Opinion ID: 779647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary judgment of invalidity of claims 13 and 14

Text: 41 The district court found claims 13 and 14 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 2 as anticipated by a driver (as used with a digitizer) that LCS developed and licensed to Seiko Corporation (the Seiko driver). 3 The district court determined that the Seiko driver was publicly available more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the `492 application. Invalidity Order at 3. The parties submitted competing affidavits contesting the status of the Seiko driver as prior art and the functions and capabilities of the Seiko driver. LCS submitted a declaration from Robert Dezmelyk, the purported programmer of the Seiko driver and current LCS president. Schumer submitted a declaration contradicting Dezmelyk's declaration. In response, LCS submitted a supplemental declaration from Dezmelyk to refute Schumer's declaration. Relying heavily on Dezmelyk's supplemental declaration, the district court found that the Seiko driver was prior art under section 102(b) and that it disclosed every limitation of claim 13, including the requirement that the driver send translated commands directly to the digitizer. Id. at 7. 42 Without separately analyzing claim 14, the district court stated that [b]ecause Claim 13 is the independent claim and Claim 14 is dependent upon Claim 13, the analysis of Claim 13 will determine the validity of Claim 14. Invalidity Order at 3. The district court granted partial summary judgment regarding the invalidity of claims 13 and 14 ... because [Wacom and LCS] have provided clear and convincing evidence that claim 13 was anticipated by the Seiko Driver. Because the claims are invalid, there can be no infringement. Id. at 7. 43 Schumer timely filed this appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).