Ips Grp., Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 15-CV-1526-CAB-(MDD) |
| Parties | IPS GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. DUNCAN SOLUTIONS, INC. and DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[Doc. No. 103.]
Before the Court is Defendants Duncan Solutions, Inc. and Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc.'s ("Defendants") motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent No. 7,854,310 ("the '310 patent"). [Doc No. 103.] The motion was fully briefed and argument was held on August 7, 2017. [Doc. Nos. 107, 111.] The Court finds that no reasonable jury could find that Defendants' accused device has all the elements of the asserted claims, and therefore the Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff IPS Group is the owner of the '310 patent for "Parking Meter." The claimed meter is battery-operated and rechargeable by solar-power. It is designed to accept payment by coin, credit or debit card with payment information electronically displayed and conveyable to the user's cell phone. [Doc. No. 34-2 at 8-9, Col. 1:30-Col.3:44.]1 IPS alleges that Defendants' Liberty® Single-Space Meter ("Liberty Meter") infringes Claims 1-9 and 11 of the '310 patent. [Doc. No. 103-7 at 3, 17-63.] The asserted independent Claims 1 and 9 are set forth below:
[Doc. No. 34-2 at Col. 3:46 - Col. 4:13, Col. 4:36 - Col. 5:8.]
Both independent claims require a housing comprised of an intermediate panel set and a cover panel. In Claim 1, the front face of the housing cover panel includes a control panel that has a window (to allow viewing of an information screen contained within the housing) and buttons for the operation of the meter. [Id. at Col. 3:60-67 (). In Claim 9, the front face surface of the housing cover panel has a window and buttons for the operation of the meter. [Id. at Col. 4:41-44 ().]
Defendants move for summary judgment of non-infringement on the basis that IPS cannot prove as a matter of law that the Liberty Meter has the claim limitation of a pluralityof buttons that operate the parking meter on the front surface of the housing cover panel, either literally or by the doctrine of equivalents.2
To prove direct infringement, a patentee must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that one or more claims of the patent read on the accused device literally or under the doctrine of equivalence. See Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc. 261 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed Cir. 2001).
Pursuant of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Summary judgment for the defendants on the issue of infringement is proper when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a properly construed claim is found in the accused device either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. See PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Determining whether a claim has been infringed requires a two-step analysis. First the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device. Id. at 1362.
The parties did not seek construction of any claims of the motion,however, it became apparent that the parties do not agree as to the scope and meaning of certain terms of this patent. The Court therefore ordered submission of proposed constructions for certain terms pertinent to consideration of the motion. [Doc. No. 143.]
The parties submitted their briefs as to the terms the Court identified. [Doc. Nos. 160, 163.] Thereafter, the Court provided proposed constructions and held a hearing on August 7, 2017. The Court construed the terms of Claim 1 as follows:
a housing The exterior casing of the parking meter an intermediate panel set The lower structural component of the exterior casing a cover panel The upper structural component of the exterior casing the front face surface The surface of the exterior casing a user interacts with the front face surface of the cover panel
The surface of the upper structural component of the exterior casing the user interacts with
The Court construed the terms of Claim 9 as follows:
a housing The exterior casing of the parking meter an intermediate panel set The lower structural component of the exterior casing a cover panel The upper structural component of the exterior casing the parking meter front face The surface of the exterior casing a user interacts with the first surface of the cover panel The surface of the upper structural component of the exterior casing the user interacts with a module An independent unit that can be contained in the housing
At the hearing, Defendants accepted the Court's proposed constructions without objection. Plaintiff accepted some of the constructions, but disagreed with the Court's proposed construction of "cover panel" and related "the front face (or first) surface of the cover panel" as too narrow.
Plaintiff argued that the term "cover panel" in the claim is not limited to a single structural component, such as what counsel referred to as the dome or hat of the housing,but can also encompass other parts of the meter.3 Plaintiff contends that the scope of the claim term "cover panel" is limited only by the requirement that the component be movably, i.e., pivotally or slidably, attached to the intermediate panel set. Consequently, Plaintiff sought to construe the housing's cover panel to include any portion of a meter that is movably attached to the intermediate panel set and "conceals - i.e., covers - portions of the intermediate panel." [Doc. No. 34-2 at Col. 2:44-50; Doc. No. 107 at 13-15, fn.7.]
Plaintiff argued that the specification supports this construction of the term "cover panel"...
To continue reading
Request your trial