Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02385/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02385-2/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

TV INTERACTIVE DATA CORP.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 02-02385 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 17, 2005:

The Court tentatively DENIES Microsoft’s motion for partial summary judgment of no

willful infringement and limiting damages to post-suit inducement. If the parties intend to rely

on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available

at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit

the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their

reliance on such authority.

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 481 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 3
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

The parties shall each have 15 minutes to address the following questions: 

1. Is the standard for knowledge as a predicate for willful infringement that

defendant have actual knowledge, or is constructive knowledge sufficient? (See,

e.g., Insituform Technologies, Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., 161 F.3d 688, 695

(Fed. Cir. 1998) and Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 22

U.S. P.Q.2d 1001, 1003 (D. Ore. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 997 F.2d 1444

(Fed. Cir. 1993).) Is deliberate avoidance sufficient to demonstrate constructive

knowledge in this context?

2. In a highly factual determination of knowledge and intent, and for the purposes

of summary judgment, mustn’t the Court accept as true all facts and inferences as

alleged by Plaintiff? Succinctly stated, what is Plaintiff’s best evidence of

knowledge in support of its claims of willful pre-suit infringement?

3. Can Microsoft immunize itself from liability for contributory infringement by

simply combining additional software applications with the patented application? 

How can Microsoft contend their product constitutes a staple commodity if

Windows includes Autoplay, which runs automatically upon start up? 

Regardless, is the question whether the product has substantial noninfringing

uses a material question of disputed fact? (See, e.g., ImagExpo, LLC v.

Microsoft Corp., 284 F.Supp.2d 365, 367 n.1 (E.D. Va. 2003).)

4. Do the parties wish to argue the significance of the recent authority submitted by

Plaintiff?

5. Should the Court adopt its tentative (in a written order to follow), what parts of

Plaintiff’s outstanding motion for summary judgment remain at issue? 

6. Do the parties wish to address any other issues?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 481 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Case 3:02-cv-02385-JSW Document 481 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 3