Barco NV v. Patriot Scientific Corporation et al, No. 5:2008cv05398 - Document 168 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUGDMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d). Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on March 8, 2011. (jflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Barco NV v. Patriot Scientific Corporation et al Doc. 168 1 **E-Filed 3/8/2011** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 10 BARCO N.V., a Belgian corporation 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP., and ALLIACENSE LTD., Defendants. 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER1 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) [Re: Docket Nos. 112, 148, 156] 17 18 Case Number 5:08-cv-05398 JF (HRL) Plaintiff Barco N.V. (“Barco”) moves for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 Patent”). In response, Defendants Technology Properties Ltd., Patriot Scientific Corp., and Alliacense (referred to herein collectively as “TPL”) seek relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The Court heard oral argument on February 25, 2011. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant TPL’s motion and will deny Barco’s motion without prejudice. 24 25 26 27 1 28 This disposition is not designated for publication. Case Number 5:08-cv-05398-JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (JFLC1) Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROUND 1 2 Barco filed the instant action2 on December 1, 2008, seeking a judicial declaration that 3 several patents owned by TPL are invalid and/or not infringed.3 On February 17, 2009, TPL 4 asserted counterclaims with respect to the ‘749 Patent, and to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,530,890 (“the 5 ‘890 Patent”) and 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 Patent”). TPL served infringement contentions pursuant 6 to Patent L.R. 3-1 on February 20, 2009. On June 17, 2009, the Court stayed this action and all 7 related cases because of developments in the reexamination of several of the patents. The ‘336 8 Patent subsequently emerged from reexamination, and the Court dissolved the stay. TPL served 9 its amended infringement contentions with respect to the ‘336 Patent on April 30, 2010. The 10 Court denied TPL’s motion to amend its infringement contentions further on September 9, 2010. 11 Barco then moved for summary judgment. It claims that TPL’s infringement contentions 12 with respect to the ‘336 Patent do not state how the accused products meet the asserted claim 13 limitations and that TPL does not have evidence of infringement.4 TPL argues that summary 14 judgment would be premature because the Court has yet to construe the claims at issue and 15 discovery is still ongoing. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A motion for summary judgment should be granted if there is no genuine issue of 18 material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 20 (1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for the 21 motion and identifying the portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 22 admissions, or affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact. Celotex 23 2 24 25 26 27 28 This matter is one of three related cases. See Acer v. Technology Properties Ltd., et al. 08-00877-JF/HRL; HTC v. Technology Properties Ltd., et al. 08-00882-JF/HRL. 3 U.S. Patent Nos. 5,784,584 (“the ‘584 Patent”), 5,440,749 (“the ‘749 Patent”), and 6,598,148 (“the ‘148 Patent”) 4 TPL asserts claims 1,6, 7, 9-11, and 13-16 of the ‘336 Patent against Barco. 2 Case Number 5:08-cv-05398-JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (JFLC1) 1 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to 2 3 present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); 4 Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. A genuine issue for trial exists if the non-moving party presents 5 evidence from which a reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that 6 party, could resolve the material issue in his or her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 248-49, 106 7 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202; Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1134-36 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 However, “[a] non-movant’s bald assertions or a mere scintilla of evidence in his favor are both 9 insufficient to withstand summary judgment.” F.T.C. v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 929 (9th Cir. 10 2009). III. DISCUSSION 11 12 Barco relies on Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc., 442 F. 3d 1301, 1309 13 (Fed. Cir. 2006) for the proposition that summary judgment of non-infringement is appropriate 14 where the moving party shows that “the patentee [has] no evidence of infringement and [points] 15 to the specific ways in which accused systems [do] not meet the claim limitations.” It also 16 asserts that under Celotex, “the burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’-that 17 is, pointing out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving 18 party’s case.” 477 U.S. at 325 (1986). 19 Here, Barco contends that it is not liable for infringement because each claim of the ‘336 20 Patent requires a microprocessor chip with a variable speed clock, while the microprocessors in 21 Barco’s products contain only fixed clocks.5 According to Barco, this distinction obviates the 22 need to construe any other claims before consideration of its motion for summary judgment 23 because the accused products simply do not contain a component that meets the definition of a 24 25 26 27 28 5 Barco does not manufacture microprocessors. Rather, it purchases products that contain microprocessors from manufacturers such as Texas Instruments, and then incorporates the microprocessors into its products. MSJ at 1. 3 Case Number 5:08-cv-05398-JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (JFLC1) 1 variable speed clock.6 Barco also argues that TPL will not be able to produce evidence that any 2 accused product infringes the asserted claims of the ‘336 Patent because TPL’s infringement 3 contentions are purely speculative. 4 TPL contends that even under Exigent, Barco’s motion for summary judgment is 5 premature. In Exigent, claim construction already had occurred. In this case, the parties have 6 not completed fact discovery, nor has the Court set a date for the close of fact discovery, and at 7 this point in the litigation the only individuals who have been deposed are the inventors of the 8 disputed patents and claim construction experts. According to TPL, the focus of discovery has 9 been directed at the construction of the asserted claims because definition of the claims is a 10 necessary predicate to determining infringement. 11 Indeed, in several of the cases relied upon by Barco, summary judgment of non- 12 infringement was granted only after the court conducted a Markman hearing or after the close of 13 fact discovery. Exigent, 442 F. 3d at 1301; TechSearch L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360 14 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Utstarcom , Inc. v. Starent Networks, No. 07-CV-2582, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15 93869 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 16, 2009) (holding that in order to grant summary judgment the court must 16 determine the meaning of the claim before evaluating whether or not the accused product meets 17 the claim limitations). TPL argues that the existing factual questions related to infringement of 18 the ‘336 Patent cannot be determined based on infringement contentions alone. It emphasizes 19 that discovery is necessary to with respect to whether the accused products contain the asserted 20 claim limitations, and seeks relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). 21 In order to obtain relief pursuant to Rule 56(d), a party must establish that it has been 22 diligent in conducting discovery and that “there is some basis for believing that the information 23 sought actually exists.” Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084, 1091 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2009). 24 According to TPL, information unquestionably exists that will describe the operation of the 25 26 27 28 6 Barco has stipulated to the definition of “variable speed” as construed in a previous claim construction in the Eastern District of Texas. MSJ at 2 n. 1. The term has been defined as “capable of operating at different speeds.” Id. 4 Case Number 5:08-cv-05398-JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (JFLC1) 1 disputed microprocessor chips, and in fact this information is the subject of outstanding 2 document requests directed to Barco and the chip manufacturers.7 Barco argues that TPL has not 3 exercised diligence in discovery because, after two years of litigation, it just now is seeking 4 information from the most obvious source–the chip manufacturers. However, the issue is not 5 whether TPL has conducted discovery with seamless precision, but whether TPL has worked in 6 earnest during the relevant period. It appears that TPL has been consistent in its discovery 7 efforts throughout the course of litigation. Moreover, the Court believes that analysis of TPL’s 8 infringement contentions will be best informed by formal construction of the claims asserted 9 therein. 10 Barco seeks leave to file a surreply and has included a copy of its surreply in its motion 11 for leave. Dkt. 156. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, 12 and will vacate the hearing date of April 22, 2011. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The motion for leave 13 will be granted. In its surreply, Barco argues that because the parties have agreed upon the terms 14 most critical to its alleged infringement of the ‘336 Patent, a claim construction hearing would 15 serve no useful purpose. The surreply cites to a chart of agreed-upon terms presented in 16 conjunction with the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Statement. Ex. A to Joint Claim 17 Construction Statement, Dkt. 110. However, while the Court appreciates the fact that the parties 18 have agreed upon definitions for many of the terms relevant to TPL’s claims, review of the Joint 19 Claim Construction Statement itself shows that several potentially significant terms remain in 20 7 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TPL indicates that it has subpoenaed documents from chip manufacturers in an effort to obtain key chip schematics such as product level datasheets, block diagrams, source code, and technical presentations that will enable TPL to determine the design and operation of the microprocessors in the accused products. Opp. Br. at 24-25; See Ex. I to Mar Decl. ISO Opposition to Summary Judgment, Dkt. 136. Additionally, TPL served its First Request for Production of Documents in February 2009, seeking documents that would show (1) the engineering design of the microprocessors, (2) any testing Barco has performed on the microprocessors, and (3) which Barco products contain the microprocessor technology at issue. Ex. B to Mar. Decl. ISO Opposition to Summary Judgment, Dkt. 136. Barco maintains that it does not possess the information sought by TPL and has informed TPL of this fact. It argues further that any concerns TPL harbored with regard to unfulfilled discovery requests should have been raised by a motion to compel. 5 Case Number 5:08-cv-05398-JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (JFLC1) 1 dispute. Terms such as “ring oscillator” and “operates asynchronously to” have been identified 2 by the parties in previous submissions as being critical to the resolution of the issues in the 3 instant case, but these terms do not appear to be the subject of agreement and in fact appear in 4 the chart of disputed claim terms. Ex. B to Joint Claim Construction Statement, Dkt. 110. 5 In its surreply, Barco requests that the Court reserve ruling on the motion for summary 6 judgment rather than deny the motion without prejudice so that Barco need not re-file its motion 7 after claim construction has taken place. However, for the reasons stated above, any future 8 motion for summary judgment will need to address additional evidence obtained in discovery. IV. ORDER 9 10 Good cause therefor appearing, Barco’s motion for leave to file a surreply is GRANTED. 11 Barco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘336 Patent is DENIED 12 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and TPL’s motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) is 13 GRANTED. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 DATED: March 8, 2011 _______________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Case Number 5:08-cv-05398-JF (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d) (JFLC1)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
