Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04247/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04247-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 7/12/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC, PATENT

LITIGATION

______________________________________

THIS ORDER RELATES TO: 

CYGNUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T CORP.,

Defendant.

No. MDL-1423 

(C-04-04247 RMW)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 113, 126, 131, 139, 151 and

156 in C-04-04247; Docket No. 785 in MDL1423] 

Defendant AT&T Corp. moves for summary judgment of non-infringement on plaintiff

Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC's patent infringement claims. In the alternative,

AT&T seeks summary adjudication setting a cap on the damages plaintiff can recover on its

infringement claims. Cygnus opposes the motion and also moves for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the court's October 18, 2006 order which denied Cygnus's request, in effect, for

Case 5:04-cv-04247-RMW Document 181 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

2

reconsideration of the court's November 29, 2005 order denying Cygnus leave to amend its second

amended complaint with respect to its misappropriation of trade secret claim. 

For the reasons set forth below, the court denies Cygnus's motion for leave and grants

AT&T's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

I. BACKGROUND

Cygnus alleges that AT&T has infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,883,964 ("'964 patent") and No.

6,035,027 ("'027 patent") which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued on March 16, 1999

and March 7, 2000, respectively. This action is one that has been transferred to this court as part of

the consolidated multi-district proceedings, Case No. MDL 1423. 

II. ANALYSIS

A. Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration

In its operative second amended complaint ("SAC"), Cygnus alleges patent infringement and

trade secret misappropriation by AT&T. On November 29, 2005, the court granted AT&T's motion

for judgment on the pleadings as to Cygnus's trade secret misappropriation claim. On September 15,

2006, Cygnus moved for relief from the court's November 29, 2005 order. The court denied Cygnus

relief in an order dated October 18, 2006.

Cygnus now seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's October 18, 2006

order. Cygnus's goal is to be allowed to add claims for "fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of

fiduciary duty, and tolling of the statute of limitations" in connection with its trade secret

misappropriation claim. Mot. for Lv. (Docket No. 139) at 1. The court finds no basis for

reconsideration and, therefore, denies the motion for leave.

B. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, discovery, and affidavits 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the

case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is

genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving

party. Id. 

Case 5:04-cv-04247-RMW Document 181 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 5
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

1

 Cygnus's submission entitled "Opposition to AT&T Motion to Strike Status Conference Statement

and Opposition to AT&T's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment" filed May 7, 2007 in Case No.

MDL-1423 (MDL-1423 Docket No. 785), does not correct this deficiency. In reciting AT&T's

purported "lies," plaintiff's submission merely rehashes the arguments and repeats the evidence set

forth in its Opposition (Docket No. 126) and Supplement to Opposition (Docket No. 151).

2

 Cygnus argues that "Exhibit 219 (CYG004251 in depository)" shows the existence of SDN and

creates a disputed issue of material fact whether SDN continued into 1999. No "Exhibit 219"

appears on the docket of this action, nor does one appear to have been lodged. Assuming, for the

sake of argument, that Exhibit 219 is the August 5, 1996 article discussing SDN Cygnus refers to in

its complaint, see SAC ¶ 7, Cygnus still lacks any evidence to contradict AT&T's evidence that

AT&T terminated all international callback services no later than July 1999.

 Cygnus also argues that the unnamed Japanese service may have continued into 1999. The

complaint refers to a November 27, 1997 press release announcing this service. SAC ¶ 8. Cygnus

has not presented evidence contradicting AT&T's evidence that AT&T terminated all international

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

3

Cygnus asserts that four AT&T programs or services infringed the patents-in-suit: Software

Defined Network Alternate Network Access ("SDN"), an unnamed service offered in Japan,

International Call Plan and AT&T's Multi-Option Calling Plan. However, Cygnus's opposition to

the summary judgment motion suffers from a fundamental deficiency. Nowhere in the opposition

does Cygnus offer any admissible evidence that each limitation of the asserted patent claims is found

in any AT&T product, method or service.1 Cygnus was even given additional time after the court

tentatively granted AT&T's motion to offer evidence of infringement and it failed to offer any

admissible evidence. Cygnus appears to merely assume that any AT&T service that references

international call back necessarily infringed. "To avoid summary judgment," a plaintiff must

"proffer evidence that" an accused instrumentality "contain[s] every claim element either exactly or

by a substantial equivalent." S. Bravo Sys. v. Containment Techs. Corp., 96 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed.

Cir. 1996). Cygnus has not done so. Further, Perry Wyatt (President of Cygnus), James H.

Alleman, Ph.D. (the named inventor) and Leonard J. Forys (Cygnus's expert) each testified that he

did not possess knowledge or evidence that AT&T infringed the patent claims.

Even if an AT&T service that included some form of international call back service included

elements meeting the limitations of the asserted claims, the undisputed testimony of the AT&T

employee who was formerly the head of AT&T's "International Product Management" division

states that she is "unaware of any international call back services offered by AT&T on or after

March 16, 1999" other than "the International Call Plan." McGrath Decl. ¶ 15 (Docket No. 114).2

Case 5:04-cv-04247-RMW Document 181 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 5
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

callback services no later than July 1999.

 Lastly, Cygnus refers to a May 22, 1996 filing by AT&T regarding the Multi-Option Calling Plan. 

Opp'n at 3. Such a filing, even if properly before the court, would not contradict AT&T's evidence

that AT&T terminated all international callback services no later than July 1999.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

4

She believes she "would have been aware of such offerings if they existed" and that her investigation

revealed no such programs. Id. AT&T has presented evidence that it terminated the International

Call Plan at the end of 1998, before either of the patents-in-suit issued. AT&T does acknowledge

that some residual use may have occurred in 1999 as the last remaining customers were transitioned

off the service. AT&T continued to receive payments for the International Call Plan service through

July 1999. However, even if AT&T received some minimal revenue from its International Call Plan

in 1999, there is, as discussed above, no evidence that the service for which the payments were

received was infringing. 

C. Conclusion of Action

Because AT&T has now prevailed on both the trade secret misappropriation and patent

infringement claims against it, judgment will be entered if AT&T's favor.

III. ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the court

1. denies Cygnus's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's

October 18, 2006 Order, and

2. grants AT&T's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

DATED: 7/12/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04247-RMW Document 181 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. MDL-1423 (C-04-04247 RMW)

5

A copy of this order was mailed on 7/12/07 to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

John P. Sutton

2421 Pierce Street

San Francisco, CA 94115-1131

Lewis Donald Prutzman 

Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschritt LLP` 

900 Third Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Defendants:

Felice B. Galant; Joseph P. Zammit 

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 

666 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10103-3198 

Gregory B. Wood 

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 

865 South Figueroa Street, 29th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017 

Kieran Patrick Fallon 

436 SW 8th Street 

Miami, FL 33130-2814 

Courtesy Copy:

Clerk of the Panel

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Room G-255, North Lobby

Washington, D.C. 20002-8004

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:04-cv-04247-RMW Document 181 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 5