Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01839-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
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

ELANTECH DEVICES CORP.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SYNAPTICS, INC.;

AVERATEC, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-01839 CRB

ORDER RE: QUESTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The summary judgment hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on October 5, 2007. At

oral argument, the parties should focus their presentation on the following questions:

A. Finger counting

1. Synaptics states that the “current” version of the firmware and driver software

cannot infringe claims 1 and 18 of the ’325 patent because it cannot be set to

enable the finger counting functionality. See Synaptics Reply Brief I/S/O

Motion for Summary Judgment for Infringement (Synaptics MSJ Reply Brief)

at 11:15-17. However, Elantech presents evidence that, using instructions

provided by Synaptics, the “current” products can be set to report the “W”

value indicating multiple finger count. See Elantech Reply Brief I/S/O Motion

for Summary Judgment for Infringement (Elantech MSJ Reply Brief), p. 8. 

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 167 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Does this create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Type 2 Code

finger-counting functions can be “enabled?”

2. To Elantech, which of the Accused Touchpads do you claim can, or can be

enabled to, determine “W”? What in the record identifies those products?

3. To Synaptics, what in the record disputes Elantech’s evidence that “W” can be

enabled following instructions provided in the Synaptics’ Touchpad Interfacing

Guide? 

4. Synaptics moves for partial summary judgment of noninfringement for laptops

containing the “current,” or Type 2, code. Synaptics’ Reply Brief in Support of

Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of the Asserted Claims of

the ’325 patent (“Synaptics’ MSJ Reply Brief”) at 11:9-11. Synaptics

concedes that Type 1 Code counts the groups of 1’s to determine how many

fingers are in contact with the touchpad. See Synaptics’ MSJ Brief at 5:26-28. 

Does Synaptics therefore concede that Type 1 Code provides an indication of

the simultaneous presence of two fingers? 

5. Type 2 Code calculates the “W” value referenced in the Synaptics Touchpad

Interfacing Guide. Does Type 1 Code provide “W” as well?

6. Is the driver and/or firmware software for the Accused Touchpads sent to

Synaptics customers (e.g. computer manufacturers) in object code or source

code format?

7. If the software is available to computer manufacturers in source code format,

what modifications must those manufacturers make to “enable” the finger

counting functionality?

B. Type I code

1. It is reasonable to conclude that the Type 1 Code does not carry out sublimitations (a)-(c) because the algorithm only determines whether each

capacitance value falls above or below the threshold value, and never identifies

maxima or minima. But it is also reasonable to conclude that Type 1 Code

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 167 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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\2006\1839\ORDER re SJ Post-CC Qs.wpd 3

does meet sub-limitations (a)-(c) because a bit pattern such as

“001110001110000” identifies a first maximum (the first group of 1’s)

followed by a minimum (the following group of 0'’) followed by a second

maximum (the second group of 1’s). Do these conflicting conclusions create a

question of fact that should be submitted to the jury, or is this a question of law

for the court to decide?

C. Maxima and minima

1. What in the claim language or intrinsic evidence requires an “indication” or

“analysis” of a “specific” or “particular” value, e.g. the measured capacitance

value, when identifying maxima or minima according to sub-limitations (a)-(c)

of claims 1 and 18? 

2. If an “indication” or “analysis” of “specific” or “particular” values is required

according to sub-limitations (a)-(c), what steps or acts would satisfy the

analysis or indication of the minimum and maximum capacitance values?

D. Providing an indication

1. According to the intrinsic evidence, what steps or acts must be performed to

“provide an indication” within the limitation “providing an indication of the

simultaneous presence of two fingers in response to identification of said first

and second maxima” of claims 1 and 18? 

2. What in the claim language or intrinsic evidence requires that the “indication”

must be sent “to the host?”

Each side will be permitted no more than 45 minutes for argument on all questions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 167 Filed 10/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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\2006\1839\ORDER re SJ Post-CC Qs.wpd 4

Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVT Document 167 Filed 10/01/07 Page 4 of 4