Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00162-97/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

NICHIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., LTD., et

al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 06-0162 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

Before the Court is defendants’ “Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration

of Summary Judgment Order,” filed August 28, 2007, by which defendants seek

reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order, filed August 22, 2007, to the

extent such order grants judgment in favor of plaintiff with respect to defendants’ claim of

invalidity on the ground of functionality.

A design is “invalid due to functionality” when the claimed design “is dictated by the

use or purpose of the article.” See L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F. 2d

1117, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In its August 22, 2007 order, the Court found plaintiff was

entitled to summary judgment on defendants’ claim of invalidity on the ground of

functionality, because defendants had failed to offer any evidence to support a finding the

claimed designs are dictated by the function performed by the subject article, a side view

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 728 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 2
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

light-emitting diode (“LED”). (See Order, filed August 22, 2007, at 4:12-24.) By the instant

motion, defendants seek reconsideration of said finding, on the asserted ground the Court

failed to consider evidence supportive of a finding that the claimed designs are dictated by

the function performed by a side view LED.

The evidence on which defendants rely is an opinion set forth in the expert report of

Richard A. Flasck (“Flasck”), specifically, Flasck’s opinion that the “general appearance” of

a side view LED is “the result of functional requirements.” (See Notice of Errata to

Declaration of Chi Soo Kim, filed June 22, 2007, Ex. LL at 29.) The Court did, however,

consider such opinion in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of

functionality, and found said opinion insufficient.

Having again reviewed the issue, the Court finds no basis upon which to reconsider

its prior decision. Flasck’s opinion, as set forth in more detail at other pages of his report,

is that any side view LED must have, for functional reasons, a “standard general

appearance,” which Flasck defines as “a tiny shoe box shaped body with the window on the

front surface, and a tiny metallic electrode at each end.” (See id. Ex. LL at 27-28.) The

design patents at issue, however, do not purport to claim a design for an LED consisting of

“a tiny shoe box shaped body with the window on the front surface, and a tiny metallic

electrode at each end,” but, rather, for a LED with a specific type of window and a

specifically-shaped electrode at each end, as well as other features, as set forth in detail in

the Order Construing Claims, filed August 22, 2007. As the Court stated in its summary

judgment order, Flasck does not opine that the particular designs claimed by plaintiff are

dictated by the function performed by a side view LED.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00162-MMC Document 728 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 2