Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00005/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00005-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

UNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of CaliforniaUNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of CaliforniaUNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE QUEST GROUP d/b/a/ AUDIOQUEST,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 04-0005 MHP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment 

Plaintiff Monster Cable Products, Inc. filed this action alleging patent infringement against

defendant The Quest Group, d/b/a/ AudioQuest (“AudioQuest”). The complaint alleges

infringement of United States Patent No. 5,307,416 (“the '416 Patent”), technology relating to audio

cable technology. Now before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment, or in the

alternative, for summary adjudication of noninfringement. Plaintiff opposes this motion and crossmoves for summary adjudication of infringement. Having fully considered the parties’ arguments

and submissions and for the reasons set forth below, the court enters the following memorandum and

order.

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

BACKGROUND

I. The Patented Invention

The patent at issue in this infringement action relates to an audio cable technology invention

developed by Demian Martin in 1991 and 1992.1 The ‘416 Patent, issued on April 26, 1994,

describes a “bias circuit for cable interconnects.” The patent discloses a circuit and method for

improving the accuracy of electrical signals communicated between electrical devices. The

invention is directed towards electrical equipment, such as high fidelity stereo equipment, that

reproduces audio signals, either analog or digital. In order to improve sound quality, the invention is

designed to reduce noise when an audio signal approaches and passes through zero. 

The ‘416 Patent describes two methods: a circuit apparatus (claim 1) and a biased cable

apparatus (claims 2 through 5). The first method involves applying a bias voltage across the first and

second conductors of a cable connecting two electrical devices and isolating these devices from the

bias voltage. The second is an apparatus for communicating a digital electrical signal to an input of a

second electrical device on a coaxial cable with a center conductor and a conductive shield. A

digital signal, which has a voltage that changes with respect to an approximately constant ground

voltage, is input on the center conductor of a coaxial cable. The apparatus applies a bias voltage

with respect to ground to the conductive shield of the coaxial cable, such that the digital signal

passing through the coaxial cable is biased with respect to the voltage source and to the ground

reference. The patent explains that the invention improves signal accuracy by creating an

electrostatic effect at the electron level, or based on mechanical force exerted by the electrostatic bias

which improves the linearity of the system. The embodiment of the bias circuit apparatus described

in the patent is particularly applicable to digital signals, though it can also be used for analog signals. 

In 1990, Martin joined Crosby Audio Works, the first assignee of the ‘416 Patent. Crosby

manufactured and marketed the circuit apparatus embodiment of the invention during the early to

mid-1990s. Martin joined Monster Cable in 1996, and the company purchased the rights to the ‘416

Patent. Neither Crosby Audio Works nor Monster Cable has ever built the biased cable apparatus

described in the patent’s specification. In the present action, Monster Cable alleges that AudioQuest

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

has begun marketing biased cables which infringe on the biased cable apparatus of the ‘416 Patent,

defined in claim 2 and dependent claims 3 to 5. 

In relevant part, the ‘416 Patent makes the following claims:

2. A biased cable apparatus for communicating a voltage varying

electrical signal from an output of a first electrical signal to an input of

a second electrical device on a coaxial cable having a center conductor

and a conductive shield; said electrical signal being provided by a

single line and an approximately constant ground reference voltage, the

apparatus comprising: 

 means for applying the electrical signal from the single line to the

center electrode; 

 ground reference means for maintaining the output of the first

electrical device and the input to the second electrical device at

approximately the same ground reference voltage; and 

 bias means for applying an approximately constant bias voltage to

the conductive shield of the coaxial cable with respect to the

ground reference voltage said bias voltage being larger than any

peak-to-peak voltage of the voltage varying electrical signal. 

3. The biased cable apparatus of claim 2 wherein the ground reference

means includes a ground reference line connected between the output

of the first electrical device and the input to the second electrical

device. 

4. The biased cable apparatus of claim 3 wherein the bias means includes

a voltage source coupled between the conductive shield and the ground

reference line. 

5. The biased cable apparatus of claim 3 wherein the bias means includes

means for supplying a bias voltage that is greater than the peak voltage

of the electrical signal.

‘416 Patent, col. 9, lines 27-29, col. 10, lines 1-29.

II. The Accused Devices

Quest has moved for summary judgment of noninfringement on twenty-nine of its audio

cables. Each of these cables relies on AudioQuest’s Dielectric Bias System (“DBS”) technology, but

the cables vary in terms of the arrangement, quantity, and type of their conductors, as well as in the

application of voltage within the cable. The accused devices can be divided into a number of

product “families.” Unless otherwise noted below, the products within each family may vary slightly

in the type of metal or insulation used.

AudioQuest’s original Analog Interconnect Cables (the Original Panther, Jaguar, Cheetah,

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 3 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

and Sky cables) have the following conductors: three signal conductors (surrounded by an air gap

and insulation), an un-insulated drain conductor, a “Power Anode” (surrounded by insulation), and

an aluminum foil or copper foil layer. Harley Dec. ¶¶ 6, 11-13. These cables are sold as balanced

(using two separate conductors, one positive and one negative, to carry an audio signal) or

unbalanced (using one conductor to carry the audio signal). Id. ¶ 5. The cables also include a battery

pack that provides a DC voltage, with the positive terminal of the battery connected to one end of the

Power Anode and the negative terminal connected to one end of the drain conductor. Id. ¶ 9. The

other end of the Power Anode is “floating” (i.e., not connected to anything), while the other end of

the drain conductor is connected to the terminal connectors for the cables (XLR in the balanced

cables, RCA in the unbalanced cables). Id. The drain conductors and aluminum foil or copper foil

are at ground. Id. ¶ 10. AudioQuest’s website describes the DBS system application in the Original

Jaguar cable as follows: “Greatly improved performance is made possible by a constant 36 volt

charge on all Jaguar’s insulation. As 36 volts is far above the voltage of an audio signal, the result is

considerably more transparency and dynamics than possible even from a cable in continuous use,

with equipment that is never turned off.” Harley Dec., Exh. B. The descriptions for the other cables

in this family are similar, except that the Sky cable uses a 72 volt charge on the insulation. See id.,

Exh. D, F, H. 

The second product family is a newer generation of analog interconnect cables (the New

Panther, Jaguar, Cheetah, and Sky Analog Interconnect Cables). Id. ¶ 15. These have the following

conductors: three signal conductors (surrounded by an air gap and insulation), a “DBS Cathode,” an

un-insulated drain conductor, an un-insulated “DBS Anode,” and inner and outer layers of aluminum

foil or copper foil. Id. ¶¶ 15, 20-22. Like their original versions, these cables are sold as either

balanced or unbalanced, with XLR or RCA conductors. Id. ¶¶ 16, 19. The battery which provides

DC voltage to these cables has a positive terminal connected to one end of the DBS Anode and a

negative terminal connected to the DBS Cathode. Id. ¶ 18. The opposite ends of the DBS Anode

and Cathode are floating. Id. The inner aluminum foil layer is at ground, as is the drain conductor. 

Id. ¶ 19. 

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 4 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

The Sub-3 cable is also a type of analog interconnect cable. Id. ¶ 23. It is used to connect a

receiver, processor, or preamp to a subwoofer. Id. The Sub-3 includes the following conductors:

three copper signal conductors (surrounded by an air gap and polythylene insulation), a Power

Anode, two un-insulated copper drain conductors, an inner aluminum foil layer (in electrical contact

with one of the drain conductors and surrounded by insulation), and an outer aluminum foil layer (in

electrical contact with the other drain conductor). Id. ¶¶ 23, 25, 26. The Power Anode is located

inside of a three-pronged polyethylene insulator. Id. ¶ 23. It is sold balanced or unbalanced. Id. ¶

24. The battery of the Sub-3 has a positive terminal connected to one end of the Power Anode, with

the other end of the Power Anode floating, and the negative terminal of the battery is connected to

one end of the outer drain conductor. Id. ¶ 27. The inner aluminum foil and inner drain conductor

are both at ground. Id. ¶ 29. 

The fourth product family includes four AudioQuest speaker cables, called the Original

Kilimanjaro, Mont Blanc, and Pike’s Peak Speaker Cables. Id. ¶ 30. The conductors in the cables

include: an insulated conductor in the middle of the cable, five separate insulated conductors placed

around that conductor to form a “flower pattern” of conductors, and five more separate insulated

conductors placed outside of the flower of conductors. Id. The cables do not have aluminum foil

layers or drain conductors. Id. The outer flower conductors are the negative conductors and are each

connected to the negative terminal of a battery and the “negative” signal. Id. ¶ 31. The positive

terminal of the battery is connected to one end of the middle conductor, which is not electrically

connected to any other conductors in the cable. Id. The inner flower conductors are positive

conductors that carry the audio signal. Id. ¶ 31. 

The new generation of that group of speaker cables (called the New Original Kilimanjaro,

Mont Blanc, and Pike’s Peak Speaker Cables) have the same conductors as the original cables, with

the addition of an aluminum foil layer surrounding the outer sets of conductors and fillers, as well as

an un-insulated drain wire. Id. ¶ 33-34. These cables’ batteries have a slightly different

configuration, with the negative terminal of the battery connected to one end of the insulated middle

conductor, and the positive terminal connected to one end of the drain conductor. Id. ¶ 35.

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 5 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

In AudioQuest’s Original Volcano and Everest Speaker Cables, the center of the cables are a

foam core surrounded by an aluminum foil layer. Id. ¶ 37. This aluminum foil layer is in electrical

contact with an un-insulated drain conductor connected to the positive terminal of the battery. Id. 

Eight insulated conductors (positive conductors) are placed in groups of four outside the aluminum

foil, with two fillers separating the groups. Id. ¶¶ 37-38; Exh. X. Outside that layer of conductor

groups is a non-conductive binder and eight insulated conductors (negative conductors) and eight

fillers placed in alternating groups of four. Id. The positive conductors are connected to the positive

terminal of the battery and the negative conductors connected to the negative terminal. Id. ¶ 38. The

AudioQuest materials describing the DBS technology on these cables states: 

Unfortunately, because insulation stores and releases energy, it is also a

‘dielectric.’ In a cable application, all released energy is distortion. The

misnomer ‘break-in’ is often used to describe the pronounced improvement in

performance as the dielectric adapts to a charged state as the cable is used.

Whenever a cable does not have a charge on it, it is re-adapting to an uncharged

state; it is becoming new again. By maintaining a 72 volt dielectric-bias, far

above the voltage of delicate audio signals, the DBS system provides

considerably better transparency and dynamics than is possible even from a

cable in continuous use.

Id., Exh. Y, AA. 

The new generation of the Volcano and Everest Speaker Cables has an insulated conductor in

the middle of the cable which is connected at one end to the negative terminal of a battery and

floating at the other end. Id. ¶ 40. As in the Original Volcano and Everest Cables, these cables have

eight insulated conductors and fillers placed in groups of four, forming a layer that is surrounded by

a non-conductive binder and then an outer layer of eight insulated conductors and eight fillers, again

arranged in alternating groups of four. Id. The insulated conductor in the middle of the cable is not

electrically connected to any of the conductors in the inner or outer layers or to the aluminum foil. 

Id. ¶ 41. 

The CV-4, KE-4, CV-6, and KE-6 Speaker Cables also have an insulated conductor in the

middle of the cable that is connected at one end to the negative terminal of a battery but otherwise

not electrically connected to any adjacent conductors or layers. Id. ¶ 43-45. Four (or eight, in the

latter two cables) insulated signal conductors are placed adjacent to this middle conductor, two (or

four) of which carry a positive signal, two (or four) a negative signal. Id. Outside of the conductors

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 6 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

is a layer of aluminum foil, which is in electrical contact with an un-insulated drain conductor

connected at one end to the positive terminal of the battery (the other end of the drain conductor is

floating). Id. 

The Gibralter and Rockefeller Speaker Cables include two cable “portions” that each have

seven conductors. Id. ¶ 46, 48. Each portion has an insulated conductor in the middle, with one end

connected to the negative terminal of a battery and the other end floating, but which is otherwise not

in electrical contact with any other conductors. Id. ¶¶ 47-48. Adjacent to that middle conductor are

four insulated conductors, two of which carry a negative signal and two a positive, interleaved with a

set of cotton fillers. Id. Outside of this layer is an aluminum foil layer, and each cable portion has an

un-insulated drain conductor that runs along the cable in electrical contact with that aluminum foil

layer. Id. One end of the drain conductor is connected to the battery’s positive terminal, while the

other end is floating. Id. 

The Raven Digital Interconnect Cable is a balanced cable. Id. ¶ 49. In the middle of the

cable is an insulated conductor with one end connected to the negative terminal of a battery and the

other end floating. Id. Adjacent to the middle conductor are three insulated conductors interleaved

with three fillers. Id. Of these three conductors (each of which is connected to one XLR connector

pin), one conductor is the positive signal conductor, one the negative signal conductor, and the third

is associated with ground. Id. These three conductors are surrounded by conductive materials and

insulation, which are in turn enclosed by an aluminum foil layer. Id. An un-insulated drain

conductor (with one end connected to the positive terminal of the battery and the other end floating)

runs along the length of the cable in electrical contact with the aluminum foil layer. Id. The DBS

system in the Raven cable is marketed in AudioQuest’s website brochure this way: 

When insulation is un-biased, its dielectric properties cause different amounts of

time-delay for each frequency and each signal level. Similar to how the earth’s

magnetic field makes all compasses point north, the AQ DBS system creates an

electrostatic field which causes the molecules of the insulation to all point the

same direction. This minimizes the multiple nonlinear time-delays. Corruption

of time domain information in a digital audio signal is known as ‘jitter’ ... a

primary distortion mechanism limiting intelligibility and causing artifacts

(irritation) in the sound.

Id., Exh. MM. 

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 7 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

The Hawk Eye and Eagle Eye are also Digital Interconnect Cables. Id. ¶ 50. They have a

conductor in the middle of the cable, an un-insulated drain conductor, an outer aluminum foil layer, a

conductive PVC layer, a silver-plated copper layer, and a copper foil layer. Id. The middle

conductor is used to carry an audio or video signal and is connected to the negative terminal of a

battery and the center pins of RCA connectors. Id. ¶ 51. This insulator is surrounded by a

conductive PVC layer and copper and foil layers which connect to equipment ground through the

shells of the RCA connectors located at the ends of the cable. Id. An un-insulated drain conductor

(with one end connected to a positive terminal of a battery and the other floating) runs along the

cable in electrical contact with the outer aluminum foil layer. Id. 

The final AudioQuest product is the Leopard Tone Arm Cable. Id. ¶ 53. This cable has an

insulated “drain” conductor at the middle of the cable that is connected at one end to the positive

terminal of a battery, the other end is floating and not connected to anything. Id. ¶ 54. The drain is

juxtaposed between four insulated conductors (left negative, left positive, right negative, right

positive) and four cotton fillers. Id. Outside of the four conductors are a conductive PVC layer and

a tinned copper layer, the latter of which is electrically connected to the ground chassis of the tone

arm, the ground chassis of the stereo component, and the negative terminal of the battery. Id. 

III. Procedural History

Following a Markman hearing held on March 15, 2005, this court issued an order construing

six terms used in the disputed claim 2 of the ‘416 Patent. See March 18, 2005 Claim Construction

Order. That order construed the term “coaxial cable” as a “cable with two conductors that share an

axis.” The court construed “center conductor” as “a conductive material which is enclosed by the

conductive shield of a coaxial cable and which carries the voltage varying electrical signal.” As for

the term “conductive shield,” the court construed the term as an “outer conductor that reduces the

effect of external electrical interference on the voltage varying electrical signal transmitted on the

center conductor.” The court found that the term “applying” (in the context of “applying an

approximately constant bias voltage. . .”) did not require further construction, but rather would be

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 8 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

obviously understood as conducting voltage. In addition to these terms, the court adopted the

parties’ agreed upon constructions, including their construction of “ground reference voltage” as “the

approximately zero voltage level or potential against which the ‘electrical signal’ and ‘bias voltage’

are established and measured.” Finally, the court found that only the agreed structures depicted in

figure 9 of the patent performed the functions claimed by the “bias means” and “means for supplying

a bias voltage that is greater than the peak voltage of the electrical signal” terms of the patent.2

On May 16, 2005, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the

‘416 Patent with respect to all of the AudioQuest products at issue, or in the alternative, for summary

adjudication of noninfringement on the asserted claims of the ‘416 Patent with respect to certain

products. Plaintiff opposes this motion and cross-moves for summary judgment of infringement

with respect to all claim limitations. The following memorandum and order addresses both of these

motions.

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Summary Judgment

As in any other civil action, summary judgment is proper in a patent infringement action

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). See

also Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S.

987 (1995). 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 in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. 

The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of identifying those portions of the

pleadings, discovery, and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. 

Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On an issue for which the opposing party will

have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of

evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325; Crown Operations Int’l, Ltd. v. Solutia,

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 9 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). On the other hand, where the moving party bears the

burden of proof on an issue, it must submit evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable jury

could find against it on that issue at trial. See Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v.

Weatherford Int’l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334,

1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1114 (2002).

II. Patent Infringement

Under section 271 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271, liability for patent infringement may be

imposed on any person who without permission of the patentee “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.” Id. The rights granted to the patentee are defined

by the patent’s claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 373 (1996). In

determining whether an allegedly-infringing device falls within the scope of the claims, a two-step

process is used: first, the court must determine as a matter of law the meaning of the particular claim

or claims at issue; and second, it must consider whether the accused product infringes one or more of

the properly construed claims. Id. at 384; Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336,

1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The second inquiry is a question of fact, although summary judgment of

infringement or noninfringement may nonetheless be appropriate when no genuine dispute of

material fact exists. Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir.

2004) (quoting Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).

The patentee bears the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This burden can be met by

showing that the patent is infringed either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. See Linear

Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To support a finding of

literal infringement, the patentee must establish that “every limitation recited in the claim appears in

the accused product, i.e., the properly construed claim reads on the accused product exactly.”

Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., 205 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing Amhil Enters. Ltd.

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 10 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Alternatively, where one or more elements of

the claim are not literally present in the allegedly infringing product or process, infringement may

nonetheless be found under the doctrine of equivalence if the differences between the accused device

and the patented invention are “insubstantial.” Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.,

370 F.3d 1131, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication

Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As with literal infringement, the inquiry into

whether infringement may be found under the doctrine of equivalents requires an element-byelement comparison of the patented invention and the accused device. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v.

Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997). Consequently, in applying the doctrine, the court

must consider whether the accused device “contain[s] elements that are either identical or equivalent

to each claimed element of the patented invention.” Id.; EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157

F.3d 887, 896 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1112 (1999).

Under the classic formulation of the doctrine of equivalents set forth in Graver Tank &

Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950), a feature of the accused device

is “equivalent” to an element of claimed invention if it performs substantially the same function in

substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. Id. at 608 (citations omitted);

Schoell v. Regal Mar. Indus., Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, as the

Supreme Court subsequently acknowledged in Warner-Jenkinson, this particular “linguistic

framework” may not be appropriate in every case. 520 U.S. at 39-40. Rather, the Court observed

that “[a]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim

[must] inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of

the claimed element, or whether the substitute element plays a role substantially different from the

claimed element.” Id. at 40. A number of other considerations may also be relevant in determining

the range of equivalents to which the claimed invention is entitled, including the prosecution history

of the patent in suit, the pioneer status of the invention (or lack thereof), and the limitations on

patentability of the allegedly equivalent device that would have been imposed by prior art extant at

the time that the patent application was filed. See Intel Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n, 946

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 11 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

F.2d 821, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1991); K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1366-68 (Fed. Cir.

1999).

DISCUSSION

I. The ‘416 Patent’s Status as a Pioneer Patent

The parties’ dispute whether the ‘416 Patent is a pioneer, entitled to a broad range of

equivalents, or an improvement patent. This inquiry is relevant to the scope of equivalents due to the

claim limitations of the ‘416 Patent. See Abbott Laboratories v. Dey, L.P., 287 F.3d 1097, 1105

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“A pioneer patent by definition will have little applicable prior art to limit it,

whereas an improvement patent’s scope is confined by the existing knowledge on which the

improvement is based”). A patent that issues in a crowded art cannot be considered a pioneer patent. 

Chemical Engineering Corp. v. Essef Industries, Inc., 795 F.2d 1565, 1572, n.8 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 

The ‘416 Patent indeed issued in a crowded field of audio cable technology, much of which sought to

achieve the same general purpose as Martin’s patent: to improve the accuracy of electrical signals

communicated between electrical devices. See, e.g., U.S. Patents Nos. 4,414,023 & 4,954,787 (both

cited as prior art in the ‘416 Patent). See also U.S. Patent No. 4,177,431 (discussed in U.S. Patent

No. 4,954,787). The ‘416 Patent referenced eight examples of prior art, and it required amendments

at the U.S.P.T.O. See generally AudioQuest Req. for Judicial Notice. 

The parties have raised a disputed issue over whether the ‘416 Patent’s “bias means” element

was a pioneer in the field. Though the concept of biasing conductors in a cable was known and cited

as prior art by the patentee, Monster Cable has provided an expert declaration from Dr. Barry A.

Blesser attesting that none of the references to prior art cited in the patent showed “either the

problem or the solution of the ‘416 Patent,” which he identified to be that “without a bias, the

stresses on the dielectric oscillate with the changing sign of the audio signal, but with the bias, there

is no longer a change in sign because of the additive bias.” July 5, 2005 Blesser Dec. ¶¶ 5, 8-23. 

See July 5, 2005 Blesser Dec., ¶¶ 11-12 (discussing the biased conductors in U.S. Patent No.

3,763,482). As an issue of fact, resolution of this issue would not be appropriate on summary

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 12 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

judgment as to the “bias means” element of the patent. Augustine Medical, Inc. v. Gaymar

Industries, Inc., 181 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing

Inc., 872 F.2d 978, 987 (Fed. Cir.1989) (noting that “no objective legal test separates pioneers from

non-pioneers,” and that pioneer status “depends on all factual circumstances”). Nor is resolution of

the question necessary for the disposition of this order, where the question of equivalents on the

“bias means” functions is not reached. 

However, there is no dispute in the record as to the diversity of cable geometries captured in

the prior art and the availability of complex arrangements of conductors to improve audio and other

cable technology. The examples of prior art cited in the Patent included multiple conductor cables in

various configurations. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 4,538,023 at col. 3, lines 25-28 (referring to a

“cable consist[ing] of a plurality of conductors” in the context of audio cable technology). While it

is ultimately true that the “peripheral claiming system itself . . . makes the best distinction between

pioneers and non-pioneers,” and the “claim scope itself generally supplies broader exclusive

entitlements to the pioneer,” the court nevertheless notes that it is undisputed that claim limitations

in the ‘416 Patent relating to conductor geometries are not pioneering aspects of the invention’s

contribution. Id. 

II. The Claim Limitations Described in Claim 2

Quest moves for summary judgment on the basis that no reasonable jury could find, either

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, that the following limitations of claim 2 are present in

the accused devices: (1) a “coaxial cable,” (2) a “center conductor,” (3) a “conductive shield,” (4) a

“means for applying the electrical signal,” and/or (4) a “bias means.” Monster Cable disputes

whether the first three of these terms, which appear in the preamble of claim 2, should be considered

independent limitations of claim 2. 

A preamble limits the claimed invention where it “recites essential structure or steps,” or

otherwise gives meaning to the claim. Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339

(Fed. Cir. 2003). “‘[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 13 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

other words, when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the

subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the one the

patent protects.’” Id. (quoting Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications

Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir.1995)). However, if deletion of the preamble phrase would not

affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention, the body of the claim describes a structurally

complete invention such that the preamble is generally not limiting unless there is “‘clear reliance on

the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.’” See

Intertool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Catalina Marketing

Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.Com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

In claim 2 of the ‘416 Patent, the preamble provides the antecedent basis for the terms coaxial

cable, center conductor, and conductive shield, as those terms are used in the body of the claim. The

preamble does not merely introduce “a biased cable apparatus comprising,” as Monster Cable has

repeatedly suggested. Instead, it introduces “[a] biased cable apparatus for communicating a voltage

varying electrical signal from an output of a first electrical device to an input of a second electrical

device on a coaxial cable having a center conductor and a conductive shield. . . the apparatus

comprising . . .” ‘416 Patent, col. 9, line 27-col. 10, line 4. This language is essential for

understanding the means-plus-function claim limitations then described. Claim 2’s “bias means,” for

instance, refers to the “the conductive shield of the coaxial cable,” relying on the preamble as both

antecedent and structural context for the “bias means.” The body of the claim similarly refers to “the

center electrode” (stipulated by the parties at claim construction to be the equivalent of “center

conductor”) and “the conductive shield,” in reference to the antecedent introduction of those terms in

the preamble. Without the preamble’s linking of the “center conductor” and “conductive shield” as

part of the “coaxial cable,” the relationship between those three terms in the body would be

unidentified. The ‘416 Patent thus clearly falls at one end of the spectrum identified by the Federal

Circuit in Eaton, where limitations in the body of a claim “rely upon and derive antecedent basis

from the preamble,” such that “the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed

invention.” 323 F.3d at 1339. The body of claim 2 does not set out the complete invention such that

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 14 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

the preamble could be deleted, making the language of the preamble a necessary key to the claim’s

meaning. See id.; Intertool, 369 F.3d at 1295. 

The Patent Office appropriately believed that the language of the preamble was central to

understanding the claims, because the prosecution history reveals amendment of the preamble. See

AudioQuest Req. for Judicial Notice at MON 7 (in response to the Patent Office’s rejection of all of

the inventor’s claims, the patentee amended the claim for the biased cable apparatus to add the

language “voltage varying” to the preamble’s introduction of the “electrical signal”). The

prosecution history’s concern for the language of the preamble provides further evidence that it was

understood as intertwined with the body of the claim. See Intertool, 369 F.3d at 1295. 

Terms in the preamble of claim 2 are therefore essential to performance of infringement

analysis. At claim construction, both parties and the court recognized this fact, and this court

construed a number of terms from the preamble. The very language of the claim which gave the

terms importance for claim construction signifies their importance for purposes of infringement. See

Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (finding that the

preamble before the court was “of no significance to claim construction because it cannot be said to

constitute or explain a claim limitation”). 

The court thus proceeds to evaluate infringement by the accused devises as to (1) a “coaxial

cable,” (2) a “center conductor,” (3) a “conductive shield,” (4) a “means for applying the electrical

signal,” and/or (4) a “bias means.” 

III. Literal Infringement of Claim 2

Summary judgment of noninfringement requires that, on the proper claim construction, “no

reasonable jury could have found infringement on the undisputed facts or when all reasonable factual

inferences are drawn in favor of the patentee.” TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360,

1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Establishing literal infringement requires that the patentee show that “all of

the elements of the claim, as correctly construed,” are present in the accused system. Id. To prevail

on its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff must show that a reasonable jury would be compelled

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 15 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

to find that every element of the claims at issue is present in one or more of the accused devices. See

Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

A. Literal infringement of the Patent’s “Coaxial Cable” Claim Limitation

The court notes that at oral argument plaintiff appeared to concede the lack of viability of the

literal infringement theory. Nevertheless, since the parties have addressed this in their papers, the

court addresses it. The term “coaxial cable” is introduced in claim 2 in the following context: “[a]

biased cable apparatus for communicating a voltage varying electrical signal . . . on a coaxial cable

having a center conductor and a conductive shield.” At claim construction, this court construed the

term as a “cable with two conductors that share an axis.” Claim Const. Ord. at 10. Without need for

extrinsic evidence, this court found that in light of the specification and the prior art’s use or lack of

use of the term “coaxial cable,” the term referred to two-conductor cables having a conductive shield

and center conductor. The court construed the transition “having” as appearing in its “closed-ended”

sense.

AudioQuest argues that claim 2, and this court’s construction of the claim, requires that

literally infringing cables meet two requirements: (1) they have exactly two conductors and (2) those

conductors share an axis. AudioQuest argues that each accused device has more than two

conductors, with total numbers of conductors ranging from four to nineteen, and that the diverse 

configuration of these multiple conductors means that none of them “share an axis” with the other

conductors. Some cables contain several separately-insulated conductors twisted along the length of

the cable, and others use a drain conductor placed horizontally along the length of the cable. See

generally Harley Dec. ¶¶ 5-54. AudioQuest’s Vice President of Product Development testified that

AudioQuest does sell coaxial cables as claimed and construed in the patent (i.e. with a center

conductor and a conductive shield), but they do not have DBS technology.3 See Harley Dep. at

181:15-25. He believed that DBS technology applied to coaxial cables would “blow something up.” 

See id. at 185:13-19.

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 16 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

17

Monster Cable makes three primary arguments that AudioQuest’s multiple conductor cable

can literally infringe the ‘416 Patent’s “coaxial cable” claim element. First of all, Monster Cable

argues that for purposes of infringement, the use of the term “comprising” in claim 2 casts a

penumbra so broad that it inflects openness backwards in the reading of the claim. Secondly,

Monster Cable argues that the preferred embodiment depicted in the ‘416 Patent includes a ground

reference line which constitutes a third conductor in the apparatus described in claim 2, even if it is

not counted for purposes of determining the conductors of the “coaxial cable” included in that

apparatus. Thirdly, Monster Cable argues that multiple conductors in electrical connectivity with

one another function as a single conductor and are often counted as one conductor. The court

considers each of these arguments in turn. 

Monster Cable first argues that use of “comprising” transitioning from the preamble to the

body of the claim should inflect open-endedness on the entire claim, allowing a device to infringe

where it has additional unclaimed elements such as multiple additional conductors. In the abstract,

this position is sound. It is true that the ‘416 Patent can include unclaimed elements beyond the three

means-plus-function elements that follow claim 2’s use of the term “comprising.” See Gillette Co. v.

Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that “the addition of

elements not recited in the claim cannot defeat infringement” where the use of the open-ended term

“comprising” triggers the presumption that recited elements are only a part of the device, that the

claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements). The use of “comprising” does allow claim 2

to “encompass subject matter beyond” what is enumerated by the three means-plus-function

elements. But the antecedent definition of “a coaxial cable having a center conductor and a

conductive shield” does not appear after “comprising,” in the section of the claim where the

penumbra of open-endedness is cast. Rather, the ‘416 Patent defines a coaxial cable and its

conductors in the preamble, and it locks the conductors into the transition word “having” rather than

“comprising.” For the purposes of the number of conductors necessary to infringe, then, Monster

Cable’s argument ultimately would require the open-endedness of the claim to reach the components

of a coaxial cable itself. 

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 17 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

18

While Gillette’s statement that “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to

the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended” can be read to refer literally to all

terms that come before and after “comprising” appears, this court has found that such a meaning was

not indicated by the facts of that case or its cited precedent.4 Such an interpretation would

undermine the importance ascribed to a patent drafter’s choice of transitional phrases. Federal

Circuit precedent emphasizes that patent drafters know the significance of transitional phrases they

employ, using them carefully to limit or expand the scope of the material coming thereafter. See

Gillette, 212 F.3d at 1372 (noting that patent drafters choose their transitional phrases to signal

specific meaning); PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir.

1998) (same). See also Vehicular Technologies Corp. v. Titan Wheel Intern., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383

(Fed. Cir. 2000) (Rader, J., concurring) (“A skilled patent drafter would readily foresee the limiting

potential of ‘consisting of two concentric springs’ limitation.”) Certainly no patent drafter would

place a word such as “comprising” after the elements that he or she meant to cast openly. Nothing in

the case law of the Circuit stands for the proposition the use of the word “comprising” anywhere in a

patent claim inflects a presumption of open-ended meaning backwards into prior portions of the

claim governed by other transitional phrases.

AudioQuest accurately analogizes Monster Cable’s argument on this point to a question

before the Federal Circuit in Vehicular Technologies Corporation v. Titan Wheel International, Inc.,

212 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In that case, the Circuit considered a claim that used “comprising”

to transition from the preamble to the body, but within the body of the claim included a “spring

assembly consisting of two concentric springs” limitation. Id. at 1379. By limiting the claim for “a

spring assembly” to embodiments with two springs, the Circuit applied very similar claim

construction reasoning as that employed by this court in defining coaxial cable as a “having term”

rather than a “comprising” term. See id. at 1382 (holding that “[t]he claim language expressly

requires two springs. Moreover the patent drafter underscored this limitation with the introductory

phrase ‘consisting of’”); Claim Const. Ord. at 7-8. The fact that “comprising” had appeared even

before the use of “consisting of”—rather than after as in the ‘416 Patent’s claim 2—did not cast a

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 18 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

19

penumbra of open-endedness over the entire claim, as Monster Cable would argue. The Circuit

affirmed an order of summary judgment of noninfringement for competitors, finding that with a

claim thus limited, no reasonable jury could either literal infringement or infringement by

equivalents with an accused device that was not “two concentric springs” or a structure

“insubstantially different from that.” Id. at 1383. Monster Cable’s line of reasoning on this issue,

therefore, is ultimately a request that this court either revise claim construction or ignore it for

purposes of infringement. Neither tact is supported by the law of the Federal Circuit. 

Monster Cable argues that even if “having” is the relevant construct for the number of

conductors, the term “having” can be used in such a way that “the inclusion of additional

components . . . do not render the device non-infringing.” See Lampi Corp. v. American Power

Products, Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Yet this rule only applies where “having” has

been construed in its “open” rather than “closed” sense. In Lampi, the Federal Circuit specifically

held that “having” was properly understand in its “open” rather than “closed” sense in the patent at

issue. Id. In construing the ‘416 Patent, by contrast, this court interpreted “having” in the closed

sense. 

Monster Cable raises two additional arguments for why the ‘416 Patent’s apparatus involving

a coaxial cable might be literally infringed by multi-conductor cables. First, Monster Cable argues

that a “coaxial cable” with two conductors is merely a component of the entire “biased cable

apparatus,” which may have additional conductors. Indeed, Monster Cable argues that the apparatus

described by claim 2 and depicted by figure 9 can only be practiced by a cable with at least three

conductors. The figure includes a “ground reference line” that is not part of the “coaxial cable”

named in the Patent, because it does not share an axis with the other conductors. See Monst. Cab.

Cross-Mot. at 3; June 6, 2005 Blesser Dec. ¶ 54. Dr. Blesser’s explanation for this ground line is

that in order to be useful as an audio cable, the basic cable depicted in figure 9 (which had a center

and an enclosing conductor and a bias) must have a means for passing audio signals bearing voltage

or current from a device at one end of the apparatus to a device at the other end. Id. ¶ 43. He stated

that in order to perform this function, the apparatus needed an additional ground line or other added

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 19 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

20

conductor. Id. This testimony is undisputed in the record, and it does not contradict this court’s

construction of the term “coaxial cable” that the apparatus as a whole included the ground reference

line. At claim construction, Monster Cable conceded and this court’s order reasoned that the ground

reference line depicted and described in the patent could not “share an axis” with the center

conductor and the conductive shield. See Claim Const. Ord. at 9, n.4. Therefore, “the preferred

embodiment of a coaxial cable in the ‘416 Patent necessarily excludes the ground reference line from

the count of conductors.” Id. at 9. Rather, the ground reference line is captured by the fact that the

“bias cables apparatus” includes a “ground reference means.” The court therefore agrees with

Monster Cable that the “bias cable apparatus” may include one or more conductors that perform the

“ground reference means,” such as the ground reference line depicted in figure 9.5 It does not,

however, change the count of conductors that make up the “coaxial cable” element of the apparatus.

Monster Cable’s final argument is that multiple conductors in electrical contact with one

another must be considered “one conductor” for purposes of literal infringement. This argument

contradicts the terms of the patent as construed and the pattern of counting and labeling each

“conductor” in the patent. As discussed in this court’s claim construction order, the patentee

expressly chose the term “coaxial cable” rather than the “multiple-conductor” cables referenced in

the prior art. Claim Const. Ord. at 9. He chose to label his cable a “coaxial cable,” rather than

describing it simply as a “cable” and specifying its component conductors, as the cited prior art

4,538,023 Patent had done (referring to a “cable consist[ing] of a plurality of conductors” in the

context of audio cable technology). See Behun Dec., Exh. E, U.S. Patent No. 4,538,023 at col. 3,

lines 25-28. In addition, the patentee defined a “coaxial cable having a center conductor and a

conductive shield,” which, for the reasons enumerated, this court construed as a close-ended term. 

Claim Const. Ord. at 7-10. Even where conductors are in electrical contact with one another, the

‘416 Patent expressly names and specifies each conductor. See, e.g., ‘416 Patent, col. 4, lines 44-48. 

As discussed infra, Monster Cable’s argument about the function, way, and result multiple

conductors operate is squarely relevant to an application of the doctrine of equivalents. For purposes

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 20 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

21

of literal infringement analysis, however, the patent’s limitation of the cable to two conductors can

only mean two. 

Most importantly, in the context of literal infringement, Monster Cable’s arguments would

nullify the use of the word “coaxial” to describe the cable in claim 2, and they would eviscerate this

court’s construction of any meaning. By focusing on whether the AudioQuest cables have a

conductive shield and a center conductor somewhere in the cable, Monster Cable’s arguments

obfuscate the essential question: whether the AudioQuest cables are “coaxial,” construed by this

court to mean that they only have a conductive shield and center conductor, within the context of a

“biased cable apparatus” that also has a ground reference line. The term “coaxial cable” would have

no meaning whatsoever—and certainly not the meaning ascribed to it by the ‘416 Patent—if it

referred to “two conductors that shared an axis” in a system or cable that contained inner and/or

outer conductors other than the conductive shield, center conductor, and ground reference means. 

Monster Cable’s argument that this court construe “coaxial cable” to contain at least one inner and

one outer conductor that share an axis was already deemed incorrect at claim construction based on

limitations ascribed by the patentee himself. As discussed therein, this court is at loss to see why,

under such a reading of the patent, an invention would be referred to as a “coaxial cable” rather than

using the terms “cable” or “multiple-conductor cable” as described in prior art. Monster Cable has

submitted nothing in the record or its arguments to resolve this concern.6

Situated in the proper understanding of the claim limitation “coaxial cable,” AudioQuest

products do not infringe on this element. Counting each conductor in the cables separately, the

AudioQuest cables have conductor geometries ranging from four to nineteen conductors.7 Not a

single one of these devices can be limited to a conductive shield and a center conductor (as well as a

ground reference means conductor). Even the cables which Monster Cable identified as including

the simplest conductor geometries, the families of the Hawk Eye and Eagle Eye Digital Interconnect

Cables and the Original Analog Interconnect Cables, cannot infringe under the proper understanding

of the “coaxial cable” limitation. See Mons. Cab. Cross-Mot. at 19. These digital cables include a

conductor in the middle of the cable, an un-insulated drain conductor, an outer aluminum foil layer, a

conductive PVC layer, a silver-plated copper layer, and a copper foil layer.8 Id. ¶ 50. The second

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 21 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

22

group, the Analog Interconnect Cables, whether balanced or unbalanced, include three signal

conductors, an un-insulated drain conductor, a “Power Anode” conductor, and an aluminum foil or

copper foil layer. Id. ¶¶ 6, 11-13. Without aggregating groups of conductors according to electrical

connectivity, Monster Cable has not placed a single item of evidence in the record to defeat the

literal noninfringment of these accused cables.

Therefore, because all of the accused cables include much more diverse and elaborate

conductor geometries than an inner conductor, an outer conductor, and a ground reference line, the

court finds that no reasonable juror could find that these products literally infringe on claim 2’s

limitation of a coaxial cable. 

IV. Infringement of Claim Limitations under the Doctrine of Equivalents

“Even if an accused product does not literally infringe the asserted claims of a patent, the

product may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents if the differences between the element of the

accused product at issue in the product and the claim limitation at issue are insubstantial.” Schoell v.

Regal Marine Industries, Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To determine whether the

differences are insubstantial, courts may apply the so-called “function-way-result” test, asking

“whether the element performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to

obtain substantially the same result as the claim limitation.” Id. at 1209-10. It is a plaintiff’s burden

to prove equivalence at trial, and thus in the present case, it is Monster Cable’s burden to “set forth

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” whether the DBS system cables are

insubstantially different from the coaxial cables claimed in the ‘416 Patent. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e) (“When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported ..., an adverse party ... must set

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”). 

The scope of the doctrine of equivalents can be narrowed by the legal doctrine of prosecution

history estoppel or proscribed by the “all elements” rule. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space

Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Under the doctrine of prosecution history

estoppel, the patentee is barred from asserting equivalents if an amendment was made to secure the

patent and the amendment narrowed the patents scope. Honeywell Intern. Inc. v. Hamilton

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 22 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

23

Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The “all-elements rule” instructs that there

can be no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents if even one limitation of a claim or its

equivalent is not present in the accused device. Lockhead, 324 F.3d at 1321. The doctrine of

equivalents must be applied to individual elements of a claim, not to an invention as a whole. 

Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 29. Therefore, the court cannot make a finding of infringement under

the doctrine that would “vitiate a particular claim[ed] element.” Lockhead, 324 F.3d at 1321. 

A. Infringement of the “Coaxial Cable” Claim Limitation under the Doctrine of

Equivalents

Monster Cable raises several arguments that the accused devices meet the “coaxial cable”

limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. First of all, Monster Cable argues that the term “coaxial

cable” in the context of the claim language entitles the patentee to a broad scope of equivalents. 

Secondly, Monster Cable argues that multiple conductors in electrical contact with one another are

insubstantially different from one conductor. Thirdly, Monster Cable argues that when complex

arrangements of conductors placed in electrical contact with one another are understood to constitute

a single conductor, each accused device can be understood to have only one center conductor and

one conductive shield.

It is now familiar doctrine that the range of equivalents due to a patent cannot be divorced

from the scope of the claims. In the context of an analogous patent with a “spring assembly

consisting of two concentric springs,” in which the court construed the assembly to expressly require

two springs and not more, the Federal Circuit noted two key rules. See Vehicular Technologies, 212

F.3d at 1382-83. The court held that the restrictive claim language did not foreclose infringement

under the doctrine of equivalents, but did “specifically require that an infringing device consist of

two springs (either literally or equivalently).” Id. at 1383. In addition, the concurring opinion of the

court emphasized that a skilled drafter would have “reasonably foreseen potential substitutes” for the

two spring system because the inventive feature was relatively simple and did not call into question

issues of after-arising technology. Id. at 1384 (Rader, J., concurring). Monster Cable’s arguments to

distinguish Vehicular ring hollow. The fact that Vehicular concerned an accused device with less

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 23 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

24

than the specified number of components, rather than an accused device containing additional

components, as is the case here, does not reflect the basis of the court’s holding: the closed-end

construction of the term. 

As in Vehicular, no issue of after-arising technology would expand the scope of equivalents

due to the ‘416 Patent. Complex, multiple-conductor geometries predated the patent, and indeed

such configurations were captured in the prior art cited by the ‘416 Patent. The policy for protecting

a patentee from later-developed technologies, which underlies the doctrine of equivalents, would not

apply. See Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal, 145 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The

doctrine of equivalents is necessary because one cannot predict the future. Due to technological

advances, a variant of an invention may be developed after the patent is granted, and that variant may

constitute so insubstantial a change from what is claimed in the patent that it should be held to be an

infringement”). The patentee could therefore have claimed a cable with more than two conductors,

but conspicuously failed to do so. 

Turning to the actual question of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the court

proceeds to apply the function-way-result test. See Schoell, 247 F.3d at 120-10. As for function,

claim 2 describes “[a] biased cable apparatus for communicating a voltage varying electrical signal

from an output of a first electrical signal to an input of a second electrical device on a coaxial

cable....” The parties dispute the function of the “coaxial cable.” AudioQuest argues that the

function of the coaxial cable is “communicating a voltage varying electrical signal from an output of

a first electrical device to an input of a second electrical device.” Monster Cable argues that this

language actually refers to the function of the “biased cable apparatus,” while the function of the

coaxial cable is simply “biasing a dielectric” (language which is not found in the ‘416 Patent). This

argument defies logic. The function of “communicating [the electrical signal]” is one small portion

of the function of the entire apparatus. This aspect of the apparatus’s function is performed “on a

coaxial cable.” The coaxial cable’s function is to transmit the electrical signal, while the entire

apparatus has a much broader function, namely to apply voltage to components of that signalcarrying cable so as to improve the sound quality. The function of the “coaxial cable” is therefore

“communicating a voltage varying electrical signal from an output of a first electrical device to an

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 24 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

25

input of a second electrical device.” The record before this court indicates that AudioQuest cables

share this function, and there is no dispute that these cables do in fact communicate audio signals

(which are voltage varying) from an output of a first electrical device to an input of a second

electrical device. Therefore, their function, as well as the result of that performance, are

insubstantially different than the function and result of the claim limitation “coaxial cable.”

However, Monster Cable has provided little in the record to show that the way AudioQuest

cables perform this function is insubstantially different. Monster Cable’s argument for equivalence

between the way the AudioQuest cables perform their function and the claim limitation is essentially

this: because multiple conductors in electrical contact with one another act as a single electrical

entity/conductor, there are no substantial differences between cables with a plurality of conductors

and those with only two. To confine this argument within the boundaries of the claim limitation “a

coaxial cable having a center conductor and a conductive shield,” Monster Cable must show that

groups of conductors in electrical contact perform two roles: the roles of the “conductive shield” and

the “center conductor.” AudioQuest argues that such a multi-conductor equivalence theory is

inconsistent with the figures and terms of the patent, which depict conductors in electrical contact

with one another but count or name these conductors separately. See, e.g. ‘416 Patent, col. 4, lines

44-48. 

Experts for both sides agree that multiple conductors in electrical contact with one another

act as a single conductor. Dr. Blesser’s declaration attested that “the number of conductors used for

purposes of audio technology may vary vastly in number, shape and size due to the low frequency

requirements for audio technology.” June 7, 2005 Blesser Dec. ¶ 15. Further, he stated that “the two

conductor coaxial cable of the ‘416 Patent was easily interchangeable with the four to nineteen

conductor coaxial cable at the time the Accused Products were made.” Id. AudioQuest’s expert at

claim construction stated that the concept of a conductor could take many forms, such that many

conductors could function as one. See February 22, 2005 Villasenor Dec. ¶ 15. Dr. Villasenor

stated: “A person of skill in the art would understand that a ‘conductor’ could take a number of

different forms. For example, the outer conductive shield could be a solid sheath, or it could be a

braided mesh-like sheath composed of many extremely fine wires overlapping each other in complex

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 25 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

26

patterns. A close examination of such a mesh would reveal that while many individual ‘strands’

might be present in it, all of the strands are nonetheless in electrical contact with each other and that

the sheath would therefore only carry one voltage level. The sheath, whether solid, braided, or

otherwise, is a single electrical entity and is therefore a single conductor.” Id. The court thus finds

the testimony undisputed in the record that multiple conductors in electrical contact act as a single

conductor.

However, this physical reality does not address the question of equivalence for the “coaxial

cable” claim limitation. As construed by this court, the inventor of the ‘416 Patent confined the

“coaxial cable” claim limitation of his patent, thereby distinguishing his invention from prior art the

referenced multiple conductors or “pluralities” of conductors. In order for the accused devices to be

insubstantially different from the claim limitation in the context of the construction of “coaxial

cable” as a cable with two conductors, and only two conductors, each of which share an axis, they

must contain: (1) either a single-conductor “conductive shield,” or one or more conductors in

electrical contact which act as a single “conductive shield,” and (2) either a single center conductor,

or one or more conductors which act as a single center conductor. In addition, as discussed, they

may contain one or more conductors in electrical contact with one another that act as a single ground

reference line. 

Arguing that AudioQuest is falsely counting its conductors to range as high as nineteen per

cable, Monster Cable applies its principle of electrical connectivity to recount the number of

conductors in each accused device. In other words, Monster Cable argues that if counting each set of

multiple conductors in electrical contact as a single conductor, the range of conductors in the accused

devices is actually from three to six, rather than four to nineteen. Monster Cable and its expert

analyzed the schematics in the record to argue that in the six simplest accused devices,9 the count of

conductors is “effectively” three, including a conductor at the geometric center of the cable, a

grounded conductive shield, and a third inner conductor twisted around the middle of the cable. See

June 6, 2005 Blesser Dec. ¶ 37; Monst. Cable. Cross-Mot. at 19-20 (citing Harley Dec. ¶¶ 8-9). The

group of six cables identified in this “three conductor” category includes the Hawk Eye and Eagle

Eye Digital Interconnect Cables and the four Original Analog Interconnect Cables when sold as

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 26 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

27

unbalanced cables. Id. Even construing the record evidence in the light most favorable to Monster

Cable, and based on the undisputed fact in the record that conductors in electrical contact act as a

single entity, the distillation of the conductors within these AudioQuest cables demonstrates that no

reasonable jury could find that the devices contain equivalents of “coaxial cables” as used in the ‘416

Patent. The Hawk Eye and Eagle Eye cables have a conductor running through the middle of the

cable that is not in electrical contact with other conductors, a spiral shield in electrical contact with a

layer of conductive copper foil, and a drain wire in electrical contact with a layer of aluminum foil. 

See Harley Dec. ¶ 50-51, Exhs. NN, PP. These cables thus have two sets of outer conductors that

might constitute a “conductive shield” (one of which is grounded, the other of which is connected to

the positive terminal of a battery) and a center conductor. See id. Relying on Monster Cable’s

expert’s identification of the functions of each conductor in these cables, the grounded outer layer of

conductors serves as the conductive shield and ground reference line. See June 6, 2005 Blesser Dec.

¶ 37. This leaves two other conductors in the device: the conductive layer including the electrically

connected silver-plated copper spiral and the copper foil (which carries the positive audio signal) and

a conductor at the geometric center of the cable which is connected to the negative terminal of the

battery. Id. One of these latter two conductors thus defeats the two-conductor limitation of “coaxial

cable,” even putting aside the question of whether they perform the functions construed to apply to

“center conductors” or “conductive shield” in the patent. Applying the same principle of electrical

connectivity to the unbalanced versions of the four Original Analog Interconnect Cables, the

conductor count would include at minimum four conductors: three signal conductors (each of which

is insulated) that connect to two separate pins or shells of the RCA terminal connector (therefore

counting as two conductors), a drain conductor electrically-connected to a layer of aluminum foil,

and an insulated middle conductor. See Harley Dec. ¶¶ 6-9, Exhs. A, C, E, and G. Therefore, the

Hawk Eye and Eagle Eye cables and Original Analog Interconnect Cables cannot infringe on the

coaxial cable limitation of the patent.

Even Monster Cable’s own recount of conductors in other accused devices demonstrates that

these have even more diverse conductor geometries that could not infringe under the doctrine of

equivalents. Monster Cable identifies a second set of cables, the balanced versions of the Analog

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 27 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

28

Interconnect Cables,10 that it counts as effectively having four conductors, including an insulated

Power Anode, a positive signal conductor, a negative signal conductor, and a grounded conductive

shield. See Harley Dec. at ¶ 7, Exh. A. Another set of cables11 each has at least four conductors,

including a center conductor, a grounded signal return, a dedicated bias conductor, and a forth

conductive element of various configurations. See id. ¶¶ 17, 19, 23, 34, 41, and 43. This is the same

for an additional two cables,12 except that these products have “two cable portions,” each with this

configuration. See id. ¶ 47. Five cables13 effectively have at least five conductors, including a center

conductor, a grounded signal return, a conductive shield, and a dedicated bias conductor. See id. ¶¶

17, 19, 23, 49. Finally, one last AudioQuest cable14 has at least six conductors, including left and

right pairs of signal conductors, a bias conductor, and a grounded conductive shield. See id. ¶ 54. 

Whether these accused devices have from four to six conductors, as Monster Cable argues, or

six to nineteen, as AudioQuest’s evidence attests, no reasonable jury could find that these are

“coaxial cables” within the meaning of the ‘416 Patent. Each of the accused cables contains

conductor geometries that are much more complex than a center conductor and conductive shield,

and each one contains a “type” of electrical conductor which the “coaxial cable” claim limitation

excludes. Nothing in the record supports the principle—either as a matter of science or as a matter

of claim interpretation—that these additional conductors or conductor sets represent an equivalent

“way” of performing the claimed function, and therefore Monster Cable has failed to carry its burden

to show infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d

1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ( “[G]eneral assertions of facts, general denials, and conclusory

statements are insufficient to shoulder the non-movant’s burden” to show infringement literally or

equivalently for each limitation). Under the application of Vehicular described in this order, the ‘416

Patent is not entitled to claim infringement where these additional conductor elements are included. 

In addition, no reasonable jury could find that these complex conductor geometries are equivalent to

a coaxial cable with one conductive shield and one center conductor that share an axis in the context

of a patent citing prior art that claims diverse conductor configurations as means to achieve more

specialized results in the audio technology context.

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 28 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

29

Monster Cable has therefore not carried its burden to “set forth specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial” as to whether AudioQuest cable geometries perform the function of

the claimed “coaxial cable” in the same or insubstantially different way as captured in the claim

limitations. See Schoell v. Regal Marine Industries, Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

(“The doctrine of equivalents is not a talisman that entitles a patentee to a jury trial on the basis of

suspicion; it is a limited remedy available in special circumstances, the evidence for which is the

responsibility of the proponent”). AudioQuest is therefore entitled to summary judgment of

noninfringement on this claim limitation. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, AudioQuest’s motion for summary judgment for noninfringement

is GRANTED and Monster Cable’s cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 8, 2005 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 29 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

30

1. Martin obtained the patent in 1992, while working as an audio engineer at Crosby Audio Works. 

Shortly after Martin moved to Monster Cable in 1996, the company purchased the patent from

Crosby Audio Works.

2. As discussed herein, the court misstated the parties’ agreement in the claim construction order. 

The correct summary of the parties’ agreement should have read that the structures of figure 9

corresponding to the bias means included: (1) the voltage source 190, (2) the unlabeled conductor or

device connecting the voltage source to the conductive shield, and (3) the unlabeled conductor or

device connecting the voltage source to the ground reference line. 

3. Monster Cable has loosely asserted that Mr. Harley’s “testimony is incompetent,” but it has not

brought a Daubert motion to exclude this evidence based on reliability concerns. See Imonex

Services, Inc. v. W.H. Munzprufer Dietmar, 408 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (upholding a

district court’s admission of expert testimony where the challenging party gave no grounds for

excluding the person’s testimony based on the factors enumerated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-95 (1993)). His testimony thus is admissible, and Monster Cable’s

concerns merely amount to a credibility attack not appropriate on a motion for summary judgment. 

4. To the extent Monster Cable is seeking to reopen claim construction on the term “coaxial cable,”

this court soundly rejects its arguments. As this court emphasized in its claim construction order and

re-emphasized in its denial of Monster Cable’s motion to reconsider, “coaxial cable,” which appears

in the preamble, must be construed without the influence of the word “comprising” which transitions

from the preamble to the body, based on a fundamental precept of English grammar: paragraphs do

not read backwards. “Comprising” cannot be read in reverse to inflect its open-ended meaning on

contested terms that were used before “comprising” appears in the claim. Nothing in the recent

Federal Circuit decision Gillette is inconsistent with this court’s reasoning in the claim construction

order. The court in Gillette indeed stated that “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the

preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” Gillette Co. v.

Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Yet the underlying patent in Gillette

employed a five-word preamble: “A safety razor blade unit comprising. . .” Id. at 1369. The Federal

Circuit did not construe the terms “safety razor blade unit” to be open-ended because of the presence

of “comprising” thereafter. Rather, the court construed language that appeared after “comprising”

(“comprising . . . a group of first, second, and third blades”), adhering to a long line of precedent in

which “comprising” renders “downstream” terms open-ended. In so doing, Gillette cited and thereby

preserved the very case upon which this court relied in interpreting the effect of “having” on

construction of “coaxial cable.” See Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l,

Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1347-8 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

5. In addition, though it does not seem to be disputed by either party, a device infringing on biased

cable apparatus could also have additional elements such as various insulators and fillers, as the

patentee did not impose any limitations relating to these cable elements. Where the claim did not

otherwise limit these components, the use of the word “comprising” would encompass such

additional pieces. 

ENDNOTES

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 30 of 31
U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

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

31

6. Dr. Blesser’s declaration on this point is nothing but conclusory statements repeating Monster

Cable’s masked requests to reopen claim construction and find that a “two conductor” coaxial cable

could be literally infringed by a nineteen conductor cable. He simply restates Monster Cable’s

theory that “comprising” should inflect openness backwards in a claim, trumping potentially closedended words used earlier in the patent. See June 7, 2005 Blesser Dec. at ¶ 14, 53.

7. Specifically, the conductor counts are as follows. The Original Analog Interconnect Cables have

six conductors. Harley Dec. ¶ 6. The New Analog Interconnect Cables and the Sub-3 Analog

Interconnect Cable have eight conductors. Id. ¶¶ 15, 23. Eleven conductors are included in each

Original Kilimanjaro, Mont Blanc, and Pike’s Peak Speaker Cable. Id. ¶ 30. The new generation of

these cables has the same eleven conductors, as well as an additional outer conductor and drain

conductor. Id. ¶ 33. The Original Volcano and Everest Speaker Cables have eighteen conductors,

and the new generation of these cables increases that count to nineteen. Id. ¶¶ 37, 40. The CV-4,

KE-4, CV-6, and KE-6 Speaker Cables have seven conductors. Id. ¶ 43. Each Gibralter and

Rockefeller Speaker Cable has two cable portions, each of which has seven conductors. Id. ¶ 46. 

The Raven Digital Interconnect Cable has seven conductors. Id. ¶ 49. Finally, the Hawk Eye and

Eagle Eye Digital Interconnect Cables have four conductors while the Leopard Tone Arm Cable has

six. Id. ¶ 50. 

8. As discussed infra, even when electrical connectivity is taken into account, this cable could not

infringe on the “coaxial cable” element.

9. These include: the Original Jaguar, Panther, Cheetah, and Sky cables, when sold in RCA, or

unbalanced cable form; the Eagle Eye and Hawk Eye cables. 

10. This set includes: the Original Jaguar, Panther, Cheetah, and Sky cables, when sold in XLR, or

balanced cable form.

11. These group is: the New Jaguar, Panther, Cheetah, and Sky cables, when sold in RCA, or

unbalanced cable form; the New Kilimanjaro, Mont Blanc, Pike’s Peak, Volcano and Everest cables;

the CV-4, KE-4, CV-6, and KE-6 cables.

12. These are the Gibralter and Rockefeller cables.

13. These are the New Jaguar, Panther, Cheetah, and Sky cables, when sold in XLR, or balanced

cable form; the Raven Cable. 

14. This includes the Leopard Tone Arm cable.

Case 3:04-cv-00005-MHP Document 125 Filed 08/08/05 Page 31 of 31