ISCO International, Inc. v. Conductus, Inc., C.A. No. 01-487 GMS (D. Del. 2/10/2003)
| Decision Date | 10 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | C.A. No. 01-487 GMS. |
| Parties | ISCO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. CONDUCTUS, INC., AND SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
The plaintiff, ISCO International, Inc. ("ISCO"), filed the above-captioned suit against Conductus, Inc. ("Conductus") and Superconductor Technologies, Inc. ("STI") (collectively "the defendants") on July 17, 2001. In its complaint, ISCO alleges that Conductus and STI are infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,263,215 ("the `215 patent"). Presently before the court is Conductus' Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of All Asserted Claims for Causes of Action Existing Prior to the Date of Issuance of a Certificate of Correction and of Invalidity of Claim 13 (D.I. 205). For the reasons that follow, the court will grant in part and deny in part the motion regarding non-infringement, and deny the motion regarding the certificate of correction and claim 13.
Summary judgment is appropriate in patent suits as in other civil actions. Rains v. Cascade Industries, Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 244 (3d. Cir. 1968). The court may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see also Boyle v. County of Allegheny Pa., 139 F.3d 386, 392 (3d Cir. 1998). Thus, summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party shows there are no genuine issues of material fact that would permit a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Boyle, 139 F.3d at 392. A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit. Id. (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248 (1986)). An issue is genuine if a reasonable jury could possibly find in favor of the non-moving party with regard to that issue. Id. In deciding the motion, the court must construe all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.; see also Assaf v. Fields, 178 F.3d 170, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1999).
With these standards in mind, the court will briefly describe the facts that led to the motion presently before the court.
The invention of the `215 patent is a "receiver front end" for receiving telecommunications signals. A receiver front end is a system including filters, which transmit certain signals and attenuate others, and amplifiers, which strengthen the desired signals. Telecommunications systems divide geographic areas into "cells," each of which is supported by a base station. Each base station has preassigned radio frequency (RF) carriers for the communication channels. Wireless signals from mobile telephones arrive at these base stations, which monitor and process the incoming signals. For various reasons including safety concerns and conservation of battery power, mobile telephones transmit signals at limited power. Therefore, the signals arriving at the base stations tend to be weak, causing the cell to become "reverse link limited." Most of the known solutions to this problem are unappealing or impractical. At the same time, additional demand by mobile telephone users requires more and more frequency channels and base stations. Thus, there was a need for base station front end receivers with increased sensitivityto incoming signals (by limiting losses and noise generated in the base station receiver) and selectivity (to allow more channels to be accommodated). The invention at hand purports to meet these needs.
As the patent specification provides, the receiver front end itself includes:
(1) a plurality of filtering means for spectrally filtering a plurality of RF signals to form a plurality of filtered RF signals; (2) a plurality of amplifying means, in communication with the plurality of filtering means, for amplifying the plurality of filtered RF signals; and (3) cooling means for cryogenically cooling the filtering means and the amplifying means. . . . At least one of the plurality of filtering means and plurality of amplifying means comprises a superconducting material. . . . Switching means can be used to bypass the RF signal around the receiver front end in the event of malfunction of [the] receiver front end. Monitoring means for monitoring remotely the operation of the various components of the receiver front end can be used to activate the switching means.
`215 patent, col. 2, lns. 49-65; col. 5, ln. 65 to col. 6, ln. 3. Of the various patent claims, ISCO alleges that the defendants are infringing independent claim 10 and dependent claims 12 through 17, and 19.
Conductus contends that ISCO cannot establish infringement of the `215 patent for several reasons. The court will address each of these issues in turn.
Conductus first argues that certain language of claim 101 requires a one-to-one correspondence between the number of filters and the number of amplifiers. Because "the vast majority" of their accused products do not embody such a one-to-one correspondence, Conductus asserts, infringement cannot be established as to claim 10.
This argument is moot in light of the court's order of October 30, 2002 in which it construed the claims of the patent. "Planar filters" has been construed to mean "two or more non-cavity resonator, essentially flat surface, film devices for separating, according to radio frequency, signals received on the communication pathways, each communication pathway having a pre-assigned radio frequency." In addition, the phrase "a corresponding plurality of amplifiers for amplifying the plurality of filtered RF signals" has been construed to mean "two or more devices for strengthening two or more radio frequency signals, each device associated with one or more filters." (emphasis added). Thus, a one-to-one correspondence between the number of filters and amplifiers is not required. Because Conductus' present motion "presume[d] and relie[d] upon the construction of the relevant claim terms that Conductus . . . assert[ed] in connection with the [Markman claim construction] proceedings," Opening Brief at 1-2, and because Conductus presumed only a construction requiring a one-to-one correspondence, its argument is now inapplicable, and summary judgment is inappropriate on these grounds.
As stated earlier, the term "planar filters" means "two or more non-cavity resonator, essentially flat surface, film devices for separating, according to radio frequency, signals received on the communication pathways, each communication pathway having a pre-assigned radio frequency." Conductus urges that its products do not infringe because the filters used in the accused products are three-dimensional rather than flat. The defendant contends that the presence of tuning pins and three-dimensional chambers in its filters reveals so clearly that the accused products do not infringe that summary judgment is appropriate. The court cannot agree.
ISCO has produced evidence that the filters used in Conductus' products have a thickness "on the order of microns." Answer Brief at 21. There is other evidence that Conductus described its own filters as "planar devices" or "planar filters" in internal memoranda, submissions to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other publications. Id. at 21-24. In short, there is evidence that suffices to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Conductus' filters are planar, i.e., "non-cavity resonator, essentially flat surface, film devices," or non-planar.
The defendant next moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the circuitry in its accused products differs from the circuitry required by the patent claims. Claim 10 requires a circuit that, depending on operational parameters, routes the RF signals through either filters and amplifiers in the cryogenic cooler, or a bypass circuit. Specifically, the patent requires a bypass circuit whereby:
in a first mode when the one or more sensors measure acceptable operational parameters the bypass circuit is unswitched such that RF signals pass through the plurality of filters and amplifiers in the cryogenic cooler and not through the bypass circuit and in a second mode when the one or more sensors measure at least one unacceptable operational parameterthe bypass circuit is switched and RF signals pass through the bypass circuit and not through the plurality of filters and amplifiers in the cryogenic cooler.
`215 patent, col. 20, lns. 55-65.
Conductus concedes that its products include bypass circuits, sensors for measuring operational parameters, and mechanisms for diverting the RF signals from one pathway to another depending on the operational data received. See, e.g., Opening Brief at 22-23. Conductus argues, however, that its circuits differ from those required by the patent-in-suit because in the default or unswitched status the Conductus products route the RF signals through the bypass circuit, whereas claim 10 requires that in the default or unswitched status the RF signals are routed through the filters and amplifiers in the cryogenic cooler. This is supported, Conductus argues, by the language of claim 10, which requires "a first mode" in which the RF signals pass through the cryogenic cooler, and "a second mode" in which the RF signals are directed through the bypass circuit. (emphasis added). Because in the accused products' "first mode" the RF signals pass through the bypass circuit and in their "second mode" the signals pass through the cryogenic cooler,...
To continue reading
Request your trial