Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd.
Decision Date | 18 October 1995 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 92-0128-ARR,91-5056-ARR. |
Citation | 906 F. Supp. 798 |
Parties | LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN, LTD., et al., Defendants. LORAL FAIRCHILD CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, LTD., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James H. Wallace, Jr., John B. Wyss and Gregory Lyons of Wiley, Rien & Fielding, Washington, DC; and Anthony W. Karambelas of Newport Beach, California, for plaintiff.
Douglas B. Henderson, Barry W. Graham, Robert E. Converse, Jeffrey A. Berkowitz and Vincent P. Kovalick of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Washington, DC, for the Sony defendants.
Arthur I. Neustadt of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for the Toshiba defendants.
John B. Pegram and Andrew T. D'Amico, Jr. of Fish & Richardson, P.C., New York City, for the Sanyo defendants.
William A. Streff, Jr. of Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Illinois, and John Donofrio of Kirkland & Ellis, New York City, for the Hitachi defendants.
Marvin N. Gordon of Hopgood, Califafde, Kalil & Judlowe, New York City, for the NEC defendants.
Jared B. Bobrow, and Matthew D. Powers of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Menlo Park, California, for the OKI defendants.
RADER, Circuit Judge (Sitting by Designation).
In this patent case, Loral Fairchild Corp. (Loral) alleges that numerous defendants have willfully infringed United States Patents 3,931,674 (the '674 patent) and 3,896,485 (the '485 patent). The defendants deny liability and have asserted that the claims of the patents are, among other things, invalid and unenforceable. Defendants have also raised claims of laches and estoppel and challenged Loral's ownership of the patents. This court has scheduled this case for trial beginning on January 8, 1996.
The parties have filed motions for a summary judgment on many of the liability issues, including infringement and validity. On August 19 and 20, 1995, the court held a two-day evidentiary hearing to receive testimony from qualified experts about the meaning of the patent claims. This Opinion constitutes the court's conclusions about the disputed terms in the patents.
The '674 and '485 patents describe inventions in the field of charge coupled devices (CCDs). A charge coupled device is a significant advance over standard semiconductor devices. Like other semiconductor devices, a CCD stores electronic charges in a spatially defined depletion region (potential well) at the surface of the device. The CCD, however, adds the ability to move these stored charges to adjacent wells. Thus, the CCD enables swift transfer and manipulation of the information stored in the form of electronic charges. In a CCD, voltage applied to the surface of the device both forms the potential well for storing charges and regulates transfer of those charges.
CCDs are particularly valuable in light sensing applications and as shift registers. Consumer electronics products such as cameras, VCRs, facsimile machines, and copiers use CCDs to perform their core functions. In simple terms, the light entering the lens of a camcorder registers as a charge on the surface of a photosensor. The intensity and color of the light determine the amount of charge in the light sensing semiconductor. Once the photosensor receives this charge, however, the CCD technology operates to swiftly transfer this same charge to neighboring wells and then off of the semiconductor surface in the form of a digital record. A CCD transports information or charges across the surface of a "chip." This transfer occurs in response to fields applied to the surface of the devices. A CCD uses topographical variations in the semiconductor surface—also known as metal-oxide-silicon (MOS) technology—to control movement of these charge packets.
Loral alleges infringement of claim 1 of the '674 patent. On January 13, 1976, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued the '674 patent to Gilbert F. Amelio from an application filed on February 8, 1974. The patent bears the title "Self Aligned CCD Element Including Two Levels of Electrodes and Method of Manufacture Therefor." Amelio assigned his rights to the '674 patent to Fairchild Camera and Instrument Corporation (Fairchild). Loral asserts its ownership in this patent through a series of transfers originating from Fairchild.
The '674 patent claims a process for making a CCD. It contains 9 claims. Claim 1 reads:
In addition, Loral alleges infringement of claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 of the '485 patent. The PTO issued the '485 patent to James M. Early on July 22, 1975, from an application filed on December 3, 1973. The patent bears the title "Charge-Coupled Device with Overflow Protection." Like Amelio, Early assigned his rights in the patent to Fairchild. Similar to the '674 patent, Loral alleges a chain of transfers as its basis for ownership of this patent.
The '485 patent claims an anti-blooming element in a CCD and a method of operating that device. It contains 8 claims. Claim 1 reads:
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1 reads:
3. Structure as defined in claim 1, wherein said charge sink means comprises a region of conductivity type opposite to that of said semiconductor material.
Claim 7, another independent claim in the '485 patent reads:
Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, reads:
8. A method as defined in claim 7 further including the step of preventing the accumulation of said packets of charge within said light sensing element by applying a second potential to said charge sink means during a second time interval.
During pendency of this action, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995), petition for cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 40, 132 L.Ed.2d 921 (1995). The Federal Circuit in Markman clarified that, in a case tried to a jury, a trial judge must now interpret the meaning of words in a patent claim as a matter of law and instruct the jury accordingly: "Interpretation and construction of patent claims, which define the scope of the patentee's rights under the patent, is a matter of law exclusively for the court." Id. at 970-71. In accordance with Markman, this court examined extensive briefing on pending summary judgment motions and requested additional briefing on the meaning of the claims.
The extensive briefing convinced this court of the need for expert testimony to enlighten the meaning of claim terms to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. As a result, the court held a two-day bench trial on September 19 and 20, 1995. The court permitted each side to present two expert witnesses. These experts were extensively examined and cross-examined.
Loral called Dr. David Wen to testify on the '674 patent and Dr. David F. Barbe to testify on the '485 patent. Defendants, collectively, called Dr. James N. Fordemwalt to testify on the '674 patent and Dr. Robert W. Bower to testify on the '485 patent.
Dr. Wen holds a bachelor of science degree, a master of science degree, and a doctorate in philosophy in electrical engineering from the University of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.
...leads to procedural battles over surprise and motions for additional time to prepare for trial. See Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co., 906 F.Supp. 798 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (interpreting claims); Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co., 911 F.Supp. 76, 80-81 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (preventing plaintiff from......
-
Mediacom Corp. v. Rates Technology, Inc.
...Chad Industries, Inc. v. Automation Tooling Systems, Inc., 938 F.Supp. 601, 604 (C.D.Cal.1996); Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan Ltd., 906 F.Supp. 798, 802 (E.D.N.Y.1995), and 911 F.Supp. 76, 79 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Graco Children's Products, Inc. v. Century Products Co., Inc., No. C......
-
Promega Corp. v. Novagen, Inc.
...position is too narrow a reading of plaintiff's claims. In support of its position, defendant cites Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd., 906 F.Supp. 798 (E.D.N.Y.1995) and Thorn EMI N. Am., Inc. v. Intel Corp., 928 F.Supp. 449 (D.Del.1996). According to defendant, Loral and T......
- Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd.
-
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.: the Supreme Court Narrows the Jury's Role in Patent Litigation - Elizabeth J. Norman
...Inc. v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 894 F. Supp. 844,850 (D. Del. 1995). 73. Id. at 846; Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd., 906 F. Supp. 798, 800 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). 74. Elf Atochem, 894 F. Supp. at 850. 75. Id. at 857. 76. E.g., Brenner v. United States, 773 F.2d 306, 307 (Fed. Ci......