Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-26/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 02CV2060-B (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

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,

_____________________________________

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-defendant,

v.

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Defendant and Counter-claimant

_____________________________________

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Civil No: 02CV2060-B(CAB)

consolidated with

Civil No: 03CV0699-B (CAB) and

Civil No: 03CV1108-B (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND

DENYING-IN-PART CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CONCERNING INFRINGEMENT OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 4,763,356

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 9
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

 Lucent’s motion also addresses invalidity issues; these have been ruled on in a separate order.

2

 Dell joined Microsoft’s motion.

2

Lucent moves the Court for summary judgment that Microsoft’s software products

Microsoft Money, Intuit Quicken, Microsoft Outlook, Windows Mobile/Pocket PC and

Word Mobile infringe claims 19 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 4,763,356 (“the ‘356 patent”).1

Microsoft has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment of non-infringement only as to

Microsoft Outlook.2

 For the reasons herein, the Court DENIES both motions.

I. BACKGROUND

Lucent has asserted the ‘356 patent against Defendants Dell, Gateway, and

Microsoft. The ‘356 patent relates to a form entry system for filling out computerized

forms using on-screen tools, rather than using a physical keyboard. Lucent contends that

Gateway’s and Dell’s computers infringe the ‘356 patent when the computers are

programmed with Microsoft Money, Microsoft Outlook, Intuit Quicken and Microsoft

Windows Mobile and Pocket PC operating software.

Defendants initially brought two summary judgment motions on the ‘356 patent -

one for non-infringement and the other for invalidity-anticipation. Lucent also brought

motions for summary adjudication on no invalidity by anticipation and on the Defendants’

affirmative defenses. On March 7, 2007, the Court granted the motion for noninfringement on the mean-plus-function claims at issue in the ‘356 patent (independent

claims 1 and 10 and dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11-13 and 16) on the ground that Lucent

had failed to provide any evidence that the corresponding structures (particular algorithms)

were present in the accused devices. The Court did not consider or rule as to the remaining

methods claims, independent claim 19 and dependent claim 21.

During the hearing on the summary judgment motions, a dispute came to light on the

term “concurrently displaying.” To resolve the dispute, the Court set a Markman hearing to

construe this term. Additionally, the Court permitted the parties to file additional summary

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 9
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

judgment motions based on the potential new claim construction. On April 17, 2007, the

Court ruled that the definition of “concurrently displaying” would remain unchanged and

the original claim construction would stand unamended. The Court now rules on the

summary judgment motions concerning infringement of claims 19 and 21.

II. STANDARD OF LAW

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).

When the moving party does not bear the burden of proof, summary judgment is

warranted by demonstration of an absence of facts to support the non-moving party’s case.” 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Summary judgment must be granted if

the party responding to the motion fails “to make a sufficient showing on an essential

element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Id. at 323. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Microsoft Outlook

Microsoft Outlook (“Outlook”) is a software program which allows the user to

schedule appointments and manage a calendar (as well as other functions not related to the

motions herein). At issue is the software’s appointment window, which provides fields for

the user to fill-in the type of appointment, its date, time and other information. Lucent

contends that this feature of Outlook meets each and every limitation of independent claim

19 of the ‘356 patent. 

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 9
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

 Microsoft also argues that this claim element is not met because the tool is not automatically

displayed by Outlook. However, in the supplemental claim construction, the Court determined that

"automatically" is not required for "concurrently displaying." Thus, this argument does not prevail.

4

Claim 19 sets forth “[a] method for use in a computer having a display” which

comprises a number of elements. The parties do not dispute that Outlook encompasses the

first two claimed elements: “displaying on said display a plurality of information fields”

and “identifying for each field a kind of information to be inserted therein.” The parties

also do not dispute the last element: “inserting in said one field information that is derived

as a result of said user operating said displayed tool.” The heart of the dispute lies with the

third element of the claim.

The first part of the third element reads:

indicating a particular one of said information fields into which information is to be

inserted and for concurrently displaying a predefined tool associated with said one

of said fields, said predefined tool being operable to supply information of the kind

identified for said one field.

Microsoft argues that this limitation is not met because when the two parts of the element

are read together, the software must concurrently display the tool and the indicator, i.e. the

field must remain highlighted while the tool is displayed. Microsoft contends that because

the highlighting on the field disappears when Outlook shows the tool, it is therefore not

displayed concurrently. Lucent asserts that Outlook meets this limitation because it

provides a calendar and drop-down tools that overlay the appointments page and provides

the appropriate kind of information for the field. It contends that so long as the

highlighting appears in the associated tool (e.g., if “reminder” is the active field, one option

on the list of reminder times remains highlighted), the element is satisfied. Hence, there

remains an issue of facts as to whether this type of highlighting in Outlook satisfies the step

of indicating a field and concurrently displaying in the context of the ‘356.3

The parties also dispute whether the second part of the third element is met by

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 4 of 9
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

 Microsoft additionally contends that this claim element should be interpreted so that "selected

from a group of predefined tools" means that each field must have more than one option of a tool that

could be used to fill in that particular field, whereas Outlook provides only a single tool applicable

to each field. This argument is a strained construction of this claim element. The ‘356 patent provides

examples where a single type of tool is brought up by the system. (See ‘356 patent, col. 3:41-4:41.)

While Microsoft's expert Mr. Buscaino opines that the claim should be construed otherwise, neither

he nor Microsoft point to any support in the ‘356 patent for such a strained interpretation. Since claim

interpretation is a question of law, not a question of fact for the experts, Mr. Buscaino's strained claim

interpretation cannot be used to raise an issue of fact on this point. 

5

Outlook. It reads:

said tool being selected from a group of predefined tools including a tool adapted to

supply an individual entry from a menu of alternatives and at least a tool adapted to

allow said user to compose said information. 

Lucent argues that this element is met because Outlook has a menu of alternatives such as

the reminder menu with a drop-down menu of a list of times and it also has a composition

tool which is the calendar display for inputting the date. Lucent claims the calendar display

(also called date-picker) is a specialized number pad and thus is a type of composition tool

or an equivalent thereof described by the ‘356 patent.

Microsoft disputes that the calendar is literally a composition tool. The ‘356 patent

classifies only a few tools as “composition tools,” the on-screen keyboard, a number pad

and a calculator. (‘356 patent; col. 16:12-14.) All of these tools allow the user to input

numbers or letters into a field, rather than a defined choice (such as a menu item). 

Microsoft refers to Outlook’s calendar tool as a “date-picker” because it offers a display of

dates (as a mini-calendar displaying a month of dates) and the user simply clicks on the

desired date. Microsoft points out that the user cannot compose the date such as by typing

a date or by choosing the format of how the date is displayed - it is always displayed as

dd/mm/yyyy when the date is inserted into the field. Microsoft also notes that even

Lucent’s expert Mr. Tognazzini could not definitively state that the date-picker of Outlook

was a composition tool, but instead stated that it was both a composition tool and a menu of

alternatives. Thus, at minimum there remains a question of fact as to whether Outlook’s

date-picker literally meets the composition tool limitation of the claim.4

 Therefore, both

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 5 of 9
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

Lucent’s motion for summary judgment of infringement and Microsoft’s summary

judgment motion for no infringement are DENIED as they pertain to literal infringement

by the accused product Microsoft Outlook.

Microsoft also argues that Lucent cannot meet the composition tool element under

the doctrine of equivalents because its expert did not provide any evidence on this 

issue. See AquaTex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir.

2007) (particularized testimony and linking argument on a limitation-by-limitation basis are

required to substantiate a doctrine of equivalents analysis). While Lucent argues that such

evidence was provided, an examination of Mr. Tognazzini’s report reveals only a statement

that Outlook’s calendar tool is a “specialized number pad.” The report does not allude to

the doctrine of equivalents, nor does it describe any function, way, result analysis or how

the date-picker is insubstantially different from the numbers pad of the ‘356 patent. 

Moreover, when asked if he had performed any such analysis, Mr. Tognazzini testified at

his deposition that other than equivalence for the means-plus-function claims (not at issue

here), he had performed no other doctrine of equivalence analysis for the ‘356 patent. The

only evidence Lucent presents for rebuttal on this topic is a declaration obtained from Mr.

Tognazzini in preparation for the instant motion. This declaration is too little-too late and

in contradiction to Mr. Tognazzini’s prior assertion that he had no such opinions on

equivalence. Therefore, Lucent has not raised an issue of fact with the declaration alone to

preclude Microsoft’s motion for no infringement and Lucent offers no other evidence to

refute Microsoft’s motion on this ground. Therefore, Microsoft’s motion as to no

infringement by Outlook under the doctrine of equivalents is GRANTED. 

B. Other Accused Devices

Lucent’s motion (but not Microsoft’s cross-motion) addresses the additional accused

products Microsoft Money, Intuit Quicken, Windows Mobile/Pocket PC and Word Mobile. 

Again, the parties’ dispute focuses on whether each of the accused products meets the third

element of claim 19.

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 6 of 9
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

 Gateway’s opposition sets forth similar arguments as they pertain specifically to the accused

product Quicken. In addition, it argues that Quicken does not include a composition tool because the

calendar and calculator tools are not graphical keyboard or graphical number keypad tools as

described in the ‘356 patent. 

7

Lucent identifies the third element in each of the products by identifying a number

of tools available within the software (e.g. calendar, number pad, on-screen keyboard

and/or drop down menu), where a particular tool is displayed as an overlay dependent on

the active field. It also identifies in each accused software a highlighting or blinking cursor

that indicates the active field.

In opposition, Microsoft sets forth similar arguments for these other accused

products as it did for Outlook on these elements.5

 First, it argues that the tools are not

automatically and simultaneously displayed as required by these elements. However, the

claim construction of “concurrently displaying” does not include automatically. Second,

Microsoft again raises the argument that a group of tools must be displayed, not just one

tool. This argument, as explained above, is not credible based on the plain meaning of the

claims in light of the ‘356 specification. Thus, these two arguments are unavailing.

Microsoft’s third argument contends that the “indicating” and “concurrently

displaying” features are not met because when the tool appears, the active field is no longer

indicated in the accused products. According to its expert, Mr. Buscaino, the highlighting

or indicator disappears when the tool is displayed. As explained above, whether the

accused devices satisfy this element raises an issue of material fact. Therefore, Lucent’s

summary judgment motion as to these accused products is DENIED.

C. Inducing and Contributory Infringement

Lucent also moves the Court for summary judgment that Defendants indirectly

infringe the ‘356 patent. Liability for indirect infringement requires a showing of direct

infringement. Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263, 1272 (Fed.

Cir. 2004) (“Indirect infringement, whether inducement to infringe or contributory

infringement, can only arise in the presence of direct infringement. . . .”). Since, as

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 7 of 9
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

 In addition, although the Court need not consider the issue further, Defendants also raised

issues of fact in their oppositions that would preclude Lucent’s motion as well.

8

explained herein, issues of fact remain as to direct infringement, the Court need not reach

the issue of indirect infringement. However, even if direct infringement were established,

questions of fact remain on indirect infringement that would still preclude summary

judgment. 

First, as to contributory infringement, Defendants contend that each of the accused

products has substantial non-infringing uses. Defendants contend that Outlook has email

and address book functions that have nothing to do with the infringement contentions put

forward by Lucent. According to Defendants, Money has online banking and other

financial managing capabilities that are not accused of infringement; Word Mobile has

word processing functions that fall outside the realm of the ‘356 patent; Quicken also has

features that do not involve the use of the accused feature, the checkbook register.

As to inducing infringement, Lucent’s cursory treatment is insufficient to meet a

preponderance of the evidence standard for infringement. Lucent has cited no evidence to

meet the high “aid and abet” standard on this issue. Lucent only summarily concludes that

Defendants must be liable for inducing and contributory infringement because

“[d]efendants cannot deny that they intend for their customers to use the software products

in the intended manner . . . .” Therefore, because Lucent presented no evidence sufficient

for a prima facie showing of inducing infringement, Lucent’s motion on the issue of

indirect infringement is DENIED.

6

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 8 of 9
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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein, Lucent’s motion for summary judgement of literal

infringement and Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment of no literal infringement are

DENIED. Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents is GRANTED. Lucent’s motion for summary judgement of

indirect infringement is DENIED

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: May 16, 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 1813 Filed 05/16/07 Page 9 of 9