Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000-78/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Island corporation,

Defendant. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Island corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware corporation, et al., 

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND CROSSCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-2000 CW

(consolidated with

No. C 06-2929 CW)

ORDER DENYING MPS'

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF

INVALIDITY OF THE

'722 PATENT AND

DENYING ASUSTEK'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (MPS) moves for

summary judgment that Defendant O2 Micro International Limited's

U.S. Patent No. 6,396,722 (the '722 patent) is invalid for failure

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 1 of 9
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

1

On October 11, 2006, the Court signed O2 Micro's stipulated

dismissal with prejudice of its claim concerning the '129 patent. 

Thus, this patent is no longer at issue. The Court also granted

summary judgment in favor of ASUSTeK that it does not infringe the

'615 patent and, thus, that patent is no longer at issue. 

2

to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112, the best mode disclosure

requirement of the Patent Act. Counterclaim Defendant Advanced

Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (ASMC) joins in MPS'

motion. O2 Micro opposes the motion. ASUSTeK Computers, Inc.,

Defendant in case number 06-2929, which was consolidated with this

action, separately moves for summary judgment that the '722 patent

and O2 Micro's U.S. Patents No. 6,259,615 (the '615 patent) and

No. 6,804,129 (the '129 patent)1 are invalid for failure to comply

with the best mode disclosure requirement. The matter was heard on

October 27, 2006. Having considered all of the papers filed by the

parties, the evidence cited therein and oral argument, the Court

denies MPS' motion and denies ASUSTeK's motion to the extent it

concerns the '722 patent; however, to the extent ASUSTeK's motion

concerns the '615 and '129 patents, the motion is denied as moot.

BACKGROUND

The '722 patent held by O2 Micro is titled "High Efficiency

Adaptive DC/AC Converter." It shares the same specification as the

'129 and '615 patents: the '129 patent is a continuation of the

'722 patent, which is a continuation '615 patent. The inventor of

the patents is Dr. Yung-Lin Lin. 

The patents claim a DC to AC inverter circuit, more

specifically, a high efficiency controller circuit that regulates

power delivered to a load using a zero-voltage-switching technique. 

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 2 of 9
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

2For example, claim 1 of the '722 patent provides:

A DC to AC inverter circuit, comprising: 

an input voltage source; 

a plurality of switches arranged in a full bridge

configuration wherein opposite corners of said full

bridge configuration being selectively coupled to said

voltage source; 

a transformer having a primary side and a secondary side,

said primary side being selectively coupled to said

voltage source in an alternating fashion through said

full bridge switch configuration; 

a load coupled to said secondary side of said

transformer; 

a pulse generator circuit generating a first pulse signal

for driving one of the corner switches of said full

bridge configuration; 

a feedback control loop circuit receiving a feedback

signal indicative of power being supplied to the load and

adapted to generate a second pulse signal for controlling

the conduction state of a switch on the opposite corner

of said switch being controlled by said first pulse

signal, said second pulse signal having a first state

which overlaps said first pulse signal to deliver an

amount of power to said load determined by said feedback

signal, and a second state which overlaps the first

signal with a predetermined minimum overlap to deliver a

predetermined minimum power to the load.

3

The general utility for the invention is as a circuit for driving

one or more Cold Cathode Fluorescent Lamps (CCFLs) and the abstract

refers to the invention as a "CCFL power circuit converter." Both

preferred embodiment disclosures are inverter circuits for driving

CCFL loads. However, the specification notes that the "invention

should be broadly construed as a power converter circuit and

methodology independent of the particular load for a particular

application." The claim language makes no mention of a particular

load or application with which the claimed invention is intended to

work.2 According to the specification, "those skilled in the art

will recognize that the present invention can be utilized with any

load where high efficiency and precise power control is required." 

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 3 of 9
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

In 1997, Dr. Lin began working on the invention claimed in the

'615 and '722 patent. The next year, he continued to work on his

invention and began to work on a transformer known as the CIUH8D

series. Dr. Lin testified that his work on the CIUH8D transformer

was part of his diligence in reducing to practice the invention

claimed in the patents. He spent six to eight months working on

the CIUH8D transformer, which was designed to be placed on a

demonstration inverter board manufactured by Taiwan Sumida for use

in notebook computers. Dr. Lin tested the inverter circuit claimed

in the patents-in-suit with the CIUH8D transformer and the

transformer worked very well. Specifically, the transformer was

"low cost" and smaller than other transformers in the market at

that time; it ran cool and provided good efficiency. 

Although it is not clear when Dr. Lin reduced the CIUH8D

transformer to practice, the parties do not dispute that it was

reduced to practice before Dr. Lin filed a provisional patent

application concerning the inverter circuit claimed in the patentsin-suit. Nor is it disputed that the applications that led to the

issuance of the patents-in-suit, and the patents themselves, did

not identify or specify any characteristics of the CIUH8D

transformer. The patents do not specify the size of the

transformer used with the claimed invention; they do not specify

the size of the wire used, how the wires are terminated or the gap

provided in transformer of the claimed invention. 

Instead, Dr. Lin and O2 Micro maintained the design of the

CIUH8D transformer as a trade secret. O2 Micro accused MPS of

misappropriating its transformer trade secret, as well as other

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 4 of 9
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

The Court later concluded that O2 Micro had failed to prove

unjust enrichment damages for misappropriation of the transformer

design trade secret and, in lieu of the jury's unjust enrichment

damages award, awarded O2 Micro a reasonable royalty and exemplary

damages. 

5

trade secrets, in O2 Micro International Limited v. Monolithic

Power Systems, Inc., C 01-3995 CW. During trial, MPS argued that

O2 Micro's transformer was not a trade secret. But the jury found

otherwise. Based in part on Dr. Lin's testimony concerning the

CIUH8D transformer design, the jury awarded O2 Micro $12 million in

unjust enrichment damages for MPS' willful misappropriation of O2

Micro's transformer trade secret.3

LEGAL STANDARD

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

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 5 of 9
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

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 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 nonmoving 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.

DISCUSSION

MPS and ASUSTeK seek summary adjudication that the ‘722 patent

is invalid for failure to disclose the best mode. Title 35 U.S.C.

§ 112 requires that a patent specification “shall set forth the

best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the

invention.” The Federal Circuit instructs that patents which do

not adequately disclose a preferred embodiment of the invention are

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 6 of 9
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

invalid for failure to satisfy the best mode requirement; patents

which fail to disclose aspects of making or using the claimed

invention, if the undisclosed matter materially affects the

properties of the claimed invention, are also invalid for failure

to satisfy the best mode requirement. Bayer AG v. Schein

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 301 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As

the Federal Circuit explains, "The purpose of the best mode

requirement is to ensure that the public, in exchange for the

rights given the inventor under the patent laws, obtains from the

inventor a full disclosure of the preferred embodiment of the

invention." Dana Corp. v. IPC Ltd. Partnership, 860 F.2d 415, 418

(Fed. Cir. 1988).

The “best mode inquiry is directed to what the applicant

regards as the invention, which is in turn measured by the claims.” 

Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North American Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1330-

31 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Determining whether a patent complies with

the best mode requirement consists of a two-part factual analysis. 

N. Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 215 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed.

Cir. 2000); Chemcast Corp. v. Arco Indus. Corp., 913 F.2d 923, 927-

28 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The first inquiry is whether the inventor

considered a particular mode of practicing his or her invention

superior to all other modes. The Federal Circuit instructs, "This

inquiry is wholly subjective; that is, it focuses on the inventor's

state of mind at the time he filed his patent application." 

N. Telecom Ltd., 215 F.3d at 1286. The second inquiry is objective

and inquires whether the inventor's disclosure is adequate to

enable one of ordinary skill of the art to practice the best mode

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 7 of 9
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

of the invention. Id. Because patents are presumed to be valid,

MPS and ASUSTeK have the burden of establishing by clear and

convincing evidence that the '722 patent is invalid for failure to

comply with the best mode requirement. United States Gypsum Co. v.

National Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

MPS and ASUSTeK contend that Dr. Lin considered his CIUH8D

transformer superior to other transformers for carrying out his

inverter circuit invention and, yet, he failed to disclose it in

the application, in violation of the best mode requirement. They

provide clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Lin considered the

CIUH8D transformer to be a superior product. They point out, for

example, that Dr. Lin believed, prior to filing the applications

for the patents-in-suit, that his transformer would be a "leading

product" in CCFL applications. During trial, he referred to the

CIUH8D transformer as "my boy." And O2 Micro does not dispute that

the CIUH8D transformer is a superior product for driving a CCFL. 

Although the CIUH8D transformer is a superior product, it is

not part of the claimed invention. The claimed invention is not a

patent on a transformer. Rather, the claimed invention is directed

to power switching and feedback control circuit circuitry within a

power controller. It does not claim, or require, any particular

transformer specification, other than having a primary side and a

secondary side, because it was designed to be applied to many

different applications and products. Dr. Lin designed the CIUH8D

transformer for a particular application; it is not part of the

claimed invention and, therefore, it need not have been disclosed.

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 8 of 9
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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES MPS' Motion for

Summary Judgment that the Claims of the O2 Micro '722 Patent are

not Valid (Docket No. 132). ASUSTeK's Motion for Summary Judgment

that the claims are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode

(Docket No. 169 in Case No. 04-CV-359 TJW) is DENIED to the extent

it concerns the '722 patent; to the extent the motion concerns the

'615 and '129 patents, however, it is DENIED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/8/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 742 Filed 02/08/07 Page 9 of 9