In proving invalidity “ an inventor's

testimony respecting the facts surrounding a claim of derivation or priority of invention

cannot, standing alone, rise to the level of clear and convincing proof.” Price v. Symsek,

988 F.2d 1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir.1993). Corroboration is assessed under a rule of reason, and

may be accomplished by documentary and/or oral testimony. Id. at 1195. 

III. GATEWAY’S MOTION FOR INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)1

The ‘272 patent is directed to techniques for video compression. The patent was

applied for on April 13, 1981, and issued on May 10, 1983. Claim 13, the only claim at

issue between the parties, is directed to a method of estimating the intensities of picture

elements (pixels) in a picture. Gateway’s §102(g) defense is based upon the assertion that

Dr. Jaswant Jain was the first to conceive and diligently reduce to practice the invention set

forth in claim 13 of the ‘272 patent. 

The instant summary judgment motion is predicated on two assertions by Gateway:

(1) there is no dispute of material fact that Jain had reduced claim 13 to practice by

September 1979; and (2) MPT cannot demonstrate reasonable diligence by the ‘272

inventors between September 30, 1979 (the latest date by which Jain is alleged to have

reduced the invention to practice) and April 13, 1981 (the date when the ‘272 patent was

filed). 

With respect to the first assertion, questions of fact remain to preclude summary

judgment. As the Court discussed with respect to MPT’s cross-motion on this defense,

because claim 13 is a method claim, Gateway must demonstrate that the method was

actually performed to show reduction to practice by Jain. Gateway contends that the

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1948 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 6
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

02CV2060-B (CAB)

performance of the method is evidenced by Jain’s Ph.D. thesis and testimony and

corroborated by two witnesses, Wang and Kazakos. As for the thesis, although MPT does

not dispute that a computer executing the algorithm identified in Dr. Jain's dissertation as

equation 2-17 to process video would perform all the method steps of claim 13, the thesis

alone cannot show that the method was ever performed. Regarding Jain’s testimony, MPT

challenges whether the corroboration is sufficient to establish reduction to practice for each

of the steps of the claimed method. Wang testified that he was with Jain when the video

processing software was running on the university computers. Kazakos testified that he

had seen parts of Jain’s code for the video processing. Having considered this evidence,

the Court finds that on this issue questions of fact remain and therefore summary judgment

of Gateway’s motion on invalidity of the ‘272 patent is DENIED.

Although summary judgment is not warranted, the Court finds that certain predicate

issues to the § 102(g) defense are suitable for summary adjudication under Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(d). First, the parties agree that a computer executing the algorithm identified in Dr.

Jain's dissertation as equation 2-17 to process video would perform all the method steps of

claim 13. 

Second, regarding diligence of the ‘272 patent inventors, Gateway asserted in its

moving papers that MPT had no evidence that the inventors exercised reasonable diligence

in reducing claim 13 to practice between September 30, 1979 and April 13, 1981. It argued

that one inventor, John Robbins, did not testify as to any activities related to the invention

during this period and his notebook was devoid of entries related to the invention during

this period. MPT did not dispute these contentions. Gateway also pointed out that Barry

Freedman, the attorney who prepared and prosecuted the ‘272 patent, could not offer any

evidence as to activities that occurred in this period or as to any reasons for a delay in filing

the application because he testified at deposition to no recollection of events pertaining to

this patent application. MPT did not dispute this assertion.

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1948 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 6
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

02CV2060-B (CAB)

Gateway also argued that there was a lack of evidence as to any invention-related

activities by the other inventor of the ‘272 patent, Arun Netravali. In response, MPT

contended that Netravali had demonstrated actual reduction of practice of the invention as

of April 1979. In support, MPT offered the testimony of Netravali that a simulation model

was constructed and a “Preliminary Report of Invention” which states the computer

software and printouts provide evidence of his invention. This evidence is insufficient to

demonstrate actual reduction to practice because Netravali’s testimony is uncorroborated. 

See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“sufficient

evidence to corroborate an inventor’s testimony” is necessary to establish actual reduction

to practice); Hahn v. Wong, 892 F.2d 1028, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“The inventor . . . must

provide independent corroborating evidence in addition to his own statements and

documents.”). The Preliminary Report of Invention cannot act as corroboration because it

is signed only by Netravali himself. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157,

1170 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“an unwitnessed notebook is insufficient on its own to support a

claim of reduction to practice). Aside from MPT’s argument that it established actual

reduction to practice as of April 1979, MPT did not offer any evidence to refute Gateway’s

contention that there was no evidence of reasonable diligence in the period between when

Jain allegedly reduced his method to practice and when the inventors filed the application

for the ‘272 patent.

Having considered Gateway’s contentions and the evidence presented by the parties,

the Court finds that on certain predicate issues underlying Gateway’s § 102(g) defense

MPT failed to raise an issue of fact. 

The Court therefore GRANTS summary adjudication on the following predicate

issues:

(1) A computer executing the algorithm identified in Dr. Jain's dissertation as equation 2-17

to process video would perform all the method steps of claim 13; 

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1948 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

02CV2060-B (CAB)

(2) Because MPT failed to raise an issue of fact, it is established that there was an absence

of reasonable diligence in reducing claim 13 to practice by the inventors of the ‘272 patent

or by the attorney who prepared and prosecuted the ‘272 patent application in the period

after Dr. Jain allegedly reduced his method to practice (after September 30, 1979) and

before the inventors filed the application for the ‘272 patent on April 13, 2007.

(3) Because MPT failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to corroboration of the

inventors’ actual reduction to practice, it is established that the inventors of the ‘272 patent

did not actually reduce the invention of claim 13 to practice prior to the filing of the

application for the patent on April 13, 1981.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 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 1948 Filed 07/12/07 Page 6 of 6