Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Technology, CIVA CV03S2875NE.
| Decision Date | 12 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. CIVA CV03S2875NE.,CIVA CV03S2875NE. |
| Citation | 443 F.Supp.2d 1284 |
| Parties | AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP., Plaintiff, v. CLEARCUBE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama |
James D. Berquist, J. Scott Davidson, Donald L. Jackson, Michael R. Casey, Peter W. Gowdey, Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP, Arlington, VA, J. Jeffery Rich, Sirote & Permutt, P.C., Huntsville, AL, for plaintiff Avocent Huntsville Corp.
Harlan I. Prater, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Joseph M. Cloud, Joseph M. Cloud, P.C., Huntsville, Al, Russell T. Wong, J. David Cabello, Wong, Cabello, Lutsch, Rutherford & Brucculeri, LLP, Houston, TX, for defendant ClearCube Technology, Inc.
Plaintiff, Avocent Huntsville Corporation ("Avocent"), owns two patents directed to the problems of transmitting computer-generated, analog color video signals over extended distances: i.e., U.S. Patent No. 6,150,997 ("the '997 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 6,184,919 ("the '919 patent"). Avocent contends that accused products of defendant, ClearCube Technology, Inc. ("ClearCube"), infringe claim 1 of the '997 patent, and claims 1, 6, and 16-18 of the `919 patent.1 See 35 U.S.C. § 271. ClearCube's amended answer asserts affirmative defenses and counterclaims for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, and for patent unenforceability under the doctrine of inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office.2 Numerous motions are pending, but not all are addressed in this opinion. A list of those motions raising issues discussed herein is set out below, followed immediately by an outline of the ensuing discussion.
A. Document Number ("doc.no.") 136—ClearCube's motion for summary judgment declaring that certain Avocent patents and/or applications constitute prior art to the patents-in-suit;3
B. doc. no. 142—Avocent's motion for a partial summary judgment declaring that the patents-in suit "are not invalid";4
C. doe. no. 154—Avocent's motion for separate trial of ClearCube's inequitable conduct allegations;
D. doe, no. 157—Avocent's motion for a partial summary judgment declaring that it engaged in "no inequitable conduct";
E. doe. no. 160—Avocent's motion for a partial summary judgment declaring that ClearCube's products satisfy the "amplifier" limitation of claims 1 and 6 of the '919 patent, and, claim 1 of the '997 patent;
F. doe. no. 166—ClearCube's motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1 and 6 of the '919 patent;
G. doc. no. 168—Clear Cube's motion for partial summary judgment of non-infringement;
H. doe. no. 171—ClearCube's motion for a partial summary judgment declaring that Avocent's '919 and '997 patents are not enforceable; and,
I. doe. no. 174—Avocent's motion to strike the supplemental expert report of Gregg L. Vaughn, Ph.D.
OUTLINE OF DISCUSSION
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In The Matter Of Johnson Systems Inc., 09-81758-JAC-11.
...Fair Housing Council of Riverside County v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (11th Cir.2001); Avocent Huntsville Corp.v. ClearCube Tech., Inc., 443 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1293 (N.D.Ala.2006). The Court having considered each motion independently, finds that summary judgment is due to be entered ......
-
John Doe v. Onebeacon Am. Ins. Co.
...See Shaw Constructors v. ICF Kaiser Eng'rs, Inc., 395 F.3d 533, 538-39 (5th Cir. 2004); Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. ClearCube Tech., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1293-94 (N.D. Ala. 2006). However, the following facts are uncontroverted. Beginning on February 10, 1976 and lasting through Febr......
-
Bowman v. Biletski (In re Lawrence Biletski SSN: XXX-Xx-4973), BK Case No. 15-81967-CRJ-7
...v. Villa Blanca VB Plaza, LLC (In re PMC Marketing Corp.), 543 B.R. 345 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016); Avocent Huntsville Corp.v. ClearCube Tech., Inc., 443 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1293 (N.D. Ala. 2006)("The court must rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, for each ......
-
Morris v. Baker
...on its own merits, viewing the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party in each instance. See Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. ClearCube Tech., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1293-94 (N.D. Ala. 2006); see also Shaw v. Constructors v. ICF Kaiser Eng'rs, Inc., 395 F.3d 533, 538-39 (5th Cir. 2004) ("C......