Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-CV-2000-H (CAB).,No. 02-CV-2060-B (CAB).,No. 03-CV-1108-B (CAB).,No. 03-CV-0699-B (CAB).,07-CV-2000-H (CAB).,02-CV-2060-B (CAB).,03-CV-0699-B (CAB).,03-CV-1108-B (CAB). |
| Citation | 580 F.Supp.2d 1016 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Multimedia Patent Trust, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, v. GATEWAY, INC., et al., Defendants and Counterclaimants. and Microsoft Corporation, Intervenor and Counterclaimant and Related Claims. |
Gregory F. Corbett, Karen Michelle Robinson, Kirkland and Ellis, Washington, DC, Elizabeth T. Bernard, James E. Marina, Jeanne M. Heffernan, Jonas Reale McDavit, Jordan N. Malz Michael P. Stadnick, Paul A. Bondor, Robert A. Appleby, Jennifer J. Schmidt, John M. Desmarais, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, New York, NY, Eric D. Hayes, Kirkland and Ellis, Chicago, IL, Kenneth H. Bridges, Kirkland and Ellis, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants.
Alan D. Albright, John Bustamante, Fish and Richardson, Austin, TX, Brian M. Rostocki, Wilmington, DE, Cathy L. Reese, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE, Christopher Scott Marchese, Jason W. Wolff, John W. Thornburgh, Juanita R. Brooks, Lara Sue Garner, Shekhar Vyas, John E. Gartman, Fish and Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA, Gregory A. Madera, John M. Skenyon, Kurt L. Glitzenstein Fish and Richardson, Boston, MA, Kelly C. Hunsaker, Fish and Richardson, Redwood City, CA, Renee Skinner, Thomas M. Melsheimer, Fish and Richardson, Dallas, TX, for Intervenor and Counterclaimant.
ORDER ON POST-TRIAL MATTERS FOR UNITED STATES PATENT NUMBERS 4,439,759; 4,763,356; 4,958,226; AND 5,347,295; INCLUDING:
(1) MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL, OR REMITTITUR; AND
This order addresses the remaining post-trial questions in this case, including motions for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL"), motions for new trial, and rulings on equitable matters tried to the Court. The trial involved four United States Patents: 4,439,759 ("Fleming '759" or "'759"); 4,763,356 ("Day '356" or "'356"); 4,958,226 ("Haskell '226" or "'226"); 5,347,295 ("Agulnick '295" or "'295"). Lucent Technologies, Inc. ("Lucent") asserted the '356 and '295 patents against Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and Dell Inc. ("Dell" and collectively with Microsoft "Defendants"). Lucent asserted the '759 patent against Microsoft only. Multimedia Patent Trust ("MPT"), a Delaware trust with Lucent as the primary beneficiary, asserted the '226 patent against Microsoft only.
The parties filed their initial briefs on these post-trial matters on May 5, 2008. MPT moved for JMOL, new trial, and entry of judgment on equitable matters related to the it. (Doc. No. 792.) Microsoft also moved for entry of judgment on the equitable matters related to the '226 patent yet to be decided by the Court. (Doc. No. 772.)
The parties filed their responsive briefing on May 19, 2008. Dell filed an opposition to Lucent's motion regarding the '759 and '356 patents. (Doc. No. 804.) Microsoft filed an opposition to MPT's motion regarding the '226 patent. (Doc. No. 805.) MPT opposed Microsoft's combined motion to the extent that it addressed the '226 patent. (Doc. No. 808.) Lucent opposed Microsoft's combined motion to the extent that it addressed the '356 and '295 patents. (Doc. No. 809.) MPT filed an opposition to Microsoft's motion for entry of judgment on the bench trial issues. (Doc. No. 810.)
The parties filed their reply briefs on May 27, 2008. Microsoft filed replies in support of its post-trial motions and motion for entry of judgment on bench trial issues. (Doc. Nos. 826-28.) Lucent filed a reply in support of its motion regarding the '759 and '356 patents. (Doc. No. 830.) MPT filed a reply in support of its motion regarding the '226 patent. (Doc. No. 831.)
The Court held a hearing on these matters on June 13, 2008. Robert Appleby, Paul Bondor, John Desmarais, Jeanne Heffernan, James Marina, and Michael Stadnick appeared for Lucent and MPT. John Gartman, Juanita Brooks, and Roger Denning appeared for Microsoft. Joseph Micallef appeared for Dell.
The underlying trial concerned the alleged infringement of four patents asserted by Lucent and MPT against Microsoft and Dell.1 On April 4, 2008, the jury returned a special verdict for all four patents, including advisory verdicts on certain equitable issues to be decided by the Court. (Doc. No. 735.) The jury found that Microsoft infringed the '356 patent, and that both Microsoft and Dell infringed the '295 patent. The jury found no infringement of either the '226 or '759 patents. The jury found Microsoft liable to Lucent for $357,693,056.18 based on infringement of the '356 patent. For infringement of the '295 patent, the jury found Microsoft liable to Lucent for $10,350,000 and Dell liable for $51,000.
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") issued the '356 patent, entitled "Touch Screen Form Entry System," on August 9, 1988, based on an application filed December 11, 1986. Only method claims 19 and 21 were at issue in this trial. Claim 19 is an independent claim, and claim 21 is a related dependent claim. Claim 19 states:
indicating a particular one of said information fields into which information is to be inserted and for concurrently displaying a predefined tool associated with said one of said fields, said predefined tool being operable to supply information of the kind identified for said one fields said tool being selected from a group of predefined tools including a tool adapted to supply an individual entry from a menu of alternatives and at least a tool adapted to allow said user to compose said information, and
inserting in said one field information that is derived as a result of said user operating said displayed tool.
Claim 21 further limits the step of "displaying said pattern" to include "the step of displaying one or more of said information fields as a bit-mapped-graphics field."
For this patent, Lucent submitted evidence of indirect infringement. Lucent asserted claim 19 against Microsoft and Dell based on versions of Microsoft Money, Microsoft Outlook, and Windows Mobile. Lucent also asserted claim 19 against Dell only, based on sales of Quicken versions 2000 through 2006. Lucent asserted claim 21 against Microsoft and Dell based only on the various versions of Windows Mobile.
The jury found Microsoft liable on claim 19 as to all three products and on claim 21 as to Windows Mobile, and it returned a finding of no infringement by Dell.2 The verdict did not distinguish between inducing and contributory infringement. The jury awarded a single lump sum against Microsoft for all products involved.
Defendants presented affirmative defenses of anticipation and obviousness. The jury found for Lucent on both.
The PTO issued the '226 patent, entitled "Conditional Motion Compensated Interpolation of Digital Motion Video," on September 18, 1990, based on an application filed September 27, 1989. At trial, Lucent only asserted claim 12, a means-plus-function apparatus claim which states:
A circuit responsive to coded video signals where the video signals comprise successive frames and each frame includes a plurality of blocks and where the coded video signals comprise codes that describe deviations from approximated blocks and codes that describe deviations from interpolated-blocks, comprising:
means for developing block approximations from said codes that describe deviations from approximated blocks; and means responsive to said block approximations and to said codes that describe deviations from interpolated blocks to develop said interpolated blocks.
MPT introduced evidence of both direct and indirect infringement by Microsoft. The accused products included Microsoft software and hardware containing an MPEG-1, MPEG-2, or VC-13 video decoder, referring to industry standards for video compression and playback used for various products including DVDs and HD DVDs. Specifically, MPT accused Microsoft based on Windows operating system versions 95B through Vista, the Microsoft Xbox 360 video game system, and Windows Media Player versions 9 through 11.
The jury found that none of Microsoft's accused products had infringed claim 12. The jury also found that claim 12 was invalid for obviousness, though not invalid for anticipation. Furthermore, the Court asked the jury to return advisory verdicts on Microsoft's defenses of laches and inequitable conduct regarding the '226 patent. The jury recommended that Lucent be barred from obtaining pre-suit damages due to laches, but found no inequitable conduct.
The PTO issued the '295 patent, entitled "Control of a Computer Through a Position-Sensed Stylus," on September 13, 1994, based on an application filed October 31, 1990. At trial, Lucent only asserted claim 1, a means-plus-function apparatus claim which states:
An apparatus for controlling a computer system, the computer system comprising a screen for displaying information and a stylus having a tip for inputting information into the computer, including:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Neurontin Mktg. And Sales Practices Litig..This Document Relates To:kaiser Found. Health Plan Inc.
...except nociceptive pain. ( See Docket No. 2760.) The Court agrees with the jury's conclusion. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1061 (S.D.Cal.2008) (stating that a district court has discretion to impanel an advisory jury, but “the ultimate determination of [the]......
-
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
...U.S. Patent No. 4,958,226 but denied all other post-trial motions, including those for the Day patent. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 1016 (S.D.Cal. 2008). Microsoft has timely appealed the district court's decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I. S......
-
Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.
...was actually sold,'" not as to an individual ingredient of the product. 550 F.3d at 1339. See also Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1038 (S.D.Cal.2008) (discussing Hodosh and "the thing sold" requirement of 271(c)); Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., ......
-
Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc.
...ACCO Brands nor Dynacore were cases where the Defendants so vigorously promoted an infringing use. See Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1037 (S.D.Cal.2008) ("Unlike the present case and others cited above, however, the court in ACCO Brands, Inc. concluded that there ......