Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02060-13/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 SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF NO INFRINGEMENT

OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,649,131

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1231 Filed 03/08/07 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

I. BACKGROUND

Dell and Microsoft (herein collectively “Defendants”) move the Court for summary

judgment that the accused products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,649,131 (“the ‘131

patent”). The ‘131 patent is directed to a method of operating a host processor to transmit

information to a terminal device. Lucent has accused the operation of Microsoft’s and

Dell’s web-servers communicating with client computers over the internet as infringing the

‘131 patent. Defendants now move for summary judgment of no infringement of the ‘131

patent. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF LAW

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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (West 2006). A dispute about a material fact is

genuine “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). In

considering the motion, the court must examine all the evidence in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party and “all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 257 (1986). 

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.

B. ANALYSIS 

1. Literal Infringement

“Literal infringement of a claim exists when every limitation recited in the claim is

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1231 Filed 03/08/07 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 3

found in the accused device, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on the accused

device exactly.” Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 532 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

The claims of the ‘131 patent are directed to methods of operating a host processor device

(a computer that communicates with one or more users to provide services such as

transaction processing or database access) communicating with a terminal device (such as a

data terminal, workstation, portable computer or smart phone). Defendants argue that the

accused web servers do not infringe the ‘131 patent because they lack one or more claim

elements of the claims at issue.

All of the claims relate to the communication of a host processor with a terminal

device. The Court defined a “terminal device” as “a computing device such as a data

terminal, workstation, portable computer, or smart phone that enables a user to

communicate with a host processor. It manages its associated display itself and manages its

internal memory with the assistance of the host processor.”

Defendants contend that their web servers specify, at least in part, the details of how

information is displayed on the client’s computer including the order and location of the

information on the display. Defendants argue that the client’s computer cannot meet the

definition of terminal device because it does not manage its associated display itself.

Lucent, however, claims that the client’s computer dictates the actual physical location on

the screen; for example, the physical location of a “window” displaying a web page.

Although Lucent concedes that the web servers may control aspects of the arrangement and

relative positioning of objects within the web page, according to Lucent this control does

not violate the “manages its associated display itself” requirement as it pertains to the

terminal device.

The Court construed “terminal device” to include this limitation based upon the use

of the term in the specification and prosecution history of the patent. The ‘131

specification states in the summary of invention section: 

The terminal device, in turn and in accord with an aspect of the invention, displays

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1231 Filed 03/08/07 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

the object in a form determined solely by the terminal device but in accordance with

respective predefined policies.

(‘131 patent. Col. 2:19-22) (emphasis added). During prosecution, the patentee

distinguished his invention from the prior art of the Busboom patent, stating:

the host computer does not specify where an object is to be displayed on the display

of a terminal. The reason for this is that it is the terminal and not the host computer

that decides where an object is to be displayed on the terminal display.

 (emphasis added). Furthermore, according to the ‘131 patent, although the host processor

may provide some attributes of the objects displayed on the terminal device, such as by

providing commands to hide objects, highlight, and display user buttons, none of these

attributes control the location of objects in the display. Referring to how a REGION

command (from the host processor) partitions a display into regions, the specification states

“[i]t is to be understood, however, that the way in which a display is actually partitioned

into such regions is under the control of the station set or computer terminal. . . .” (‘131

patent Col.8:12-15). 

The Court therefore finds that based on the ‘131 patent specification and prosecution

history, that the definition of the terminal device excludes arrangements where the host

processor controls the positioning of objects on the display of the terminal device. In the

instant case, because Defendants’ web servers use a position attribute to display objects at

certain coordinates programmed relative to the upper left hand corner of the display or

upper left hand corner of items on the web page, the web server (host processor)

participates in determining the actual location of items in the display of the client’s

computer. Thus, in the accused devices, the client’s computer does not manage its

associated display itself and it is not a terminal device under the Court’s claim construction.

Defendants’ motion also argues that the accused devices fail to meet the requirement

that the terminal device “manages its internal memory with the assistance of the host

processor,” and fail to meet the additional claim limitations of “transmitting said identifier

and its respective input object type to said device” and “assigning an identifier.” Having

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1231 Filed 03/08/07 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

considered each of these remaining limitations based on the parties’ detailed briefs, the

evidence in support thereof and the oral argument presented by the parties, the Court finds

that Lucent sufficiently raised genuine issues of material fact on each of these limitations. 

However, although Lucent has raised genuine issues of with material fact with

regard to these other claim elements, as explained herein, Lucent has failed to show an

issue of fact that the accused devices contain a terminal device as required by the claims of

the ‘131 patent. Since this is an essential element of Lucent’s infringement case on which

Lucent has failed to raise an issue of fact, Defendants’ motion for no literal infringement is

GRANTED. 

2. Doctrine of Equivalents

Defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment of no infringement

under the doctrine of equivalents for two reasons: (1) Lucent has failed to come forward

with any allegations, evidence or argument on this issue; and (2) prosecution history

estoppel precludes the application of the doctrine of equivalents to the claim limitations at

issue.

Defendants point to the absence of any mention of the doctrine of equivalents in

Lucent’s interrogatory responses. An examination of the submitted interrogatory reveals

that it contains a conclusory statement that the accused web sites infringe under the

doctrine of equivalents, but the attached infringement claim charts do not refer to

equivalents and thus offer no evidence to support this contention. Furthermore, Lucent is

unable to point to any other evidence to support its theory of infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents. Lucent’s expert reports do not opine on this theory of

infringement. At deposition, Lucent’s expert Dr. Polish stated that he had not performed a

doctrine of equivalents analysis, had not formed any such opinions and had not been asked

to do so. 

Defendants also put forth the prosecution history of the ‘131 patent on the

limitations of “transmitting said identifier” and “manages its associated display itself” as

Case 3:02-cv-02060-B-MDD Document 1231 Filed 03/08/07 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

evidence of prosecution history estoppel that would limit the application of the doctrine of

equivalents. Lucent has not offered any evidence to refute these assertions. In combination

with the above-described failure of Lucent to bring forth any evidence to support its

infringement contentions under this theory, Lucent has thus failed to meet its burden on

summary judgment. Therefore, Defendants’ motion as to no infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents is GRANTED.

3. Indirect Infringement

Lucent also has accused Dell and Microsoft of indirectly infringing the ‘131 patent

through inducing infringement and/or contributory infringement. 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. . . .”). Because there is no direct infringement of the ‘131 patent(literal or

under the doctrine of equivalents), there can be no indirect infringement. Therefore, on this

ground, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of no inducing infringement and no

contributory infringement is GRANTED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein, Defendants’ motion for non-infringement is GRANTED on

all grounds including no literal infringement, no infringement under the doctrine of

equivalents, no inducing infringement and no contributory infringement.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: March 8, 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 1231 Filed 03/08/07 Page 6 of 6