Ips Grp., Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 15-CV-1526-CAB-(MDD) |
| Parties | IPS GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. DUNCAN SOLUTIONS, INC., et. al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is Defendants Duncan Solutions, Inc. and Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,595,054. The moving defendants (collectively "Duncan") assert that Plaintiff IPS Group, Inc., cannot establish that at least four of the claim limitations of the '054 patent are present in the accused Liberty parking meter. [Doc. Nos. 176 and 189, (184-1 sealed version)]. The motion has been fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 206 (221 sealed version), 230 (235 sealed version)], and the Court heard argument on November 9, 2017. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The '054 patent relates to single bay parking meters. [Doc. No. 34-1.] The meter device of the invention is solar powered and is capable of accepting payment by cash and non-cash means such as a credit or debit card, Smart card, smart phone, or electronic tag or toll pass. The device is designed so that it may be retrofitted into a conventional single space parking meter housing. [Id., Col 3:33-43.] The lower portion of the meter device is configured to have a shape and dimensions such that it may be received within an existing housing base. An existing housing cover may be replaced to accommodate the upper portion of the claimed meter device such that when the cover of the housing is closed the meter device fits within the housing with the payment means accessible to the user.1 Plaintiff IPS Group, Inc. ("IPS") alleges Duncan's meters infringe claim 1 of the '054 patent. Claim 1 covers:
[Id., Col 5:43 - Col 6:17.]
Duncan contends that the accused Liberty meter fails to meet four limitations of claim 1: (1) it does not have a solar panel that charges the power management facility; (2) it does not include a power management facility that supplies power to a display; (3) it does not include a power management facility that supplies power to the timer; and (4) it does not have a lower portion configured to have a shape and dimensions such that the lower portion is receivable within the housing base of the single space parking meter.
Determining whether a claim has been infringed requires a two-step analysis. PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). To prove direct infringement, "the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused device infringes one or more claims of the patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents." Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 261 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, "[s]ummary judgment on the issue of infringement is proper when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accuseddevice either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents." PC Connector Solutions, 406 F.3d at 1364; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
Duncan contends that as a matter of law the accused Liberty parking meter does not meet the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the meter has a power management facility that is charged by a solar panel. The Court previously construed "power management facility" as circuitry and software that directs power to the parking meter device as required. [Doc. No. 72 at 3.] It is undisputed that the accused Liberty meter has a solar panel that provides power to the meter. The parties also acknowledged at the hearing that circuitry that comprises a power management facility may include capacitors that would store energy, i.e., could be charged.
IPS contends that a component of the Liberty meter identified as the multipurpose peripheral board (MPB) functions as the power management facility in the accused device. IPS argues that the solar panels of the Liberty meter provide energy directly to the MPB which is capable of storing that energy. The MPB then directs power to the components of the meter, including the battery. IPS contends this arrangement meets this claim limitation. [Doc. No. 221 at 7-8.]
Duncan, meanwhile, argues that the solar panels in the Liberty meter solely charge the meter's battery which in turn provides power to meter's other components. Duncan asserts that although the power from the solar panels may be directed by the MPB to the battery, the battery is the component that is charged, not the MPB, meaning the claim limitation is not met.
The Court finds there to be a material dispute as to the operation of the Liberty meter. If as IPS contends (1) the energy generated by the solar panels is sent to the MPB, (2) the MPB is capable of being charged, and (3) the MPB consists of circuitry and software that directs power to the parking meter device as required, a jury could find that this limitationis met by the Liberty meter. The motion based on IPS's inability as a matter of law to meet this claim limitation is therefore denied.
Duncan proffered that supplying power means to make it available for use. [Doc. No. 184 at 9, ¶9.] IPS contends that the MPB in the accused device functions as the power management facility and that the MPB supplies power to the meter's display and timer. Duncan asserts that the meter's battery is the sole source of power to the display and timer and that if the battery is disconnected the display and timer would not operate.
The Court again finds there is a material dispute as to the operation of the Liberty meter. If, as IPS contends, the MPB is the claimed power management facility, and the MPB directly supplies power to the meter's timer and display, a jury could find that th ese limitations are met by the Liberty meter. The motion based on IPS's inability as a matter of law to meet these claim limitations is therefore denied.
Finally, Duncan argues that the accused device does not meet the claim limitation that the lower portion of the device be configured such that it is receivable within the housing base of the meter. The Court previously construed "upper portion" as the portion of the parking meter device that extends above the parking meter housing base when the lower is received within the housing base, and "lower portion" as the portion that is below the upper portion of the device. [Doc. No. 72 at 4; see also Doc. No. 34-1, Col. 3:28-45; Fig. 1 and 2.] The...
To continue reading
Request your trial