Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00986-17/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVA MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NANOMETRICS, INC.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-05-0986 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING

AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Nanometrics, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment,

pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed January 20, 2006. 

Plaintiff Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. has filed opposition, to which defendant has

replied. Concurrent with the filing of its reply, defendant has filed a Separate Statement

Regarding Deferral of Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Patent Local Rule

1-2, to which plaintiff has responded. Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion, filed

February 17, 2006, to strike defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to comply

with the Patent Local Rules, defendant’s opposition thereto, and plaintiff’s reply to

defendant’s opposition.

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, as

well as the parties’ statements regarding deferral of the motion for summary judgment, the

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 108 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Court deems the matters suitable for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing

scheduled for March 24, 2006, and rules as follows.

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

U.S. Patent 6,752,689 (“‘689 Patent”) “relates to wafer polishing apparatus in

general and to measuring systems incorporated into such apparatus in particular.” See

‘689 Patent, col. 1, ll. 10-12. Defendant argues that twenty-four claims in the ‘689 Patent

are, as a matter of law, invalid for failure to satisfy the written description and enablement

requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.

“To fulfill the written description requirement, the patent specification must clearly

allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is

claimed." Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F. 3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

(internal alteration, quotation and citation omitted). “An applicant complies with the written

description requirement by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations.” Id.

(internal quotation, internal citation and emphasis omitted). “The enablement requirement

of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 requires that the specification adequately discloses to one skilled in

the relevant art how to make, or in the case of a process, how to carry out, the claimed

invention without undue experimentation.” Process Control Corp. v. Hydreclaim Corp., 190

F. 3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Because the written description inquiry “focuses on a comparison between the

specification and the invention referenced by the terms of the claim,” see Amgen v.

Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F. 3d 1313, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation

and citation omitted), such inquiry normally begins with a construction of the claims, see id.

at 1320, 1334 (determining whether district court correctly construed claims before

determining whether district court correctly found inventor satisfied written description

requirement). Similarly, “an enablement inquiry typically begins with a construction of the

claims.” See AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac and Ugine, 344 F. 3d 1234, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

(determining whether district court correctly construed claims before determining whether

district court correctly found claims were not enabled). Indeed, defendant, in its

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 108 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court has scheduled a claim construction hearing for August 7, 2006.

2

Defendant does not offer to adopt, whether for a limited purpose or otherwise,

plaintiff’s proposed construction of any claim term other than “processing machine.”

3

Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, has acknowledged that “claim

construction may affect [defendant’s] invalidity contentions,” (see Schnapf Decl., filed

February 17, 2006, Ex. B at 1:4-5), a statement that concisely sets forth the reason for the

general rule that claims should be construed before invalidity determinations are made.

Nevertheless, although the instant claims have yet to be construed1, defendant, in

essence, argues that the patent does not comport with the written description and

enablement requirements because the claim language is very broad, while the specification

describes a much narrower invention. In an apparent attempt to avoid the general rule,

defendant states it will, for the purposes of the instant motion only, “adopt” plaintiff’s

proposed claim construction of the claim term “processing machine.” (See Def.’s

Statement, filed March 10, 2006, at 1:13-15.)2

 Any such construction, however, is not

before the Court. Moreover, defendant has given plaintiff notice that it disputes plaintiff’s

proposed construction of that term for purposes of infringement. (See Pl.’s Response, filed

March 14, 2006, at 2:11-16.)

“It is axiomatic that claims are construed the same way for both invalidity and

infringement.” Amgen, 314 F. 3d at 1329. Given that the parties are in disagreement as to

the construction of some, if not all, of the relevant terms, and because the Court cannot

adopt a particular claim construction for purposes of invalidity only, the Court declines to

deviate from the general rule that claims should be construed before a motion seeking a

finding of invalidity is entertained. See, e.g., AK Steel Corp., 344 F. 3d at 1241.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment will be denied, without

prejudice to refiling after the Court has issued an order constructing the claims.

B. Motion to Strike

The Patent Local Rules of this district require that a party asserting a claim of

invalidity serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions and include therein “[a]ny grounds of

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 108 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 4
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

In the event defendant refiles the instant motion or another motion on grounds of

invalidity following issuance of an order construing the claims, plaintiff may refile a motion

to strike if plaintiff is of the view that the motion is based on a ground not sufficiently

disclosed in defendant’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. The Court finds unpersuasive

defendant’s argument that any such motion to strike should be precluded as untimely. Until

a motion asserting a particular theory of invalidity is filed, plaintiff would have no way of

determining whether defendant’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions give sufficient notice of

such theory. Further, to the extent defendant, in its opposition to the motion to strike,

includes a request to amend its Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, the

request is denied without prejudice to defendant’s seeking such relief from Magistrate

Judge Zimmerman, to whom all discovery disputes have been referred.

4

invalidity based on . . . enablement or written description.” See Patent L. R. 3-3. Plaintiff

argues that defendant’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, as supplemented, do not

disclose the specific theories set forth in defendant’s motion for summary judgment. As a

sanction for such asserted omission, plaintiff asks the Court to strike defendant’s motion for

summary judgment.

Because the Court has denied defendant’s motion, the motion to strike will be

denied as moot.3

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s motion are DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00986-MMC Document 108 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 4