Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01329-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

1 Plaintiff AV Technologies has rights to United States

Patent 4,573,070 (“the ‘070 patent”). Since the court held that

no damages could be recovered under the ‘070 patent, only one

plaintiff, Technology Licensing Corporation, still has an

interest in this case. (See July 1, 2005 Order).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TECHNOLOGY LICENSING

CORPORATION, a California

corporation, and AV

TECHNOLOGIES LLC, an Illinois

Limited Liability Company,

NO. CIV. S-03-1329 WBS PAN

Plaintiffs, 

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT

EXPERT TESTIMONY

THOMSON, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff’s1 amended complaint alleges that defendant

infringed four patents. Three motions are presently before the

court: 

• Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 29
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 Therefore, defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

no infringement of claims 1-2 and 22-24 of the ‘070 patent is

moot.

2

of the 5,495,524 patent (“the ‘524 patent”);

• Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that

it does not make, use, or sell the allegedly infringing

products;

• Defendant’s motion to limit plaintiff’s expert testimony

evidence to opinions served by May 16, 2005.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The four patents alleged to be infringed were issued to

J. Carl Cooper, who assigned his rights under those patents to

plaintiff Technology Licensing Corporation (“TLC”). (Am. Compl.) 

The infringement claims regarding two of those patents were

stayed by court order on September 20, 2004. The claims

regarding patents 4,573,070 (“the ‘070 patent”) and the ‘524

patent were not stayed. However, on July 1, 2005, the court

issued an order holding that plaintiffs could recover no damages

for infringement of the ‘070 patent. (July 1, 2005 Order at 6,

12). Counsel for the parties agreed at the pretrial conference

that all issues regarding the ‘070 patent are now moot.2

Therefore, the only claims for infringement that the court must

address are those involving the ‘524 patent.

II. Discussion

A. Summary Judgment Standard

The court must grant summary judgment to a moving party

“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 29
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

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). The party adverse to a motion for summary

judgment may not simply deny generally the pleadings of the

movant; the adverse party must designate “specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);

see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). Simply put,

“a summary judgment motion cannot be defeated by relying solely

on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data.” Taylor

v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). The non-moving

party must show more than a mere “metaphysical doubt” as to the

material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475

U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

B. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No

Infringement of the ‘524 Patent

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to produce

evidence showing that defendant’s products have infringed the

‘524 patent, and that therefore summary judgment in defendant’s

favor is in order.

1. Plaintiff’s Failure to Allege Infringement of Each

Claim Limitation of Claim 11

A determination of patent infringement requires a twostep analysis. The first step is to construe the asserted

claims. The second step is to determine whether the accused

method or product infringes any of the properly construed claims. 

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.

Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim construction and

interpretation are matters of law. Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 3 of 29
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 Plaintiff has disclaimed any reliance on the doctrine

of equivalents, and may not argue that doctrine now. (July 1,

2005 Order at 12-13).

4 An element in a claim for a combination may be

expressed as a means or step for performing a specified

function without the recital of structure, material, or

acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be

construed to cover the corresponding structure,

material, or acts described in the specification and

equivalents thereof.

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

4

second step is a factual question. Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160

F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “To prove infringement [of a

patent claim], the patentee must show that the accused device

meets each claim limitation, either literally or under the

doctrine of equivalents.”3 Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C.

v. Vector Distrib. Sys., Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir.

2003)(emphasis added). Therefore, summary judgment in favor of

the allegedly infringing defendant is proper if the court

determines that no reasonable jury could find that every claim

limitation recited in the patent claim at issue is also found in

the accused device. Bai, 160 F.3d at 1353.

Defendant argues that claim 11 of the ‘524 patent

contains three means-plus-function limitations. A means-plusfunction limitation is one that does not set forth within the

claim a specific structure that is capable of entirely performing

the recited function. 35 U.S.C. § 112;4 Sage Prods. v. Devon

Indus., 126 F.3d 1420, 1427-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

A limitation containing the word “means” is presumed to

be a means-plus-function limitation; conversely, a limitation

that does not contain the word “means” is presumed to not be a

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 4 of 29
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 court again notes that plaintiff has abandoned any

use of the doctrine of equivalents.

5

means-plus-function limitation. Personalized Media

Communications, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04

(Fed. Cir. 1998); see also York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor

Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir.

1996)(presumption is that inventor uses the term “means” with

knowledge of its legal effect). In deciding whether the

presumption has been rebutted, “the focus remains on whether the

claim as properly construed recites sufficiently definite

structure to avoid the ambit of § 112, ¶ 6.” Personalized Media,

161 F.3d at 704.

If a court determines that a claim limitation is a

means-plus-function limitation, the next step is to look within

the patent specification to determine the corresponding structure

that performs that function by those means. Medtronic, Inc. v.

Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed.

Cir. 2001). A “specification” is a term of art that denotes the

claims and also the description of the invention preceding the

claims within the patent itself. 35 U.S.C. § 112. A means-plusfunction limitation is infringed only if the accused device

performs the identical function by means of identical or

equivalent structures to the corresponding structures in the

patent specification. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184

F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999).5

In this case, ‘524 patent claim 11 teaches:

A demodulator apparatus operable for demodulating

information content of a modulated carrier, which modulated

carrier has an associated carrier reference signal which may

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 5 of 29
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

be separate therefrom, said demodulating including operating

on said modulated carrier in response to at least one

demodulator reference signal generated by said demodulator,

said apparatus including in combination;

sampling means to sample said carrier reference at a

plurality of known times thereby producing a set of a

plurality of carrier reference samples,

determining means for determining a value which is

statistically descriptive of a parameter of said set of

carrier reference samples, and

generating means responsive to said value for generating

said demodulator reference signal.

U.S. Patent No. 5,459,524 (issued Oct. 17, 1995)(emphasis added). 

Because the three limitations for “sampling means,” “determining

means,” and “generating means” all contain the word “means,” the

presumption is that these are means-plus-function limitations. 

See Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703-04. 

Plaintiff has not effectively rebutted that

presumption, as it has not pointed to a structure within the

claim itself that performs the recited function. See Sage, 126

F.3d at 1427-28. Plaintiff’s only argument as to why these

limitations are not means-plus-function limitations is that the

sampling means, determining means, and generating means are

“well-known circuit function[s].” (Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of Opp’n

to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement of the ‘524 Patent

at 3-4)(citing Cooper Decl. Ex. F (deposition of Cooper) at 186-

87). Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[p]ursuant to the case law

cited on page 13 of Mr. Cooper’s report, none of these is a means

plus function limitation.” (Id. at 4). Turning to page 13 of

Cooper’s report, Cooper claims that “a ‘circuit’ is structure

sufficient to avoid means plus function treatment.” (Cooper Decl.

in Supp. of Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 6 of 29
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

of the ‘524 Patent Ex. D (March 28, 2005 Cooper expert report) at

13). Cooper cites Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, 325 F.3d 1364

(Fed. Cir. 2003), for this proposition. However, Apex is

distinguishable from this case in at least three significant

ways. First, the limitations in ‘524 patent claim 11 do not use

the word “circuit.” Second, even if one assumes that the terms

“sampling means,” “determining means,” and “generating means”

somehow denote a “circuit,” the Apex court specifically refutes

Cooper’s legal contention by noting that “we do not find it

necessary to hold that the term ‘circuit’ by itself always

connotes sufficient structure.” Id. at 1373. Third, the claim

limitations at issue in Apex did not use the term “means.” Id.

at 1372.

The court need look no further than claim 11 and the

test in Sage Products to determine that the “sampling means,”

“determining means,” and “generating means” limitations are

means-plus-function limitations. A means-plus-function

limitation is one that does not set forth within the claim a

specific structure that is capable of entirely performing the

recited function. Sage Products, 126 F.3d at 1427-28. Cooper,

in a declaration submitted in support of plaintiff’s opposition

to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, states that the

“sampling means” is the analog to digital converter, (Cooper

Decl. ¶ 2(b)), the “determining means” is a “digital phase

comparator or a digital frequency comparator,” (id. ¶ 2(d)), and

the “generating means” is a “digital oscillator and sine (or

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 7 of 29
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 Defendant vigorously objects to any consideration by

the court of Cooper’s declaration, filed June 27, 2005, in

deciding this motion. (See Def.’s Mot. to Limit Pl.’s Expert

Testimony Evidence to Opinions Served by May 16, 2005). 

Defendant argues that this is essentially additional expert

testimony that plaintiff did not disclose in the expert reports

required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

The court finds that Cooper’s declaration may be

considered. Because Cooper steadfastly maintained in his expert

reports that none of the claims contained means-plus-function

limitations, he did not provide the corresponding structures.

Since there is a presumption that use of the word

“means” within a limitation implies means-plus-function, and

since an inventor is presumed to know the legal effect of the

word “means,” York Prods., 99 F.3d at 1574, defendant has a

strong argument that Cooper should have provided defendant in his

expert reports with what Cooper believes would be the

corresponding structure in the specifications should the court

find that claim 11 contains means-plus-function limitations. 

However, the court finds it to be in the interest of justice for

plaintiff to be able to defend itself against defendant’s motion

for summary judgment by explaining to what structures the meansplus-function limitations of claim 11 refer, now that the court

has held that those limitations are indeed means-plus-function

limitations. In the end it makes no difference, as explained

below, since plaintiff has not alleged that defendant literally

infringed the structures Cooper argues are referred to by the

means-plus-function limitations of claim 11. 

7 Plaintiff misconstrues defendant’s argument that claim

11 does not recite the structure corresponding to the relevant

limitations within the claim itself. Plaintiff views this as an

argument against the validity of the ‘524 patent. Defendant does

8

cosine) look-up table.” (Id. 2(e)).6 Unfortunately for

plaintiff, these structures are recited only in Cooper’s

declaration and not within claim 11 itself. Cooper’s declaration

thus conclusively shows that the “sampling means,” “determining

means” and “generating means” limitations are means-plus-function

limitations. 

When a claim limitation is expressed as a means for

performing a specified function, without the recital of structure

within the claim, the claim is construed to cover the

corresponding structure described in the specification.7

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 8 of 29
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

not argue that the ‘524 patent is invalid, but only argues that

the structures referred to in the relevant limitations of claim

11 are to be found elsewhere in the patent specification. 

8

LIMITATION CORRESPONDING STRUCTURE SUPPORT

sampling

means

the analog to digital (A-D) converter

68, chroma filter 82, and either (1) the

sync separator 69 and the phase locked

loop (PLL) 70 locked to the horizontal

(H) sync signals; or (2) the band pass

filter 71 and the burst PLL 72 (see

Figure 4 and described at Col. 4, lines

32-42 and 49-51).

Lechner

Decl. ¶

7

9

Medtronic, 248 F.3d at 1311. Although the court first looks to

the patent claims, specification, and file history to identify

the structure that corresponds to the means-plus-function

limitation, the court may also look to expert testimony where the

intrinsic evidence is insufficient. See Key Pharms. v. Hercon

Lab. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(finding district

court’s reliance on extrinsic evidence to construe the patent

appropriate). “Trial courts generally can hear expert testimony

for background and education on the technology implicated by the

presented claim construction issues, and trial courts have broad

discretion in this regard.” Id. “In construing a ‘means plus

function’ claim, . . . expert testimony may be considered.” 

Medtronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc., 799 F.2d 734, 742 (Fed.

Cir. 1986).

Here, defendant Thomson provides a detailed table, set

out in the margin,8 with the specific structures in the

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 9 of 29
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

determining

means

all the components of the burst/sample

phase detector 84 shown in Figure 5 and

described at Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6,

line 60 of the ‘524 Patent.

An alternative structure for a portion

of the burst/sample phase detector 84 is

shown in the upper half of Figure 7 and

described at Col. 7, line 63 to Col. 8,

line 22.

Another alternative structure for the

burst/sample detector 84 is shown in

Figure 10 and described at Col. 12,

lines 14-44. 

Lechner

Decl. ¶

11 

generating

means

all of the components of the chroma

reference generator 94 shown in Figure 5

and described at Col. 6, line 61 to Col.

7, line 16.

An alternative structure for the chroma

reference generator 94 is shown in the

lower half of Figure 7 and described at

Col. 7, line 63 to Col. 8, line 5 and

Col. 10, lines 35-60.

Another alternative structure for the

chroma reference generator 94 is shown

in Figure 10 and described at Col. 12,

lines 14-67.

Lechner

Decl. ¶

15

10

specification of the ‘524 patent that it argues correspond to

each of the three means-plus-function limitations. (Def.’s Mem.

in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement of the ‘524 at

11-12)(citing Lechner Decl. ¶¶ 7, 11, 15).

Cooper, in a declaration submitted in support of

opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, states

that the “sampling means” is the analog to digital converter,

(Cooper Decl. ¶ 2(b)), the “determining means” is a “digital

phase comparator or a digital frequency comparator,” (id. ¶

2(d)), and the “generating means” is a “digital oscillator and

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 10 of 29
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 Cooper’s expert report, attached to his declaration,

itself contains exhibits. The court labels those exhibits to the

Cooper expert report as subexhibits.

11

sine (or cosine) look-up table.” (Id. ¶ 2(e)). at 42). 

The court need not determine which party is correct in

identifying the structures that correspond to the three meansplus-function limitations of claim 11. Even if one assumes

plaintiff’s interpretation to be the correct one, plaintiff still

has not alleged that defendant’s products infringe those

structures. In this case, plaintiff must show, for each accused

device, that it meets each limitation of the claim alleged to be

infringed. See Deering, 347 F.3d at 1324. Since plaintiff does

not allege infringement by the doctrine of equivalents, plaintiff

must show that the accused device performs the identical function

by means of structures identical to those described in the

patent. See WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1347. 

Cooper declares that the structure referred to by the

“sampling means” means-plus-function limitation is an “analog to

digital converter.” (Cooper Decl. in Supp. of Opp’n to Def.’s

Mot. for Summ. J. of No Infringement of the ‘524 Patent ¶ 2(b)). 

In his expert report, Cooper declares that both the 8960DEC

Decoder with the TMC22x5y integrated circuit and the TI5000

family of integrated circuits contain analog to digital

converters. (Id. Ex. D (Mar. 28, 2005 Cooper expert report)

subexs. D & F).9 Were the court to adopt plaintiff’s

interpretation of the structure that corresponds to the “sampling

means,” this would be a sufficient allegation of literal

infringement.

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 11 of 29
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

However, Cooper does not make sufficient allegations of

literal infringement with respect to the “determining means” and

the “generating means.” Cooper argues that the “determining

means” is a “digital phase comparator or a digital frequency

comparator.” (Id. ¶ 2(d)). Yet neither of these structures are

found listed in the tables in Cooper’s expert report that purport

to show why defendant’s products infringe. Cooper alleges that

the 8960DEC decoder infringes the “determining means” limitation

with structure identified as a “subcarrier phase-locked loop

circuit” and a “fully-digital phase-locked loop.” (Id. Ex. D

(Mar. 28, 2005 Cooper expert report) subex. D). Plaintiff has

not argued that these structures found in the 8960DEC decoder are

simply “digital phase comparators” or “digital frequency

comparators” by another name. Therefore, even if defendant’s

8960DEC decoder contains a “subcarrier phase-locked loop circuit”

and a “fully-digital phase-locked loop,” plaintiff has not made a

sufficient allegation that these structures infringe plaintiff’s

structures pursuant to the “determining means” limitation of

claim 11. Similarly, plaintiff alleges that the TI5000 family of

integrated circuits infringe the “determining means” limitation

with structures identified as “burst accumulators U and V.” (Id.

Ex. D (Mar. 28, 2005 Cooper expert report) subex. F). The court

finds no indication that plaintiff has alleged that “burst

accumulators” literally infringe “digital phase comparators” or

“digital frequency comparators.”

Cooper argues that the “generating means” is a “digital

oscillator and sine (or cosine) look-up table.” (Id. 2(e)). 

However, neither of these structures are found listed in the

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 12 of 29
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

tables in Cooper’s March 28, 2005 expert report that purport to

show why defendant’s products infringe. Cooper does not allege

any infringing structure contained within the 8960DEC decoder. 

The allegation is as follows: “The TMC22x5y produces the sine and

cosine demodulator reference signals [citation omitted] in

response to the phase and frequency information.” (Id. Ex. D

(Mar. 28, 2005 Cooper expert report) subex. D). This is not a

sufficient allegation of infringement, as plaintiff must show

that the accused device performs the identical function by means

of structures identical to those described in the patent. See

WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1347. With respect to the TI5000 family

of integrated circuits, plaintiff alleges that the TI5000

circuits infringe the “generating means” limiation with an

“internal color subcarrier PLL.” (Id. Ex. D. (Mar. 28, 2005

Cooper expert report) subex. F). Plaintiff has not argued that

the “internal color subcarrier PLL” allegedly found in the TI5000

family of integrated circuits is simply a “digital oscillator and

sine (or cosine) look-up table” by another name. Therefore, even

if defendant’s 8960DEC decoder contains an “internal color

subcarrier PLL,” plaintiff has not made a sufficient allegation

that this structure infringes plaintiff’s structure pursuant to

the “generating means” limitation of claim 11.

In conclusion, no matter how the court interprets claim

11 of the ‘524 patent, plaintiff has not made a sufficient

allegation of literal infringement, and defendant’s motion for

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 13 of 29
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 There can be no liability for inducing infringement or

contributory infringement in the absence of direct infringement. 

Met-Coil Sys. Corp. v. Korners Unlimited, Inc., 803 F.2d 684, 687

(Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the court finds no inducement of

infringement or contributory infringement of ‘524 patent claim

11.

11 The method of generating a decoding reference signal

phase locked to a carrier reference signal, including

the steps of;

sampling the carrier reference signal to produce a set

of samples,

finding a phase increment value representative of the

change of phase of said carrier reference signal from

one sample to the next,

setting said decoding reference signal to a known phase

value,

incrementing said known phase value of said decoding

reference by the amount of said phase increment value.

U.S. Patent No. 5,459,524, claim 27 (issued Oct. 17, 1995).

12 The method of decoding a color video signal to recover

the color difference signals modulated on a color

subcarrier therein, including the steps of; 

generating a sampling clock phase locked to horizontal

sync pulses of said color video signal,

sampling said color video signal with an analog to

digital converter thereby producing digital samples

thereof,

filtering the color subcarrier out of the said digital

samples thereby producing color samples,

producing a burst flag in response to said horizontal

sync pulses,

computing a statistical representative value of the

change of phase of the color burst from sample to

14

summary judgment on this claim must be granted.10

2. Plaintiff’s Failure to Allege Infringement of the

Method Claims 27 and 41

Claims 2711 and 4112 of the ‘524 patent are method 

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 14 of 29
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

sample in response to said color samples and said burst

flag,

generating a reference phase signal from a phase

accumulator,

incrementing the phase of said reference phase signal

by the amount of said statistical representative value

of the change of phase for each clock of said sampling

clock,

offsetting the value of said reference phase by a known

amount,

generating the sine and cosine values corresponding to

the value of said reference phase at each new value

thereof,

multiplying each of said chroma samples by said sine

value and by said cosine value thereby producing

unfiltered color difference signals, and

filtering said unfiltered color difference signals to

produce said color difference signals.

U.S. Patent No. 5,459,524, claim 41 (issued Oct. 17, 1995).

15

claims. “A method claim is directly infringed only by one

practicing the patented method.” Joy Techs. v. Flakt, Inc., 6

F.3d 770, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(emphasis in original). “[A]

method claim is not directly infringed by the sale of an

apparatus even though it is capable of performing only the

patented method.” Id. at 774. Plaintiff has presented no

evidence that defendant used the methods claimed in ‘524 patent

claims 27 and 41. Therefore, summary judgment of no direct

infringement of methods claims 27 and 41 is appropriate.

The next question is whether Thomson’s sale of the

8960DEC and the TI5000 family to others constitutes contributory

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 15 of 29
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 Defendant argues that Thomson, Inc. (defendant) did not

sell the accused products, but rather that Thomson Broadcast

Media Solutions was the seller. However, defendant never

informed plaintiff of this argument in any discovery response it

provided to plaintiff. The court need not resolve this issue,

since even if one assumes that Thomson did sell the products,

summary judgment in favor of Thomson still must be granted.

16

infringement or inducement of infringement.13 See 35 U.S.C. §

271(b), (c). “Absent direct infringement of the patent claims,

there can be neither contributory infringement nor inducement of

infringement.” Met-Coil Sys., Inc. v. Korners Unlimited, Inc.,

803 F.2d 684, 687 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Patentee bears the burden of

establishing infringement. Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear

Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, plaintiff

must prove direct infringement of the method patent by a third

party if it is to succeed. See Joy Techs., 6 F.3d at 776(holding

that seller of equipment cannot be a contributory infringer where

it is established that there will be no direct infringement of

method patent by buyers of equipment); Linear Tech., 379 F.3d at

1326(“[A] party may still be liable for inducement or

contributory infringement of a method claim under 35 U.S.C. §§

271(b), (c) if it sells infringing devices to customers who use

them in a way that directly infringes the method claim.”).

The court looks to the March 28, 2005 report by J. Carl

Cooper, plaintiff’s expert and inventor of the allegedly

infringed device. (See Cooper Decl. in Supp. of Opp’n to Def.’s

Mot. for Summ. J. of No Infringement of the ‘524 Patent Ex. D).

That report includes tables showing how defendant’s products are

alleged to infringe. (Id. Ex. D subexs. D & F). The portions of

the tables that describe how defendant’s products allegedly

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 16 of 29
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

U.S. Patent 5,459,524 Thomson Products Including the 8960DEC

Decoder

Claim 27

The method of

generating a decoding

reference signal phase

locked to a carrier

reference signal,

including the steps

of;

The TMC22071A is an integrated circuit

which receives “standard baseband

composite NTSC or PAL video”. The

carrier is the color subcarrier portion

of the video signal input to the 071 or

other A/D. The carrier reference

signal is the color burst on the NTSC

or PAL video.

The TMC22x5y responds to digitized

video from the TMC22071A or other A/D. 

It includes the same subcarrier phaselocked loop circuit and capabilities of

the TMC22071 in its burst locked loop

circuit.

sampling the carrier

reference signal to

produce a set of

samples,

The sampling is done by the TMC22071

(or other A/D converter) producing a

plurality of samples of the color burst

(the carrier reference samples) of the

input analog video signal. The

plurality of burst samples are coupled

via the adaptive comb filter in the

TMC22x5y to the burst locked loop of

Figure 21.

finding a phase

increment value

representative of the

change of phase of

said carrier reference

signal from one sample

to the next,

The magnitude of the U and V data

within the demodulated burst signal

provides the error signal which, after

filtering, is used to adjust the

frequency and/or phase of the

subcarrier DDS. The TMC22x5y burst

locked loop also contains an internal

28 bit Direct Digital Synthesizer (DDS)

which is phase locked to the burst

signal of the digitized video input. 

The phase increment value is a 28 bit

number stored in the FREQ register for

the DDS and represents the change of

phase of the burst from one sample to

the next.

17

 infringe is set out in the margins.14 The court cites, in full, 

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 17 of 29
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

setting said decoding

reference signal to a

known phase value,

The sine and cosine signals are phase

locked to the incoming burst signals. 

One of two programmable 16 bit system

phase offsets can be added to the

subcarrier oscillator between SAV and

EAV. The selected 16 bit number is

used to set the decoding reference

signal at the startup beginning of

line. After startup this DDS phase

number is incremented (DRS SEED) and

can be read as DDSPH at register 40. 

In the line grab mode both the DRS SEED

and DRS PHASE values of the DRS are

frozen and reloaded at the beginning of

the grabbed line. 

incrementing said

known phase value of

said decoding

reference by the

amount of said phase

increment value.

The error signal is used to adjust the

phase of the subcarrier DDS. The 28

bit digital FREQ number is used by the

DDS to increment the initial 16 bit

phase value of the decoding reference

signal at every clock throughout the

line. The starting value of the DDS at

the beginning of the line is the DRS

SEED.

Claim 41

The method of decoding

a color video signal

to recover the color

difference signals

modulated on a color

subcarrier therein,

including the steps

of;

The TMC22071A is an integrated circuit

which receives standard baseband

composite NTSC or PAL video. The

modulated carrier is the color

subcarrier portion of the video signal

input to the 071 or other A/D.

The TMC22x5y responds to digitized

video from the TMC22071A or other A/D. 

It includes the same subcarrier phaselocked loop circuit and capabilities of

the TMC22071 in its burst locked loop

circuit.

generating a sampling

clock phase locked to

horizontal sync pulses

of said color video

signal,

In the TMC22x5y, the clock can be

locked to the line frequency or the

subcarrier frequency of the digitized

waveform. It may be noted that the

subcarrier frequency of NTSC video is

locked to horizontal (line frequency)

thus in either mode the clock is phase

locked to horizontal sync pulses.

18

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 18 of 29
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

sampling said color

video signal with an

analog to digital

convertor thereby

producing digital

samples thereof,

The sampling is done by the TMC22071

(or other A/D converter) producing a

plurality of samples of the input

analog video signal. The plurality of

samples are coupled to the adaptive

comb filter in the TMC22x5y of Figure

21.

filtering the color

subcarrier out of the

said digital samples

thereby producing

color samples,

The samples of the input analog video

signal from the TMC22071 or other A/D

are coupled to the adaptive comb filter

of the TMC22x5y which filters the color

subcarrier out of the digital samples

thereby producing color samples.

producing a burst flag

in response to said

horizontal sync

pulses,

A burst flag is produced by the

internal sync pulse generator in

response to H sync.

computing a

statistical

representative value

of the change of phase

of the color burst

from sample to sample

in response to said

color samples and said

burst flag,

When used with an A/D other than the

TMC22071, the TMC22x5y includes its own

subcarrier phase-locked loop circuit,

the same as that of the TMC22071 as

described under “Subcarrier PhaseLocked Loop” on page 3 of the 071 data

sheet. A fully-digital phase-locked

loop is used to extract the phase and

frequency of the incoming color burst. 

Each of the phase and frequency

information (whether derived from the

TMC22071 or from its internal circuit

when used with another A/D) is a value

which is statistically descriptive of a

parameter of the set of carrier (burst)

references.

The magnitude of the U and V data

within the demodulated burst signal

provides the error signal which, after

filtering, is used to adjust the

frequency and/or phase of the

subcarrier DDS. The TMC22x5y burst

locked loop also contains an internal

28 bit Direct Digital Synthesizer (DDS)

which is phase locked to the burst

signal of the digitized video input. 

The phase increment value is a 28 bit

number stored in the FREQ register for

the DDS and represents the change of

phase of the burst from one sample to

the next. 

19

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 19 of 29
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

generating a reference

phase signal from a

phase accumulator,

The burst locked loop provides sine and

cosine signals.

Incrementing the phase

of said reference

phase signal by the

amount of said

statistical

representative value

of the change of phase

for each clock of said

sampling clock,

The error signal is used to adjust the

phase of the subcarrier DDS. The 28

bit digital FREQ number is used by the

DDS to increment the initial 16 bit

phase value of the decoding reference

signal at every clock throughout the

line. The starting value of the DDS at

the beginning of the line is the DRS

SEED.

offsetting the value

of said reference

phase by a known

amount,

The phase of reference is offset by a

known amount to adjust the system phase

offset. One off two programmable 16

bit system phase offsets can be added

to the subcarrier oscillator between

SAV and EAV.

generating the sine

and cosine values

corresponding to the

value of said

reference phase at

each new value

thereof,

The TMC22x5y produces the sine and

cosine demodulator reference signals in

response to the phase and frequency

information.

multiplying each of

said chroma samples by

said sine value and by

said cosine value

thereby producing

unfiltered color

difference signals,

and

In the TMC22x5y, “sine and cosine

signals are used to demodulate the

chrominance data, producing the U and V

color-difference signals. The

modulated carrier is the chrominance,

operated on by the two multipliers in

response to the sine and cosine

signals.

filtering said

unfiltered color

difference signals to

produce said color

difference signals.

The U and V color difference signals

are filtered by LPFs to produce

filtered color difference signals.

(Cooper Decl. in Supp. of Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. of No

Infringement of the ‘524 Patent Ex. D, subex. D)(emphasis

added)(citations to the record omitted).

20

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 20 of 29
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

U.S. Patent 5,459,524 Thomson Products Using the TI5000

Family

Claim 27

The method of

generating a decoding

reference signal phase

locked to a carrier

reference signal,

including the steps

of;

The TI5000 family generates a decoding

reference signal (color subcarrier

reference signal) phase-locked to a

carrier reference signal (burst).

sampling the carrier

reference signal to

produce a set of

samples,

The ADC (analog to digital converter)

samples the carrier reference (burst)

at a plurality of known times (sampling

clocks) to produce a plurality of

carrier reference samples (samples of

the burst).

finding a phase

increment value

representative of the

change of phase of

said carrier reference

signal from one sample

to the next,

The burst accumulators U and V

determine a value (Fctrl) which is

statistically descriptive of a

parameter (sample to sample phase

change or frequency) of said set of

carrier reference samples (burst

samples).

setting said decoding

reference signal to a

known phase value,

The subcarrier phase is reset to a

known phase value by the subcarrier

phase reset bit (GLCO/RTC).

incrementing said

known phase value of

said decoding

reference by the

amount of said phase

increment value.

The known phase of the decoding

reference (subcarrier) is incremented

by the amount of the phase increment

value (Fctrl) by SCLK. 

Claim 41

The method of decoding

a color video signal

to recover the color

difference signals

modulated on a color

subcarrier therein,

including the steps

of;

The TI5000 family operates to

demodulate the information content of

an NTSC or PAL analog video signal

having chroma information carried on a

modulated carrier.

21

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 21 of 29
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

generating a sampling

clock phase locked to

horizontal sync pulses

of said color video

signal,

The clock circuits generate a sampling

clock (SCLK) phase-locked to horizontal

sync of the incoming video.

sampling said color

video signal with an

analog to digital

convertor thereby

producing digital

samples thereof,

The color video signal is sampled by

the ADC to produce digital samples.

filtering the color

subcarrier out of the

said digital samples

thereby producing

color samples,

Color low-pass filters filter the color

subcarrier out of the digital samples

to produce color samples.

producing a burst flag

in response to said

horizontal sync

pulses,

The burst accumulators utilize a burst

flag produced by the snyc [sic]

processor to identify bursts.

computing a

statistical

representative value

of the change of phase

of the color burst

from sample to sample

in response to said

color samples and said

burst flag,

The burst accumulators U and V

determine a value (Fctrl) which is

statistically descriptive of a

parameter (sample to sample phase

change or frequency) of said set of

carrier reference samples (burst

samples).

generating a reference

phase signal from a

phase accumulator,

The internal color subcarrier PLL is

responsive to the Fctrl value for

generating the demodulator reference

signal (color subcarrier). 

Incrementing the phase

of said reference

phase signal by the

amount of said

statistical

representative value

of the change of phase

for each clock of said

sampling clock,

The known phase of the decoding

reference (subcarrier) is incremented

by the amount of the phase increment

value (Fctrl) by SCLK.

offsetting the value

of said reference

phase by a known

amount,

The value of the reference subcarrier

phase is offset by the hue value to

provide hue adjustment.

22

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 22 of 29
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

generating the sine

and cosine values

corresponding to the

value of said

reference phase at

each new value

thereof,

The quadrature demodulation generates

sine and cosine values corresponding to

the value of the reference subcarrier

phase at each new value produced by the

internal color subcarrier PLL.

multiplying each of

said chroma samples by

said sine value and by

said cosine value

thereby producing

unfiltered color

difference signals,

and

The quadrature demodulation multiplies

each chroma sample by the sine and

cosine values to produce color

difference signals (U, V).

filtering said

unfiltered color

difference signals to

produce said color

difference signals.

The unfiltered color difference signals

(U, V) are filtered by the respective

color low-pass filters to produce the U

and V color difference signals.

(Cooper Decl. in Supp. of Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. of No

Infringement of the ‘524 Patent Ex. D, subex. F)(emphasis

added)(citations to the record omitted).

23

the charts showing the evidence upon which plaintiff will rely to

prove infringement of claims 27 and 41 of the ‘524 patent to show

that nowhere does plaintiff allege that defendant or anyone else

actually practiced the method. Further, plaintiff does not

allege that defendant’s products only perform the patented

method. It is conceivable that the parts of defendant’s products

that could allegedly be used to infringe the patented method

could also be used to perform some other function.

To use a baseball analogy, it is like the patentee

patented “the method of hitting a baseball free hand using a bat

with a long, skinny handle.” In that situation, the patentee’s

evidence that “the defendant’s product is a bat with a long,

skinny handle suitable for hitting a baseball free hand” is not

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 23 of 29
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

enough to infringe the method patent. It is conceivable that

nobody ever used the hypothetical defendant’s bat for that

purpose. It is also conceivable that the defendant’s bat is used

for another purpose, such as propping up windows. Plaintiff

bears the burden of proof on infringement, Linear Tech., 379 F.3d

at 1325, and plaintiff must be able to show evidence that

somebody performed the patented method. Joy Techs., 6 F.3d at

776. Plaintiff has not done so, and therefore summary judgment

in favor of defendant on the claim of infringement of claims 27

and 41 of the ‘524 patent must be granted. 

C. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No

Infringement of the ‘524 Patent Due to Prosecution

Disclaimer

The prior two sections are sufficient for the court to

grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement

of the ‘524 patent. However, the court finds that the doctrine

of prosecution disclaimer provides independent, additional

grounds upon which to grant summary judgment. 

The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer precludes

patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific

meanings disclaimed during prosecution. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v.

Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The

principle behind the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer is that

subsequent inventors should be able to rely on the patentee’s

definitive statements made during prosecution so as to avoid

infringing the patentee’s invention. Id. at 1324. 

Although generally a court applying this doctrine looks

to the file history for statements made during prosecution of the

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 24 of 29
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

patent, courts will occasionally find disclaimer based on

statements in the specification of the patent itself, such as

where the specification gives a limited definition to a common

term. See, e.g., Spectrum Int’l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d

1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1998)(“[E]xplicit statements made by a

patent applicant during prosecution to distinguish a claimed

invention over prior art may serve to narrow the scope of the

claim.”); Cultor Corp. v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 224 F.3d 1328,

1331 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(finding that definition in specification

effected disclaimer, limiting scope of claim). “One purpose for

examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has

limited the scope of the claims.” Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232

F.3d 877, 882 (Fed. Cir. 2000). 

The scope of a claim will only be limited through

disclaimer where such disclaimer is “clear and unmistakable,”

Omega, 334 F.3d at 1326, determined by what “a competitor would

reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered.” Cybor

Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

 Thomson points to alleged disclaimers both in the

specification of the patent itself and in the file history. 

1. Disclaimer in the Patent Specification Itself

The language in the patent specification to which

Thomson refers states “The [n]ovel chroma reference generating

means has the particular advantage of operating without PLL’s

[phase-locked loops] or NCO’s [numerically-controlled

oscillators].” U.S. Patent No. 5,459,524 (issued Oct. 17, 1995),

Col. 5, lines 53-55. Thomson argues that this statement limits

the scope of claims 11, 27, and 41 to products that operate

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 25 of 29
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

without PLLs or NCOs, and asks the court to rule that, as a

matter of law, “the invention claimed in claims 11, 27, and 41 of

the ‘524 Patent must operate without a [PLL] or [NCO].” (Def.’s

Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement of the ‘524

at 14)(emphasis added).

The court finds this alleged disclaimer to be not

sufficiently “clear and unmistakable.” See Omega, 334 F.3d at

1326. First, the specification refers to PLLs and NCOs in

multiple locations, showing that the preferred embodiment itself

does not operate without a PLL or NCO. Second, the alleged

disclaimer only appears once in the entire patent specification. 

This is in contrast to the cases that Thomson cites, in which the

patentee’s repeated assertions led to disclaimers. See Omega,

334 F.3d at 1327; SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced

Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir.

2001).

2. Disclaimer in the File History

Thomson’s argument regarding patentee’s alleged

disclaimer in the file history of the patent has merit. In his

attempt to distinguish the ‘524 patent from prior art, inventor

Cooper twice submitted remarks to the commissioner of patents and

trademarks. In remarks received at the patent and trademark

office (“PTO”) in October 1993, Cooper argued that, while the

prior art used a sampling clock with a “precise and continuous

relationship to the color subcarrier,” his invention was

“operable to generate references signals or values with clocks

which may be non harmonically related to the color subcarrier,

and which may be free running or locked to sync.” (Maze Decl. in

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 26 of 29
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 [In Wagner’s device], a sampling clock is used which

has a precise and continuous relationship to the color

subcarrier . . . Wagner also teaches generating of a

reference subcarrier . . . Wagner’s reference

subcarrier is only used to drive the PLL 26 to obtain

the precisely locked 4fsc sampling clock . . . Wagner’s

device is thus considerably different than applicant’s

inventions. Applicant’s present claimed invention is

operable to generate references [sic] signals or values

with clocks which may be non harmonically related to

the color subcarrier, and which may be free running or

locked to sync.

(Maze Decl. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement of

the ‘524 Patent Ex. D (Cooper August 1994 remarks to PTO) at 2-

3).(emphasis added).

27

Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement of the ‘524 Patent

Ex. C (Cooper October 1993 remarks to PTO) at 1-2)(emphasis

added). The same statement is repeated in remarks received in

the PTO in August 1994. (Maze Decl. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ.

J. of Noninfringement of the ‘524 Patent Ex. D (Cooper August

1994 remarks to PTO) at 2-3).15 Thomson argues that these

multiple assertions by Cooper in his attempt to obtain the ‘524

show that Cooper distinguished his invention as having the

ability to operate free running or harmonically locked to the

color subcarrier, as opposed to the prior art which only had the

ability to do the latter.

Plaintiff argues that the disjunctive “or” does not

mean that, to infringe, a competing product must be able to

operate free running and locked to sync. The context of the

disclaiming statement, however, is indispensable to the analysis. 

The prior art, Wagner’s patent, used sampling clocks that were

locked to sync. There was a question about whether Cooper’s new

invention was truly novel. To show that it was, Cooper argued

that it could operate free running or harmonically locked to

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 27 of 29
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

sync. The “or” in that statement simply means that the invention

cannot operate free running and harmonically locked to sync at

the same time. 

These disclaiming statements relate to claims 11, 27,

and 41 of the ‘524 patent. The disclaiming statements address

the capability of the invention to generate reference signals. 

Claims 11, 27, and 41 all address Cooper’s invention’s ability to

generate reference signals. Claim 11 teaches an apparatus that

demodulates, “said demodulating including operating on said

modulated carrier in response to at least one demodulator

reference signal generated by said demodulator . . .” Claim 27

teaches “[t]he method of generating a decoding reference signal .

. .” Claim 41 teaches a method that includes the step of

“generating a reference phase signal . . .” 

Nowhere in plaintiff’s claim charts or elsewhere does

plaintiff allege that defendant’s products use a sampling clock

that has the ability to be free running or locked to sync. In

the section of its response addressing this alleged disclaimer,

TLC does not point to any evidence that any of the accused

products possess the ability Cooper detailed to the patent office

in his successful attempt to secure the ‘524 patent. (Pls.’ Mem. 

in Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. of Noninfringement of the

‘524 Patent at 15-16). Thus, plaintiff has failed to allege that

defendant’s products contain a characteristic that was essential

to plaintiff’s procurement of the patent. Therefore, the court

finds that prosecution disclaimer provides alternative,

independent grounds on which to grant defendant summary judgment

of no infringement of the ‘524 patent.

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 28 of 29
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

D. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Grounds

that It Does Not Make, Sell, or Use the TI5000 Family

of Integrated Circuits

Defendant argues that Thomson does not make, use, or

sell the TI5000 family of integrated circuits. Defendant argues

that Thomson Broadcast and Media Solutions, Inc. (“TBMS”) may

sell those products, but that TBMS is a wholly separate corporate

entity from defendant and notes that TBMS is not a defendant in

this case. However, the court finds it unnecessary to reach this

issue because, even if defendant is wrong and Thomson does make

the TI5000 family of integrated circuits, plaintiff has not

produced sufficient evidence of infringement to survive

defendant’s summary judgment motion of no infringement.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for

summary judgment of no infringement of patent 5,495,524 be, and

the same hereby is, GRANTED.

DATED: July 22, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-01329-WBS -EFB Document 183 Filed 07/25/05 Page 29 of 29