Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451/USCOURTS-cand-5_98-cv-20451-14/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 (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 12/20/06**

NOT FOR CITATION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 (1) GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; (2) DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; AND 

(3) ADDRESSING FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS

[re: doc. nos. 927, 935]

Defendants Jenoptik AG, Jenoptik Infab, Inc., Emtrak, Inc. and Meissner + Wurst GmbH

(collectively, “Jenoptik”) seek reconsideration of two aspects of this Court’s order of November

14, 2006 (“November 14 Order”), and Plaintiff Asyst Technologies, Inc. (“Asyst”) seeks

reconsideration of one aspect of that order. Jenoptik asks the Court to reconsider its denial of

Jenoptik’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity for nonstatutory double patenting, as well

as its order overruling Jenoptik’s objections to the statements of Asyst employees Dan Fritschen

and Kirk Garrison. Asyst asks the Court to reconsider its ruling that Jenoptik may assert

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 10
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 (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

invalidity defenses – including the defense of nonstatutory double patenting – not previously

pleaded. The Court has considered the briefing of the parties, including the supplemental

briefing submitted on December 19, 2006, as well as the arguments of counsel presented at the

status conferences on November 17, 2006 and December 20, 2006. For the reasons discussed

below, the Court will grant Jenoptik’s motion with respect to its double patenting invalidity

defense and otherwise will deny that motion. Asyst’s motion also will be denied.

ASYST’S MOTION

Asyst seeks reconsideration of the Court’s ruling that Jenoptik may assert invalidity

defenses not previously pleaded in this action. Asyst did not seek leave to file a motion for

reconsideration as required by this Court’s Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), but rather included a request

for reconsideration in the body of its opposition to Jenoptik’s motion for reconsideration. 

Asyst’s motion thus is procedurally defective. Moreover, as Jenoptik points out, because Asyst

improperly made its purported “cross-motion” for reconsideration in the context of its opposition

to Jenoptik’s motion for reconsideration, Jenoptik was forced to address both its own motion and

Asyst’s motion in a fifteen-page reply brief. In light of the fact that Jenoptik’s new invalidity

defenses are potentially dispositive, however, the Court will consider Asyst’s motion for

reconsideration on the merits. The Court granted both sides leave to present supplemental

briefing in part to alleviate any prejudice to Jenoptik caused by Asyst’s improper inclusion of its

cross-motion for reconsideration in its opposition to Jenoptik’s motion.

The thrust of Asyst’s motion is that Asyst has been unfairly prejudiced by the Court’s

order permitting Jenoptik to assert new invalidity defenses on the eve of trial when Jenoptik

purportedly could have asserted such defenses much earlier in the case. These are the same

arguments that Asyst made in opposition to Jenoptik’s original motion for summary judgment of

invalidity. After examining the record, the Court concluded that Jenoptik was entitled to assert

new invalidity defenses because of the change in claim construction effected by the Federal

Circuit in its decision on Asyst’s last appeal. November 14 Order at 10-11. Asyst disputes this

conclusion, arguing that Jenoptik should have asserted the subject defenses much earlier in the

case. On this point the Court simply disagrees, for the reasons set forth in the November 14

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 10
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

 Jenoptik argues that all arguments regarding disclosure of limitations in claim 8 of the

‘166 patent extend to claim 11 of the ‘166 patent as well. For ease of discussion, this order refers

only to claim 8 of the ‘166 patent.

3

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

Order. 

With respect to prejudice, the Court noted in its November 14 Order that Asyst had failed

to identify any particular prejudice to it as a result of Jenoptik’s assertion of additional invalidity

defenses. Asyst articulates the prejudice much more clearly in its motion for reconsideration. In

particular, Asyst points out that it has dismissed all claims based upon United States Patent No.

4,974,166 (“the ‘166 patent”) and elected to proceed only on the claims of United States Patent

No. 5,097,421 (“the ‘421 patent”). Asyst argues persuasively that it might not have dropped the

‘166 patent from the case had it been aware that Jenoptik was contending that the ‘421 patent is

invalid for double patenting over the ‘421 patent.

The prejudice articulated by Asyst is significant. However, after reviewing the record the

Court reaffirms its conclusion that Jenoptik reasonably could not have been expected to assert a

double patenting defense until after the Federal Circuit’s last change in the claim construction. It

is not apparent from the face of the ‘166 and ‘421 patents that a double patenting defense lies,

especially since claim 82 of the ‘166 patent makes no explicit reference to a “sensing means” and

claim 2 of the ‘421 patent clearly contains a “sensing means” limitation. When this Court first

addressed the sensing means limitation of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent, it concluded that claim 2

did not disclose structure corresponding to the sensing means. On appeal, the Federal Circuit

concluded that the structure corresponding to the sensing means was communication means 50-1

that performed the “ready-set protocol.” Asyst Technologies, Inc. v. Empak, Inc., 268 F.3d 1364,

1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). On remand, this Court interpreted the Federal Circuit’s construction to

require that the structure corresponding to the sensing means include not only communication

means 50-1, but also local processor 20, because local processor 20 was necessary to perform the

“ready set protocol.” On appeal from that decision, the Federal Circuit clarified that the structure

corresponding to the sensing means did not have to perform the “ready set protocol” and thus did

not necessarily include the local processor. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that the structure

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 10
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 (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

corresponding to the sensing means was only communication means 50-1. The Federal Circuit

eliminated from the construction of sensing means any additional structure – such as the local

processor – that might be thought necessary to trigger communication between the tool and the

pod.

While claim 8 of the ‘166 patent does not explicitly recite a “sensing means,” claim 8

does contain a communication means that works in the same fashion as the communication

means of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent. Jenoptik’s argument is that, in light of the Federal Circuit’s

last change in claim construction, the disclosure of the communication means in claim 8 of the

‘166 patent constitutes an inherent disclosure of a “sensing means” as well. Because Jenoptik

reasonably could not have been expected to make this argument in the context of the previous

claim constructions (and such argument certainly would have failed), the Court concludes that it

would be unfair to preclude Jenoptik from making the argument now that the recent change in

claim construction has “changed the rules of the game.” See Johns Hopkins University v.

CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

However, in light of the significant prejudice Asyst has articulated, the Court would be

inclined to entertain a motion for leave to re-assert the ‘166 patent in this litigation

notwithstanding Asyst’s dismissal with prejudice of claims based upon that patent. While the

Court is not eager to expand the scope of this litigation given the age of the case and the lengthy

procedural history, allowing Asyst to re-assert the ‘166 patent at least would provide an

opportunity for Asyst to reassert the claims it lost when it dismissed the ‘166 patent unaware that

Jenoptik would be asserting a double patenting defense.

Accordingly, Asyst’s motion for reconsideration will be denied.

JENOPTIK’S MOTION

Jenoptik seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of Jenoptik’s motion for summary

judgment of invalidity for nonstatutory double patenting, and of the Court’s order overruling

Jenoptik’s objections to the statements of Asyst employees Dan Fritschen (“Fritschen”) and Kirk

Garrison (“Garrison”). With respect to the admissibility of the statements of Fritschen and

Garrison, Jenoptik argues that these individuals do not have sufficient personal knowledge to

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 4 of 10
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

make statements regarding Asyst’s marking practices that predated their employment with Asyst. 

In its November 14 Order, the Court ruled that Fritschen and Garrison had personal knowledge

regarding Asyst’s present marking practices, supported by documentation indicating that Asyst in

fact had marked its products prior to the filing of this lawsuit. The Court held that this evidence,

combined with other evidence in the record, was sufficient to create a triable issue of material

fact on the marking issue, and that Jenoptik’s argument that Fritschen and Garrison did not work

at Asyst during the relevant time frame went to the weight of the evidence rather than its

admissibility. The Court has reviewed the record in light of Jenoptik’s motion, and again

concludes that the statements of Fritschen and Garrison are both admissible and, combined with

other evidence in the record, sufficient to raise a strong inference that Asyst marked its products

beginning in 1994. 

With respect to Jenoptik’s defense of nonstatutory double patenting, Jenoptik makes two

substantive arguments. First, it argues that while the Court addressed the question of whether the

claims of the ‘421 patent were anticipated by the ‘166 patent, it failed to address the critical

question of whether the claims of the ‘421 patent were obvious in light of the ‘166 patent. 

However, as Asyst correctly points out, Jenoptik’s motion for summary judgment on double

patenting argued only that each and every element of the claims at issue in the ‘421 patent was

disclosed in claims 8 and 11 of the ‘166 patent. Jenoptik did not argue in its moving papers that

the claims of the ‘421 patent were obvious in light of the ‘166 patent, although Jenoptik did

make a passing argument regarding obviousness in its reply brief. Because Jenoptik failed

properly to present a double patenting argument based upon obviousness for the Court’s

consideration in its original motion, the Court declines to “reconsider” such argument now.

Second, Jeniptik argues that the Court erred in its analysis of Jenoptik’s nonstatutory

double patenting defense. As to this argument, the Court concludes that the motion for

reconsideration is well-taken. As noted in the November 14 Order, it is undisputed that

limitations 1, 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent are disclosed in claim 8 of the ‘166

patent. It likewise is undisputed that all additional limitations of dependent claims 11-14 of the

‘421 patent are disclosed in claim 8 of the ‘166 patent. The parties’ dispute thus focuses on

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 5 of 10
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

whether limitations 2, 3 and 4 of the ‘421 patent are disclosed in claim 8 of the ‘166 patent. In

its November 14 Order, the Court cited Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., 290 F.3d

1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002), for the proposition that in order for a means-plus-function limitation

to be literally found in a reference, the reference “must disclose the recited function identically.” 

The Court took a limited view of the meaning of the term “disclose,” and concluded that because

claim 8 of the ‘166 patent did not recite certain of the functions of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent,

claim 8 of the ‘166 patent did not disclose those functions as required by Transclean.

Jenoptik argues that Transclean is not the appropriate controlling authority, because

Transclean is an anticipation case that does not address nonstatutory double patenting. However,

as is noted above, Jenoptik argues that claim 8 of the ‘166 patent anticipates claim 2 of the ‘421

patent. Moreover, in its reply brief to its original motion for summary judgment of invalidity,

Jenoptik did not argue that Transclean was irrelevant authority, but rather argued that the

Transclean requirement of identical disclosure was met by claim 8 of the ‘166 patent. The Court

thus concludes that the Transclean disclosure requirement remains applicable.

It is clear from the additional authorities cited by Jenoptik that a later patent is invalid for

double patenting if the earlier patent “discloses every limitation of the claimed invention either

explicitly or inherently.” Eli Lilly an d Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 970 (Fed.

Cir. 2001) (emphasis added) (finding double patenting because earlier claim inherently disclosed

the recited limitations of the later claim). The Court thus should have construed claim 8 of the

‘166 patent and determined whether the disputed limitations of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent are

explicitly or inherently disclosed therein. When comparing the limitations of the two claims, the

Court must consider the structure disclosed in connection with limitations written in means-plusfunction format. In re Lonardo, 119 F.3d 960, 967 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Jenoptik asserts that limitations 2, 3 and 4 of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent are disclosed in a

single limitation of claim 8 of the ‘166 patent reading as follows with the relevant language

highlighted in bold: 

a storage station including means for receiving said transportable container, for

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 6 of 10
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

providing communication between the data processing means provided on

the transportable container and the central processing unit, and for making a

backup copy of the information stored by said data processing means.

‘166 patent at col. 20:20-25 (emphasis added). Jenoptik offers a construction of this limitation

that identifies as the corresponding structure all the structure comprising the communication path

between the data processing means and the central processing unit, including a transmitter (such

as a light-emitting diode), a receiver (such as a photosensitive transistor), a multiplexer and a

IBM compatible personal computer. Asyst does not offer a competing construction, although as

discussed below Asyst does attack Jenoptik’s proposed construction on various grounds. The

Court concludes that Jenoptik’s construction is proper and adopts it.

Comparing the structures corresponding to limitations 2, 3 and 4 of the claim 2 of the

‘421 patent on the one hand and the above limitation of claim 8 of the ‘166 patent on the other,

the corresponding structures appear to be virtually identical. With respect to limitation 2 of

claim 2, the “sensing means,” the Federal Circuit has held that the communication means senses

the presence of the transportable container when a signal is sent by a transmitter such as a lightemitting diode and received by a receiver such as a photosensitive transistor. The above

limitation of claim 8 contains such a transmitter and receiver. Accordingly, the Court concludes

that the “sensing means” of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent is inherently disclosed in claim 8 of the

‘166 patent. 

With respect to limitation 3 of claim 2, the “selection means,” the corresponding structure

is a multiplexer. Asyst argues that claim 8 of the ‘166 patent does not disclose a multiplexer,

pointing to Figure 14, which shows the storage computer and storage trays connected by a bus

rather than a multiplexer. However, Figure 13 shows these same two structures connected by a

multiplexer. Because the “means for providing communication” disclosed in claim 8 of the ‘166

patent is written in means-plus-function format, the limitation encompasses all alternative

embodiments disclosed in the specification. See Serrano v. Telular Corp., 111 F.3d 1578, 1583

(Fed. Cir. 1997). Asyst argues that Figure 13 does not relate to claim 8 and thus does not

disclose an alternative embodiment. However, Figure 13 shows the same storage computer 644

connected to the same storage trays 630; accordingly, the Court concludes that Figure 13 does

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 7 of 10
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

8

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

show an alternative embodiment of the communication path disclosed in claim 8. 

Finally, with respect to limitation 4 of claim 2, the “central processor means,” the

corresponding structure is a central control processor such as an IBM compatible personal

computer. Such a central control processor is disclosed as part of the “means for providing

communication” in claim 8.

After construing claim 8 of the ‘166 patent, and comparing the structures corresponding

thereto with the structures corresponding to claim 2 of the ‘421 patent, the Court concludes that

each and every limitation of claim 2 of the ‘421 patent (and of its dependent claims 11-14) is

explicitly or inherently disclosed in claim 8 of the ‘166 patent. Accordingly, the Court concludes

that claims 2 and 11-14 of the ‘421 patent are invalid for double patenting over claim 8 of the

‘166 patent. Jenoptik’s motion for reconsideration will be granted on this ground.

FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

Asyst has indicated its intent to file a terminal disclaimer with respect to the ‘421 patent

in the event that the Court grants Jenoptik’s motion for reconsideration with respect to

nonstatutory double patenting. The parties disagree as to the effect of such terminal disclaimer. 

Asyst asserts that such terminal disclaimer would cure the double patenting problem and that the

trial thus should go forward as planned. Jenoptik asserts that such terminal disclaimer would

entitle Asyst to seek damages for infringement of the ‘421 patent only prospectively, and that

Asyst would not be entitled to seek damages for the period prior to the filing of the terminal

disclaimer. After considering the parties’ briefing on this issue, as well as the oral arguments

presented at the status conference on December 20, 2006, the Court is inclined to agree with

Asyst. However, the Court has requested further briefing on a related issue: the effect, if any, of

meritorious defenses to the ‘166 patent on litigation of the ‘421 patent in light of the Court’s

finding of nonstatutory double patenting. The Court will reserve its final decision on the issue of

retrospective damages until completion of that briefing on December 29, 2006.

Because the Court is inclined to conclude that Asyst may proceed with its retrospective

damages claims, the Court has adjusted the trial schedule to accommodate all of the pretrial

proceedings that must be accomplished before trial of this matter commences. The Court will

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 8 of 10
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

9

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

hear argument regarding the parties’ motions in limine and other contested pretrial matters on

January 5, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. Jury selection will commence on January 12, 2007.

ORDER

(1) Asyst’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED;

(2) Jenoptik’s motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART as set forth above; and

(3) The Court reserves the question of the effect of any terminal disclaimer filed by

Asyst pending receipt of the parties’ supplemental briefing on December 29,

2006.

DATED: 12/20/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:98-cv-20451-JF Document 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 9 of 10
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

Case No. C 98-20451 JF 

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECON ETC.

(JFLC2)

Copies of Order served on:

Joseph Stephen Belichick jbelichick@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 987 Filed 12/20/06 Page 10 of 10