Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01830-21/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FUNAI ELECTRIC COMPANY, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DAEWOO ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION ET AL.,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-01830 CRB

ORDER

Oral argument on the parties’ motions for summary judgment is scheduled for hearing

at 10:00 a.m. on November 17, 2006. Each side will be permitted thirty minutes for

argument. At oral argument, the parties should focus their discussion on the following

questions:

1. What evidence supports or refutes the proposition that the accused product VCR’s

operate — that is, play or record cassette tapes — when the cassette holder is located

at what Defendant refers to as the “intermediate position”? Is there sufficient

evidence to bring “intermediate position” within the meaning of the claim term “play

position”?

2. In light of the deposition of Mr. Kang, which disavowed the document relied upon for

a showing of noninfringement by Defendant’s earlier Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Mr. Choi,

what evidence in the record supports Defendant’s claim of noninfringement?

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 302 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2004\1830\orderresj.wpd 2

3. Why would a person of ordinary skill in the art find a suggestion or motivation to

combine the “561-J” reference with either the “606-J” or “967-J” references?

4. With respect to commercial success as objective evidence of nonobviousness, does the

market share data for the period prior to and following introduction of products

employing the claimed mechanism of the ’018 patent reveal either a relative growth in

market share for these products or the replacement of earlier sales by others?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01830-JCS Document 302 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 2