Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. Guidetech, LLC

• Decision Date: 20 February 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2012–1018.,2012–1018.
• Citation: 707 F.3d 1342
• Parties: BRILLIANT INSTRUMENTS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellee, v. GUIDETECH, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

707 F.3d 1342

BRILLIANT INSTRUMENTS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.GUIDETECH, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 2012–1018.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 20, 2013.

Thomas W. Lathram, Silicon Edge Law Group LLP, of Pleasanton, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Mark P. Guidotti and Arthur J. Beheil. Of counsel on the brief were Mark S. Davies and Ross C. Paolino, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, of Washington, DC.

Einav Cohen, Attorney at Law, Sunnyvale, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. Of counsel was Jeffrey W. Gluck, Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, of Washington, DC.

Before DYK, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge DYK.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

GuideTech, LLC (GuideTech) appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment that Brilliant Instruments, Inc. (Brilliant) did not infringe three related GuideTech patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,226,231 ('231 patent), 6,091,671 ('671 patent), and 6,181,649 ('649 patent). See Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, Inc., No. C. 09–5517 CW, 2011 WL 3515904 (N.D.Cal. Aug. 11, 2011)( Summary Judgment Order ). Because the court erred in granting summary judgment, we reverse and remand.

Background

This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action that Brilliant filed after the inventor of the patents-in-suit left GuideTech to found Brilliant. GuideTech's patents generally relate to circuits that measure the timing errors of digital signals in high-speed microprocessors. These circuits, which are referred to as time interval analyzers, detect timing errors by analyzing a digital circuit's clock signal and output signals.

The patents share a common specification and claim different aspects of the time interval measuring circuit. The '231 patent claims the circuit at a high level, reciting that the circuit comprises a “signal channel,” a “plurality of measurement circuits defined within said signal channel,” and a “processor circuit.” Claim 1 is representative of the claims at issue:

A time interval analyzer for measuring time intervals between signal events, said analyzer comprising:

a signal channel that receives an input signal;

a plurality of measurement circuits defined within said signal channel in parallel with each other, ...; and

a processor circuit in communication with said signal channel....

'231 patent claim 1 (emphasis added). The issue on appeal with regard to the '231 patent is whether Brilliant's time interval analyzers have “a plurality of measurement circuits defined within said signal channel.” For purposes of this appeal, the parties agree that Brilliant's accused BI200 and BI220 products operate identically. Both products employ a “One–Channel–Two–Edge” mode in which they operate using “a single channel” and use two measurement circuits. J.A. 776.

The '671 and '649 patent claims are directed to internal circuitry of a measurement circuit. Claim 1 of the '671 patent is representative:

A time interval analyzer for measuring time intervals between events in an input signal, said analyzer comprising:

... a first current circuit having a constant current source or a constant current sink ...;

a second current circuit ...;

a capacitor; [and] a shunt,

wherein said shunt and said capacitor are operatively disposed in parallel with respect to said first current circuit,

wherein said shunt is disposed between said first current circuit and said second current circuit....

'671 patent claim 1 (emphasis added). The issue on appeal regarding the ' 671 and '649 patents is whether the measurement circuits in the BI200 and BI220 contain a capacitor “operatively disposed in parallel” with respect to a first current circuit. In its infringement allegations, GuideTech identified a capacitor that is part of the alleged “first current circuit.”

The district court construed the disputed claim terms and entered summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Brilliant for all three patents. GuideTech appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

Discussion

I. Standard of Review

We review summary judgment decisions under regional circuit law. Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2011). The Ninth Circuit reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo. Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir.2010). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). At the summary judgment stage, we credit all of the nonmovant's evidence and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Infringement, either literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2009). “Thus, on appeal from a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, we must determine whether, after resolving reasonable factual inferences in favor of the patentee, the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find infringement.” Id. (quoting IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1429 (Fed.Cir.2000)).

II. Infringement of the '231 Patent

GuideTech challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of the '231 patent. At summary judgment, the court construed the “defined within said signal channel” limitation as “contained within a signal channel.” Summary Judgment Order, 2011 WL 3515904, at *3–4. It further defined a “signal channel” as “an electrical circuit that includes a signal path for transmitting electrical signals.” Id. at *3. Neither party challenges these constructions.

The district court concluded that GuideTech failed to present sufficient evidence that the BI200 and BI220 have multiple measurement circuits contained within a signal channel. Id. at *8–9. The court held that, although the accused products require the use of two measurement circuits, “it does not follow that both circuits are contained in a single channel.” Id. at *8. The court concluded that the testimony of GuideTech's expert, Dr. West, failed to show that the measurement circuits were “contained” in the same channel. Id.

GuideTech argues that the district court erred in concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact. GuideTech points to Dr. West's expert report, arguing that it shows that the BI200 and BI220 employ two circuits contained within a single channel when operating in the One–Channel–Two–Edge mode. GuideTech also argues that Brilliant's datasheets show that the accused products operate on a single channel and use two measurement circuits.

Brilliant argues that the district court properly granted summary judgment. Brilliant argues that it cannot infringe because the district court, as a matter of claim construction, rejected GuideTech's argument that “defined within” allowed a measurement circuit to be present in more than one channel. Brilliant argues that the BI200 and BI220 do not infringe because each signal channel contains only one measurement circuit and simply borrows a second measurement circuit during One–Channel–Two–Edge mode.

We agree with GuideTech that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the BI200 and BI220, when operating in One–Channel–Two–Edge mode, have two measurement circuits contained within a signal channel, i.e., an electrical circuit that includes a signal path for transmitting electrical signals. Dr. West explained how the BI200 and BI220 meet the asserted claims when operating in One–Channel–Two–Edge mode. J.A. 968–69, 1005–06, 1062. Brilliant's schematics also show that, during operation in One–Channel–Two–Edge mode, the only active signal path flows from the input to two measurement circuits:

IMAGE

J.A. 1263 (color modified). In the above schematic, a user sets the circuit to One–Channel–Two Edge Mode with Channel A as the input. The signal path during operation in this mode is highlighted in the above schematic. Once received, the signal first flows through a comparator. The signal then flows into two multiplexers. The outputs of the multiplexers are then input into two measurement circuits (the timetag circuits).

This schematic and Dr. West's testimony, viewed in GuideTech's favor, shows that the only signal channel operative during One–Channel–Two–Edge mode contains two measurement circuits. This evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Brilliant's products literally infringe the '231 patent claims. Accordingly, the district court erred when it granted Brilliant's motion for summary judgment, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

III. Infringement of the '671 and '649 Patents

GuideTech also challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment that Brilliant's accused products do not infringe the '671 and '649 patents. The district court construed the term “operatively disposed in parallel” to mean “arranged in a manner capable of forming alternative paths of current such that current can flow across one or the other path.” Summary Judgment Order, 2011 WL 3515904, at *5–6. The parties do not challenge that construction on appeal.

The district court concluded that Brilliant was entitled to summary judgment because Dr. West conceded that the capacitor in Brilliant's products is “part of the first current circuit.” Id. at *9. The court concluded that Dr. West's testimony indicated “that the capacitor is not on an alternative path on which current flows from the first current circuit.” Id. Because it was undisputed that the capacitor in the accused products was part of the first current circuit and not arranged in parallel with the...