Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ELANTECH DEVICES CORP., a

corporation existing under the laws of

Taiwan, R.O.C.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SYNAPTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation;

and AVERATEC, INC., a California

corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01839 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

FILED UNDER SEAL

Elantech Devices Corp. (“Elantech”) filed suit against Synaptics, Inc. (“Synaptics”)

for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,352 (“the ’352 patent”). Synaptics counterclaimed

for infringement of U.S. Patents No. 5,880,411 (“the ’411 patent”), No. 5,943,052 (“the ’052

patent”), No. 5,543,592 (“the ’592 patent”), and No. 6,380,931 (“the ’931 patent”).

Now pending before the Court are Elantech’s motion for partial summary judgment

and Elantech’s motion for preliminary injunction. Elantech argues that Synaptics’s touchpad

products implementing Type 2 Code infringe Claim 18 of the ’352 patent as a matter of law. 

Elantech’s motion for preliminary injunction seeks to enjoin Synaptics from infringing the

’352 patent by importing, making, using, selling, or offering to sell its touchpad products

implementing Type 2 Code.

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

The Court previously construed eight terms from the asserted patents as selected by

the parties, including four terms from Elantech’s ’352 patent. See generally Claim

Construction Order, April 6, 2007.

After the Claim Construction Order issued, Synaptics moved for summary judgment

of noninfringement of the ’352 patent. Elantech cross-moved for summary judgment of

infringement. In its October 26, 2007 Memorandum and Order Re: Summary Judgment

Motions (“October 26 Order”), the Court granted Synaptics’s motion for partial summary

judgment of noninfringement for those devices implementing Type 1 Code, but denied

Synaptics’s motion as to devices implementing Type 2 Code. The Court also denied

Elantech’s motion for summary judgment of infringement for all Accused Touchpads on the

ground that Accused Touchpads that implement Type 1 Code do not infringe claim 18 of the

’352 patent. The Court explained: “The Court would grant summary judgment of

infringement for Accused Touchpads implementing Type 2 Code and having enabled finger

counting functionality, but Elantech did not move for partial summary judgment; instead, its

motion seeks judgment on all Accused Touchpads without distinction.” October 26 Order at

15: 21-24. Elantech accordingly has now moved for summary judgment of infringement for

Accused Touchpads implementing Type 2 Code.

B. The ’352 Patent

The ’352 patent, entitled “Multiple Fingers Contact Sensing Method for Emulating

Mouse Buttons and Mouse Operation on a Touch Sensor Pad,” discloses methods and

apparatus for recognizing the presence of multiple fingers on a touchpad and emulating

various mouse functions. Claim 18 is an independent claim which discloses “a touch sensor

for detecting the operative coupling of multiple fingers.” The claim recites two elements, a

“means for scanning the touch sensor to (a) identify a first maxima in a signal corresponding

to a first finger, (b) identify a minima following the first maxima, and © identify a second

maxima in a signal corresponding to a second finger following said minima” and a “means

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

for providing an indication of the simultaneous presence of two fingers in response to

identification of said first and second maxima.”

II. MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT

In its motion for partial summary judgment, Elantech asks that judgment be entered

confirming that Synaptics’s touchpads using Type 2 Code with multiple finger detection

enabled infringe claim 18 of its ’352 patent.

A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment is

improper “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue is

“genuine” only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the

non-moving party. See id. at 248-49. A fact is “material” if the fact may affect the outcome

of the case. See id. at 248. “On summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed in the

light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, with doubts resolved in favor of the

nonmovant.” Crown Operations International, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).

B. Act of Infringement in the United States

35 U.S.C. § 271(a) states that “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell,

or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any

patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” In general,

sales made outside the United States do not constitute patent infringement. See Microsoft

Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 127 S. Ct. 1746, 1750 (2007).

Synaptics argues that Elantech has presented no evidence of sales of infringing

product in the United States. The Court is not persuaded. In order to demonstrate that

Synaptics’s touchpads could infringe, Elantech engineers purchased computers with

Synaptics’s touchpads in the United States. October 26 Order at 10:19-22; Declaration of

Teng-Yen Wu in Support of Elantech’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement, ¶ 3. 

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Such evidence supports an inference of sales of the infringing product in the United States. 

Synaptics does not offer any evidence to dispute that inference. In light of this undisputed

evidence, Elantech has met its burden of establishing an act of infringement within the

United States.

C. Synaptics Products Implementing Type 2 Code Literally Infringe Claim 18

1. Legal Standard for Literal Infringement

To determine infringement, the asserted claim must be compared to the allegedly

infringing method or device. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976

(Fed. Cir. 1995). To establish literal infringement, every claim limitation, or claim element,

must be found in the accused subject matter. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis

Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29, 40 (1997). Thus, establishing that the accused method or

device does not satisfy one claim limitation would support a finding of noninfringement. Id.

The patentee must prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. Bayer AG v.

Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

 Determining infringement is a two-step process involving: 1) construing the patent

claims and 2) determining whether infringement occurred. Markman v. Westview

Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996).

2. Means-Plus-Function Claims Require Comparison of Structures

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 permits “means-plus-function” claims, which allow an element in

a claim with a combination of elements to be expressed as a “means” that performs a recited

function rather than be expressed as a specific structure. However, the statute also limits

how the “means” may be interpreted. In order to prevent the claim from reading on an

unlimited number of structures, the claim must be interpreted in accordance with the statute:

“such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts

described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. If the written

description of the patent fails to disclose the “corresponding structure” for the means recited

in the claim, the claim will be found invalid for failure “to particularly point out and

distinctly claim the invention.” In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir.

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 4 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1994). 

In order to find literal infringement, the structure disclosed in the written description

must be identical or equivalent to an identified structure in the accused device. JVW Enters.

v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Restated, a “structure in

the accused device must perform the claimed function in substantially the same way to

achieve substantially the same result as the structure in the written description.” Id. (quoting

Odetics, Inc.v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

Claim 18 of the ’352 patent involves two elements written in means-plus-function

form. The first element is a “means for scanning the touch sensor . . . ,” while the second

element is a “means for providing an indication of the simultaneous presence of two fingers

in response to identification of said first and second maxima.” (Emphasis added). 

Synaptics argues that structures corresponding to the “means for providing an

indication” have not been identified in either the written description of the patent or in the

accused device.

Elantech has satisfactorily identified a structure in the written description that

performs the function of “providing an indication.” The written description of the ’352

patent discloses the microcontroller 60 which governs the operation of the touchpad. ’352

patent at 5:32-25.

Elantech has also satisfactorily identified a structure in the accused device which

serves as a “means for providing an indication.” As the Court previously concluded, the

execution of the [REDACTED] “satisfies the ‘providing an indication’ claim limitation.” 

October 26 Order at 11:12-15. Therefore, Elantech has satisfactorily identified the structures

in both the written description of the ’352 patent and in the accused device that correspond to

both means-plus-function elements of claim 18, defeating Synaptics’s indefiniteness

argument. 

3. Claim Construction

Claim 18 of the ’352 patent claims “a touch sensor for detecting the operative

coupling of multiple fingers” with two means-plus-function elements. The first element,

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 5 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

“means for scanning” has three sub limitations (a)-©, which were construed to mean (a)

“identify a first peak value in a finger profile obtained from scanning the touch sensor,” (b)

“identify the lowest value in the finger profile that occurs after the first peak value, and

before another peak value is identified,” and © “after identifying the lowest value in the

finger profile, identify a second peak value in the finger profile.” Claim Construction Order

at 15:1-7.

The second element, “means for providing an indication of the simultaneous presence

of two fingers,” was not construed in the Claim Construction Order but was defined in the

October 26 Order at 6:18-7:28. The Court determined that the claim requires an “affirmative

step to provide an indication of multiple fingers,” but “does not require that the ‘indication’

of two fingers be returned to the host.” Id. at 7:26-28. 

4. Comparison of Structures for Infringement

Synaptics’s touchpads implementing Type 2 Code infringe claim 18 of Elantech’s

’352 patent only if the accused devices include each limitation of the claim. The claim

limitations at issue are the “means for scanning” element, including its sublimitations

requiring identification of maxima and minima, and the “means for providing an indication”

element.

“Means for Scanning”

The Court previously denied Synaptics’s motion for summary judgment of

noninfringement for touchpads that implement Type 2 Code because each limitation of the

“means for scanning” element is found within the [REDACTED] or [REDACTED]

algorithm used in the [REDACTED]. October 26 Order at 14:5-15:14. Specifically, “a

[REDACTED] in this vector identifies the presence of a maximum and a [REDACTED]

identifies the presence of a minimum.” Id. at 14:12-13.

Synaptics’s assertion that Type 2 Code does not perform a necessary “analysis” of the

bit array to identify the presence of a minima has previously been considered and refuted by

the Court. Id. at 14:22-25 (holding that the “asserted claims do not require an ‘analysis’ or

‘indication’ of the minima or lowest value; the claims only require that the minima or lowest

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 6 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

value is ‘identified,’ and Type 2 Code identifies a minimum or lowest value at the

[REDACTED]. 

Synaptics also argues that Type 2 Code does not identify the location of the minima

nor identify specific minima and therefore cannot infringe. This argument is based on

additional claim limitations that the Court previously considered and rejected. The Court

declined to read into the term “minima” any additional position information. Claim

Construction Order at 14:1-23. This argument must again be rejected.

In summary, Elantech has established as a matter of law that the sublimitations of the

“means for scanning” element are met by Synaptics’s touchpads implementing Type 2 Code. 

“Means for Providing an Indication”

The “means for providing an indication” element requires an “affirmative step to

provide an indication of multiple fingers,” but “does not require that the ‘indication’ of two

fingers be returned to the host.” October 26 Order at 7:26-28. As discussed supra, Elantech

has satisfied its burden of identifying corresponding structures in the written description and

in the accused device for this means-plus-function element.

As there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that each element of claim 18 of

the ’352 patent is found within Synaptics’s touchpads implementing Type 2 Code, Elantech’s

motion for partial summary judgment of infringement for these devices is granted.

III. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Elantech seeks to enjoin Synaptics from infringing the ’352 patent by importing,

making, using, selling, or offering to sell its touchpads implementing Type 2 Code.

Preliminary injunctions are “issued to protect the patent owner’s rights during the time

of the law suit.” 7-20 Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 20.04 (2007). District courts

have discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 283 to grant or deny preliminary injunctions. 

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, 239 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In

deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, district courts should consider the same

equitable factors that apply in other areas of the law. Abbott Labs. v. Andrx

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The moving party must

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 7 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

establish its right to a preliminary injunction in light of these four factors: “(1) a reasonable

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) a

balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the injunction’s favorable impact on the

public interest.” Amazon.com, 239 F.3d at 1350 (citing Reebok International Ltd. v. J.

Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Of these four factors, the first two are the

most important; a movant cannot be granted a preliminary injunction without findings by the

district court that the movant carried its burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood of

success on the merits and irreparable harm. Reebok International, 32 F.3d at 1556 (citing

Hybritech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446, 1451, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). 

A. Likelihood of Success

The first equitable factor, a reasonable likelihood of success, requires a showing of

validity and infringement. Id. at 1555 (citing Hybritech, 849 F.2d at 1451). An accused

infringer may successfully challenge a motion for preliminary injunction by raising a

“substantial question” concerning validity, enforceability, or infringement. Abbott Labs.,

452 F.3d at 1335 n.2. However, no “substantial question” is raised if the patent holder can

show that the proffered defense “lacks substantial merit.” Id.

1. Validity

In the context of a preliminary injunction motion, “[t]he showing of a substantial

question as to invalidity . . . requires less proof than the clear and convincing showing

necessary to establish invalidity itself.” Id. On the other hand, “a patentee need not establish

the validity of a patent beyond question” but must “present a clear case supporting the

validity of the patent in suit.” Id.

Synaptics challenges the validity of the ’352 patent on the grounds of indefiniteness

and obviousness. 

a. Indefiniteness

Synaptics’s first attempt to raise a “substantial question” of validity challenges claim

18 of the ’352 patent on the grounds of indefiniteness. This argument is essentially identical

to the previous issue involving infringement of means-plus-function claims. As the Court

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 8 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

discussed, neither means-plus-function element of the claim is fatally indefinite because

sufficient structures have been identified in both the written description and in the accused

device. See supra ¶. 4-5.

b. Obviousness

Next, Synaptics seeks to raise a “substantial question” of validity on the grounds of

obviousness. The Court’s analysis of obviousness begins with 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), which

forbids the issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to

be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been

obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to

which said subject matter pertains.” In an invalidity challenge against an issued patent, the

Court begins its analysis with 35 U.S.C. § 282, which states that “an issued patent is

presumed valid.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1737 (2007). 

However, even issued patents may be challenged for obviousness using the framework

described in John Deere, which describes the relevant factors of: (1) the scope and content of

the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and (3) the level

of skill in the pertinent art. Id. at 1729-30 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,

383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).

In KSR International, the Supreme Court further elucidated the analysis necessary to

determine “whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious.” 

KSR International, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. The Court recognized that “a patent composed of

several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements

was, independently, known in the prior art.” Id. at 1741. Nonetheless, a “combination of

familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more

than yield predictable results.” Id. at 1739. The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s TSM

(teaching-suggestion-motivation) test in favor of “an expansive and flexible approach,”

holding: “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the

particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the

objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under 

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 9 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

§ 103.” Id. at 1739, 1741-42. Therefore, a court should look at the “interrelated teachings of

multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the

marketplace and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in

the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known

elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 1740-41. However, “this

analysis should be made explicit;” “mere conclusory statements” are insufficient to support

the legal conclusion of obviousness, instead “there must be some articulated reasoning with

some rational underpinning.” Id. at 1741 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.

2006)).

Synaptics argues that claim 18 of the ’352 patent is obvious because prior art discloses

each element of the claim, specifically “touch sensors detecting multiple fingers,” “use of

maxima values,” “identifying a minima,” and “providing an indication of the simultaneous

presence of two fingers.” Synaptics relies on two patents as prior art: U.S. Patent No.

7,109,978 B2, assigned to Synaptics (“the ’978 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 4,686,332,

assigned to IBM (“the ’332 patent”).

Synaptics’s obviousness challenge does not raise a “substantial question” on several

independent grounds. First, this Court must determine whether Synaptics’s proferred patents

can be considered prior art, and whether they were considered by the Examiner. Elantech’s

’352 patent dates back to its February 28, 1996 filing date. Synaptics asserts that the ’978

patent, though filed on March 26, 2004, obtains the benefit of an earlier priority date under

35 U.S.C. § 120 because it is part of a series of continuation and continuation-in-part

applications dating back to U.S. Patent No. 5,543,591, filed on October 7, 1994. ’978 patent

at 1:5-22. However, claims in a continuing application or series of continuing applications

must be fully supported by the disclosure of the parent application in order to be entitled to

the filing date of the parent. See Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572

(Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, to the extent that the claims of ’978 patent are not supported by

the disclosure of the ’591 patent, they would not be entitled to the earlier filing date and

cannot be considered prior art against the ’352 patent. Alternatively, the claims of the ’978

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 10 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

patent that are supported by the disclosure of the ’591 patent and obtain the benefit of the

earlier filing date receive the same analysis as the ’332 patent: both the ’591 and ’332 patents

are referenced as prior art in the ’352 patent and have been considered by the Examiner. 

’352 patent at [56]. Synaptics faces a heavier burden in establishing invalidity using these

patents: “[w]hen no prior art other than that which was considered by the PTO examiner is

relied on by the attacker, he has the added burden of overcoming the deference that is due to

a qualified government agency presumed to have done its job . . . .” Polaroid Corp. v.

Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing American Hoist & Derrick

Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). 

In its attempt to overcome the Examiner’s determination of nonobviousness, Synaptics

argues both that the Examiner “may not have fully realized the significance of the

disclosures” of the ’591 patent and that prior art was “mischaracterized . . . in an attempt to

overcome rejections during prosecution.” After considering Synaptics’s arguments, this

Court concludes that Synaptics has not overcome the heavy burden of overcoming the

deference due to the Examiner; Synaptics does not sufficiently explain exactly how the

Examiner erred in issuing the patent. Thus, Synaptics’s obviousness challenge in reliance of

previously considered prior art does not have the “substantial merit” necessary to defeat

Elantech’s preliminary injunction motion.

Second, Synaptics fails to cite prior art that involves “identifying a minima.” 

Synaptics states that both the ’978 patent and ’332 patent disclose devices that generate data

from which it is possible to determine both the location and value of a minima. However,

Synaptics fails to specifically identify where in these patents the minima is identified;

instead, Synaptics merely concludes that “this data is sufficient to enable both the location

and the value of a minima following the first maxima to be determined.”

Lastly, even if “identifying a minima” and every other element of the claim was

disclosed (separately) by prior art, Synaptics also fails to provide “articulated reasoning with

some rational underpinning” from which the Court could determine that it was obvious to

combine each of these elements in a single invention. Instead, Synaptics merely points to

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 11 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

12

each individual element of the claim and argues that each element is individually obvious in

light of prior art. Thus Synaptics’s proffered obviousness defense lacks substantial merit by 

failing to present an adequate rationale by which a person of ordinary skill in the art would

combine the elements that are allegedly present in the prior art to form claim 18. See KSR

International, 127 S. Ct. at 1741.

In summary, Synaptics’s obviousness defense fails to raise a substantial question of

invalidity. Elantech has presented a clear case supporting the validity of claim 18 of the ’352

patent.

3. Infringement

In addition to validity, Elantech also must demonstrate that there is no substantial

question as to whether Synaptics has infringed claim 18. Because the Court grants

Elantech’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of claim 18 of the ’352

patent, Elantech has sufficiently shown a likelihood of success for its preliminary injunction

motion.

B. Irreparable Harm

The second equitable factor in a motion for preliminary injunction is a showing of

irreparable harm if the injunction does not issue. This factor is closely related to the first

factor in patent infringement suits: “a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits

coupled with continuing infringement raises a presumption of irreparable harm to the

patentee.” Reebok International, 32 F.3d at 1556; see Abbott Labs., 452 F.3d at 1347. This

presumption in patent infringement suits arises because “the principal value of a patent is its

statutory right to exclude,” therefore, “the nature of the patent grant weighs against holding

that monetary damages will always suffice to make the patentee whole.” Reebok

International, 32 F.3d at 1557 (citing Hybritech, 849 F.2d at 1457).

However, the presumption of irreparable harm is rebuttable: an alleged infringer may

disprove irreparable harm by producing evidence that the patentee would not be harmed if

the preliminary injunction does not issue. Id. In certain cases, a period of delay prior to

seeking a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement suit “may be so significant, in the

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 12 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

district court’s discretion, as to preclude a determination of irreparable harm.” Hybritech,

849 F.2d at 1457. But “a showing of delay does not preclude, as a matter of law, a

determination of irreparable harm,” instead “a period of delay is but one circumstance that

the district court must consider in the context of the totality of the circumstances.” Id. The

Federal Circuit has also stated that “[a]bsent a good explanation, . . . 17 months is a

substantial period of delay that militates against the issuance of a preliminary injunction by

demonstrating that there is no apparent urgency to the request for injunctive relief.” High

Tech Medical Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1557 (Fed. Cir.

1995). 

The presumption of irreparable harm may also be rebutted by showing that money

damages are an adequate remedy if a preliminary injunction is not granted. In the context of

patent infringement cases, “the nature of the patent grant . . . weighs against holding that

monetary damages will always suffice to make the patentee whole, for the principal value of

a patent is its statutory right to exclude.” H.H. Robertson Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 820

F.2d 384, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Markman v. Westview

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “This presumption derives in part from

the finite term of the patent grant, for patent expiration is not suspended during litigation, and

the passage of time can work irremediable harm.” Id. Preliminary injunctions are thus

warranted to deny potential infringers the “opportunity to practice an invention during the

notoriously lengthy course of patent litigation.” Id. However, “there is no presumption that

money damages will be inadequate in connection with a motion for an injunction pendente

lite.” Nutrition 21 v. U.S., 930 F.2d 867, 872 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Instead, “[s]ome evidence

and reasoned analysis for that inadequacy should be proffered,” such as the few remaining

years of patent life. Id. (citing H.H. Robertson, 820 F.2d at 390).

Lastly, even if a finding of irreparable harm is not rebutted, district courts are not

automatically required to grant injunction relief; instead “the decision whether to grant or

deny injunction relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts,” to be

“exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange,

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 13 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

14

L.L.C., 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1841 (2006).

 Elantech is entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm because it has made a strong

showing of likelihood of success: indeed, the Court concludes that Elantech has proven

infringement as a matter of law and Synaptics has failed to raise a substantial question of

validity. See Reebok, 32 F.3d at 1556-57. Synaptics attempts to rebut this presumption on

two grounds: that Elantech has unreasonably delayed in filing its preliminary injunction

motion, and that money damages would be adequate. The Court finds that in the

circumstances of this case, neither argument rebuts the presumption. 

First, Synaptics correctly asserts that delay is “one factor to be considered by a district

court in its analysis of irreparable harm.” Nutrition 21, 930 F.2d at 871. Synaptics points to

a 21-month delay since the lawsuit was filed on March 10, 2006 in order to prove that

Elantech has not been irreparably harmed. However, according to Synaptics, “the parties

have periodically engaged in settlement discussions over the past two years.” Syn. Opp. at 2.

Settlement discussions have been recognized as a “good explanation” for the delay in seeking

a preliminary injunction. See High Tech Medical Instrumention, 49 F.3d at 1557; see also

Russell William, Ltd. v. ABC Display and Supply, Inc., No. 88-CV-265, 1989 WL 23947, at

*2 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) (“In certain instances, courts have excused delays where the parties were

attempting to negotiate a settlement, [or] where the defendant has led the plaintiff to believe

that it would cease the infringing conduct.”). Moreover, Synaptics is unable to cite any case

in which a preliminary injunction has been denied after summary judgment has entered

against the party challenging the preliminary injunctive relief.

Synaptics also overemphasizes the statement in Nutrition 21 that there is no

presumption that money damages will be inadequate. In Nutrition 21, the Federal Circuit

explained that normally as long as “[s]ome evidence and reasoned analysis for that

inadequacy . . . [is] proffered,” a district court may grant a preliminary injunction, but in that

case the appellate court overturned the injunction because “an adequate supporting record”

had not been made. Nutrition 21, 930 F.2d at 871. Elantech’s patent will expire in 2016, 20

years from its filing date. The ’352 patent grant has less than half of its term remaining. This

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 14 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

15

Court also anticipates continuing and protracted litigation; final judgment, and thus

permanent injunctive relief, cannot be entered until the Court resolves Synaptics’s

counterclaims against Elantech. Delaying an injunction until the litigation is concluded

would irreparably harm Elantech by depriving Elantech of part of its patent grant. In

addition, because Elantech and Synaptics both sell touchpads, Elantech’s lost market share

may be difficult to calculate and compensate with money damages. Finally, at oral argument,

Synaptics claimed that it is no longer manufacturing touchpads with Type 2 Code so there is

no need for an injunction. The short answer is that there is no evidence in the record to

support Synpatics’s statement.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Elantech will suffer

irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction does not issue.

D. Balance of Hardships

The Court finds that the balance of hardships favors Elantech; indeed Synaptics does

not even address this factor. Synaptics, as the larger company with multiple touchpad

products, would not be forced out of business or even out of the touchpad market if the

preliminary injunction is granted. But if the preliminary injunction is not granted Elantech’s

patent could lose its value over the course of litigation. Therefore the balance of hardships

favors Elantech.

E. Public Interest

As stated in Abbott Labs., the “public is best served by enforcing patents that are

likely valid and infringed.” Abbott Labs., 452 F.3d at 1348. Given Elantech’s likelihood of

success on the merits of validity and infringement, this factor tips in Elantech’s favor. 

Synaptics presents no argument on its behalf as to this factor.

In summary, considering each of the equitable factors for a preliminary injunction, the

Court finds that on balance the factors favor Elantech, especially in its proof of likelihood of

success and irreparable harm. Therefore the Court acts within its discretion and grants

Elantech’s motion for preliminary injunction enjoining the continuing infringement of its

’352 patent by Synaptics’s touchpads implementing Type 2 Code.

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 15 of 16
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

16

VI. CONCLUSION

Elantech’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of claim 18 of the

’352 patent by Synaptic’s touchpads implementing Type 2 Code is GRANTED. Elantech’s

motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Synaptics from infringing the ’352 patent by

importing, making, using, selling, or offering to sell its touchpad products implementing

Type 2 Code is also GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 301 Filed 04/14/08 Page 16 of 16