Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-44/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation; ATMEL SWITZERLAND, a

corporation; ATMEL FRANCE, a

corporation; ATMEL SARL, a

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AUTHENTEC, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-2138 CW

 C 07-3331 CW

ORDER ON CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION AND

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiffs Atmel Corporation, Atmel Switzerland, Atmel France

and Atmel SARL and Defendant Authentec, Inc. dispute the meaning of

several terms and phrases used in U.S. Patent No. 6,289,114 (the

'114 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,459,804 (the '804 patent). 

Plaintiffs and Defendant each ask the Court to adopt their proposed

construction of the disputed terms and phrases. In addition,

Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment. Defendant opposes

the motion, cross-moves for summary judgment and moves for an

exceptional case finding. Plaintiffs oppose those motions. The

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 1 of 14
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

motions were heard on May 1, 2008. The Court has considered the

parties’ papers and oral argument. The Court finds it unnecessary

to construe the disputed claim terms. Construing the claims as

Plaintiffs propose for the purpose of the motions, the Court denies

Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, grants Defendant's

motion for summary judgment and denies Defendant’s motion for an

exceptional case finding.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs and Defendant are competitors that produce

biometric fingerprint sensors used to secure small electronic

devices. Plaintiffs argue that they invented semiconductor slide

sensors, which greatly reduce the size of the sensor surface

because such slide sensors can recreate the image of a fingerprint

by reassembling several smaller images or "slices" captured as the

finger slides over the sensor or the sensor slides over the finger. 

Plaintiffs contend that, prior to their invention, fingerprint

sensors, including Defendant's, read an entire fingerprint that was

placed directly on the sensor surface (area sensors). Because the

sensor surface on an area sensor needs to be large enough to

accommodate an entire fingertip at once, such sensors are less

practical than slide sensors for small electronic devices such as

cell phones and PDAs. Plaintiffs allege that these inventions are

protected by the '114 and '804 patents, which claim a fingerprintreading system that 

includes a fingerprint sensor having an active surface

sensitive to the pressure and temperature of a finger. 

The surface area of this sensor is far smaller than

the surface area of the fingerprint to be read. The

reading is done when the sensor and the finger are in

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 14
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

1Because the '804 patent is a continuation claiming a method

of using the apparatus claimed in the '114 patent, the text of the

two is identical except for the claims. However, the pagination

and line numbers vary minimally. All citations to text in the

patents, except for the claims, will be to the '114 patent.

2

Capacitive sensors measure electrical charge; piezoelectric

sensors measure pressure; and pyroelectric sensors measure

temperature.

3

contact and in a relative motion of sliding of the

sensor and the finger with respect to each other. The

system reconstitutes a complete image of the

fingerprint from the partial images given by the

sensor during this motion.

'114 and '804 patents Abstract.1

 The patents-in-suit propose a

sensor that "delivers only partial images of the complete

fingerprint" and provides that the "reconstruction of the complete

image of the fingerprints is obtained by the superimposition of

successive images given by the sensor during its relative shift

with respect to the finger." '114 patent, col. 3, ln. 31-35. The

patents disclose improvements over the prior art using optical

devices which were faulty because they could be tricked with a

photograph or model of a finger and because of their size and high

production costs. Id. at col. 1, ln. 27-42. 

The patents also disclose improvements over prior art using

capacitive, piezoelectric and pyroelectric sensors.2 These sensors

only work with a live finger but also have a variety of drawbacks. 

For example, the surface area of the sensor still has to be the

size of the fingerprint to be read. Because these have to be so

large and are integrated directly into the very costly

semiconductor substrate, the cost of production is high. Id. at

col. 2, ln. 20-22. Moreover, the signal created by these sensors

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 3 of 14
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 4

only exists for as long as the finger is in contact with the

surface. Because there are variations of physical effects such as

the pressure being applied on the sensor, the sensor is constantly

producing images and requires the recognition system "to analyze

all the images . . . in order to find the one most appropriate for

authentication." Id. at col. 2, ln. 37-40. Other systems using

"excitation external to the sensor" such as "the sending of an

energy beam in the form of microwaves" had been found to

"complicate the system and increase its volume and cost." Id. at

col. 2, ln. 42-44. 

The invention disclosed in the patents-in-suit seeks to

overcome these drawbacks. First, because the sensor and the finger

slide relative to one another, the sensor need not be as large as

the fingerprint to be read. Second, because the finger moves

across the sensor "successively with a speed that is in the same

ranges as or faster than the time constant characteristic of the

sensitive layer of the sensor," the sensor "provides a sequence of

images with a constant quality of contrast." Id. at col. 3, ln. 3-

7. Further, "inasmuch as the relative speed of shift of the finger

with respect to the sensor does not exceed a certain maximum value,

an image given by the sensor at a given instant will at least

partially overlap the following one." Id. at col. 3, ln. 18-21. 

Therefore, the "complete image of the fingerprint could be

reconstituted by a specific processing system." Id. at col. 3, ln.

21-23. The ‘114 patent contains apparatus claims and the ‘804

patent claims a method of using the apparatus claimed in the ‘114

patent.

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 4 of 14
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 5

Plaintiffs argue that several of Defendant's EntrePad sensors

(AES products) infringe claims 1, 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 14 and 17-19 of

the '114 patent and claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15 and 16 of the '804

patent. Defendant's AES products utilize radio-frequency sensing

technology to "read" the fingerprint patterns on the live layer of

skin beneath the finger's dry outer surface layer. The AES product

works when a person presses her finger against the drive ring,

which injects a small radio-frequency signal into the finger. The

radio frequency is then read by the detection matrix, which

"sense[s] the strength of the electric field which is established

by the boundary condition of the ridge valley pattern inside itself

and the actual metal layers inside the . . . over-all package." 

McKenzie Decl., Ex. K at 230. 

DISCUSSION

I. Claim Construction

In their joint claim construction statement, the parties

identified thirty-one terms for construction. They agree on the

construction for three of those terms and submit the remainder to

the Court. Ordinarily, the Court must first construe the claims of

the patent before considering questions of infringement. See

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331, 1339-40

(Fed. Cir. 2005). However, as Defendant argues, even if the Court

adopts Plaintiffs' proposed constructions in full, Defendant's

products do not infringe the patents-in-suit. Therefore, for

purposes of deciding Defendant's motion for summary judgment, the

Court adopts Plaintiffs' proposed claim construction. Further, for

purposes of deciding Defendant's motion, the Court need rely on

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 5 of 14
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 6

only four terms, the same four that Plaintiffs identify as the

"most important": “sensor,” “sensing surface,” “sensing elements”

and “contact sensitive elements.” These terms all appear in Claim

1 of the '114 patent.

Claim 1 of the ‘114 patent provides, "A fingerprint reading

system comprising: means for reading a fingerprint including a

sensor having a sensing surface coupled to a matrix of contact

sensitive elements for generating a series of partial images of a

finger, placed in direct contact with said sensing surface, from

relative sliding contact between said sensing surface and said

finger, said sensing surface having a surface area smaller than a

surface area of said fingerprint to be read; and means for

reconstituting a total image of the fingerprint from said partial

images."

According to Plaintiffs, a "sensor" is "Any device that can

detect or measure something," and a "sensing surface" is "A surface

of the sensor that detects finger contact wherein the sensor is

integrated onto a semiconductor substrate and is not an optical

sensor." The "sensing elements" are "Two or more component parts

that are responsive to contact between a finger and the sensing

surface of the sensor wherein the sensor is integrated onto a

semiconductor substrate and is not an optical sensor." Finally,

"contact sensitive elements" are "Two or more component parts that

are responsive to contact between a finger and the sensing surface

of the sensor wherein the sensor is integrated onto a semiconductor

substrate and is not an optical sensor." 

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 6 of 14
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 7

II. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is properly granted when no genuine and

disputed issues of material fact remain, and when, viewing the

evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant is

clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);

Eisenberg v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 815 F.2d 1285, 1288-89 (9th Cir.

1987).

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no

material factual dispute. Therefore, the court must regard as true

the opposing party's evidence, if supported by affidavits or other

evidentiary material. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Eisenberg, 815

F.2d at 1289. The court must draw all reasonable inferences in

favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

587 (1986); Intel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 952 F.2d

1551, 1558 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Material facts which would preclude entry of summary judgment

are those which, under applicable substantive law, may affect the

outcome of the case. The substantive law will identify which facts

are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

(1986).

Where the moving party does not bear the burden of proof on an

issue at trial, the moving party may discharge its burden of

production by either of two methods. Nissan Fire & Marine Ins.

Co., Ltd., v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir.

2000). 

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 7 of 14
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 8

The moving party may produce evidence negating an

essential element of the nonmoving party’s case, or,

after suitable discovery, the moving party may show that

the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an

essential element of its claim or defense to carry its

ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. 

Id. 

If the moving party discharges its burden by showing an

absence of evidence to support an essential element of a claim or

defense, it is not required to produce evidence showing the absence

of a material fact on such issues, or to support its motion with

evidence negating the non-moving party's claim. Id.; see also

Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 885 (1990); Bhan v.

NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991). If the

moving party shows an absence of evidence to support the non-moving

party's case, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to

produce "specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible

discovery material, to show that the dispute exists." Bhan, 929

F.2d at 1409. 

If the moving party discharges its burden by negating an

essential element of the non-moving party’s claim or defense, it

must produce affirmative evidence of such negation. Nissan, 210

F.3d at 1105. If the moving party produces such evidence, the

burden then shifts to the non-moving party to produce specific

evidence to show that a dispute of material fact exists. Id.

If the moving party does not meet its initial burden of

production by either method, the non-moving party is under no

obligation to offer any evidence in support of its opposition. Id.

This is true even though the non-moving party bears the ultimate

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 8 of 14
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 9

burden of persuasion at trial. Id. at 1107.

Where the moving party bears the burden of proof on an issue

at trial, it must, in order to discharge its burden of showing that

no genuine issue of material fact remains, make a prima facie

showing in support of its position on that issue. UA Local 343 v.

Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). That

is, the moving party must present evidence that, if uncontroverted

at trial, would entitle it to prevail on that issue. Id.; see also

Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264-65 (5th

Cir. 1991). Once it has done so, the non-moving party must set

forth specific facts controverting the moving party's prima facie

case. UA Local 343, 48 F.3d at 1471. The non-moving party's

"burden of contradicting [the moving party's] evidence is not

negligible." Id. This standard does not change merely because

resolution of the relevant issue is "highly fact specific." Id.

A. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant argues that, even using Plaintiffs' construction of

the relevant terms, the accused products do not infringe the

patents-in-suit because the products do not require "direct

contact" between the user's finger and the "sensing surface" as

provided for in claims 1 and 17 of the '414 patent. Rather,

Defendant argues, its products require the user to contact the

drive ring, which injects a radio-frequency signal into the finger,

thereby creating an electric field captured by the detection matrix

and used to image the fingerprint. 

Plaintiffs do not dispute this description of Defendant's

products. See Plaintiffs' Responsive Brief at 10. Instead,

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 9 of 14
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 10

Plaintiffs contend that the "sensing surface" includes both the

detection matrix and the drive ring. Plaintiffs argue that,

because an individual must make contact with the drive ring to use

the sensor, Defendant's products require "direct contact" between

the user's finger and the "sensing surface." However, as described

above, Plaintiffs' own construction of "sensing surface" is "A

surface of the sensor that detects finger contact wherein the

sensor is integrated onto a semiconductor substrate and is not an

optical sensor." 

Plaintiffs contend that the drive ring "detects finger

contact" and is therefore part of the sensing surface. However,

this argument is based on Plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant's

"sensor specifications indicate that the sensor captures images

once a 'finger has been detected on the sensor.'" Plaintiffs'

Responsive Brief at 10 (quoting Product Specification for the

AES4000 Fingerprint Sensor). As Defendant points out, the quoted

specification is for a product that is not accused of infringing, 

a product in which the drive ring is used as a power-up mechanism. 

This power-up feature is not included in the accused products. 

Moreover, as Defendant points out, Plaintiffs’ infringement

contentions include only the detection matrix as the part of the

accused products that comprises the “sensing surface coupled to a

matrix of several lines of sensing elements” identified in claim 17

of the ‘114 patent. See DeMory Reply Decl., Ex. 39. Plaintiffs’

infringement contentions do not mention the drive ring. See id. 

Further, the "undisputed material facts" (UMFs) Plaintiffs

include in their opening brief make clear that the drive ring is

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 10 of 14
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 11

not part of their own construction of "sensing surface." UMF I

states, "The sensor device in the AES products includes both the

detection matrix and the drive ring." Plaintiffs' opening brief at

23. However, UMF E states, "The AES products have a sensor that

detects" and goes on to cite the specifications for the AES

products' detection matrices. Id. at 22. The fact that a "sensor

device" includes the drive ring does not necessarily mean that the

"sensing surface" includes the drive ring. Moreover, as Defendant

points out, the drive ring transmits a signal into the finger; it

does not detect any part of, or signal from, the finger. 

The Court finds that the drive ring is not part of the

"sensing surface." Therefore Defendant's accused products do not

infringe independent claim 1 of the '114 patent, which requires

that the user's finger be "placed in direct contact with [the]

sensing surface." Because Defendant's products do not infringe

independent claim 1, they also do not infringe claims 2, 4, 7, 8,

9, 10, 12, or 14, which depend on claim 1. Independent claim 17 of

the '114 patent also requires "a finger placed in contact with

[the] sensing surface." Therefore, the accused products do not

infringe independent claim 17 or dependent claims 18 and 19 of the

'114 patent.

Moreover, Defendant asserts and Plaintiffs do not dispute that

the “‘804 patent claims only a method of using an apparatus claimed

in the ‘114 patent.” Defendant’s opening brief at 4. Because

Defendant’s products do not infringe the apparatus claimed in the

‘114 patent, they cannot infringe the method of using that

apparatus claimed in the ‘804 patent. 

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 11 of 14
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 12

III. Exceptional Case Finding

Defendant argues that it should be awarded reasonable

attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that in

exceptional patent cases courts "may award reasonable attorney fees

to the prevailing party." In Cambridge Products, Ltd. v. Penn

Nutrients, Inc., 962 F.2d 1048, 1050-51 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the court

found that the exceptional nature of the case must be established

by clear and convincing evidence, explaining that “exceptional

cases” are normally those involving bad faith litigation or fraud

or inequitable conduct by the patentee in procuring the patent. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs engaged in misconduct

during litigation. In particular, Defendant contends that

Plaintiffs purposefully misrepresented the licensing history of the

patents-in-suit in their papers filed in opposition to Defendant's

motion to dismiss. Further, Defendant argues that, despite two

court orders to do so, Plaintiffs have wrongfully refused to

respond to written discovery and deposition questions regarding the

licenses. Because Magistrate Judge Laporte is more familiar with

the parties’ conduct during discovery, the Court finds that she is

better equipped to evaluate Defendant’s allegations of misconduct. 

These allegations are the subject of Defendant's motion for

sanctions currently under submission before Magistrate Judge

Laporte. 

Defendant also argues that the merits of the case warrant an

exceptional case finding. Even absent a finding of misconduct, a

prevailing party may be granted attorneys’ fees if "(1) the

litigation is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 12 of 14
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

3

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the McWilliams declaration

(Docket No. 462) is DENIED as moot. The Court did not consider the

declaration in deciding these motions. 

13

litigation is objectively baseless." Brooks Furniture Mfg. v.

Dutailier Int'l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Defendant argues that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees because,

even accepting Plaintiffs' proposed claim construction, the accused

products do not infringe the patents-in-suit. Therefore, Defendant

contends that the litigation is objectively baseless. Plaintiffs

counter that they hired outside counsel to conduct an investigation

prior to filing this lawsuit. Although the deposition testimony

Plaintiffs file in support of their argument that they conducted a

reasonable investigation is notably vague, Defendant bears the

burden of establishing that Plaintiffs acted in subjective bad

faith. The only evidence Defendant cites in support of this

finding is an email by the inventor discussing the likelihood of

proving that other products not at issue in this case infringe the

patents-in-suit. This is not clear and convincing evidence that

Plaintiffs brought this suit in bad faith. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court accepts Plaintiffs’

construction of the relevant terms for purposes of deciding

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court DENIES

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 398),

GRANTS Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and DENIES its

motion for an exceptional case finding (Docket No. 430).3

 Once the

motions pending before the Magistrate Judge have been resolved, the

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 13 of 14
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 14

Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant and close the file. 

Defendant shall recover its costs from Plaintiffs jointly and

severally.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/5/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 576 Filed 05/05/08 Page 14 of 14