MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 10-258-SLR |
| Parties | MOBILEMEDIA IDEAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire, Rodger D. Smith II, Esquire, and Jeremy A. Tigan, Esquire of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Counsel: Steven M. Bauer, Esquire, Safraz W. Ishmael, Esquire, Kenneth Rubenstein, Esquire, Kimberly A. Mottley, Esquire, Laura E. Stafford, Esquire, William D. Dalsen, Esquire, and
Anthony C. Coles, Esquire of Proskauer Rose LLP.
Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire, and Mary B. Matterer, Esquire of Morris James LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant. Of Counsel: George A. Riley, Esquire, Luann L. Simmons, Esquire, Melody N. Drummond Hansen, Esquire, Xin-Yi Zhou, Esquire, and David S. Almeling, Esquire of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Plaintiff MobileMedia Ideas, LLC ("MobileMedia") filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple Inc. ("Apple") on March 31, 2010, alleging in its amended complaint infringement of sixteen patents, including U.S. Patent No. RE 39,231 ("the '231 patent") and 6,725, 155 ("the '155 patent").1 (D.I. 1; D.I. 8) Apple answered and counterclaimed on August 9, 2010. (D.I. 10) The court resolved the parties' claim construction issues and summary judgment motions for infringement and invalidity. (D.I. 461; D.I. 462); MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. , 907 F.Supp.2d 570, 596–99 (D.Del.2012). The case proceeded to a six day jury trial beginning on December 3, 2012 on three of the asserted patents. The court then resolved the parties' post-trial motions. (D.I. 539; D.I. 540; D.I. 541; D.I. 542); MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. , 966 F.Supp.2d 433 (D.Del.2012) ; MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. , 966 F.Supp.2d 439 (D.Del.2012). The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on June 5, 2015, affirming in part, reversing in part, vacating and remanding. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc. , 780 F.3d 1159 (Fed.Cir.2015). Presently before the court is Apple's motion for summary judgment regarding damages (D.I. 633) and motions to exclude certain expert opinions (D.I. 636, 639). The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A party asserting that a fact cannot be—or, alternatively, is—genuinely disputed must be supported either by citing to "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for the purposes of the motions only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials," or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (B). If the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmovant must then "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court will "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc. , 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita , 475 U.S. at 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348 ; see also Podo b nik v. U.S. Postal Service , 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir.2005) () (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment," a factual dispute is genuine where "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal citations omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ().
On March 6, 1998, twice amended claims 1 and 12 were again amended in response to an office action3 rejecting the claims over prior art, adding certain language relevant to the issue at bar:
(D.I. 658, ex. G at JA268-72) (emphasis added) On February 16, 1999, claim 1 was further amended4 in relevant part to change the last limitation to:
(Id. at JA 339) (emphasis added) Claim 12 was not amended. The applicant argued, in response to an obviousness rejection, that the prior art did "not disclose or suggest control of the alert sound in the manner provided in" amended claim 1. More specifically, it did not disclose "changing a volume of the alert sound only for the call ..., while leaving a call ringing status, as perceived by the remote caller, of the call from the remote caller to the communication apparatus unchanged ...." (Id. at 341-42) (emphasis omitted) As issued, claims 1 and 12 recited:
('231 patent, 5:49-67, 6:43-50) (emphasis added)
The applicant amended claim 12 to be an independent claim during reexamination (incorporating all the limitations of independent claim 1), as reflected in the communication dated October 4, 2011:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Priceline Grp. Inc.
...of the statute.").The Court agrees with IBM that it was not required to plead compliance with § 287. See MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. , 209 F.Supp.3d 756, 763 (D. Del. 2016). Instead, the initial burden is on Defendants to "come forward with particular unmarked products allegedly tr......
-
Intel Corp. v. Future Link Sys., LLC, C.A. No. 14–377–LPS
...with the alleged infringer to identify products the patentee sold that practice the alleged patents. See MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. , 209 F.Supp.3d 756, 763 (D. Del. 2016). However, a genuine dispute of material fact exists with respect to this issue. That is, a reasonable jury co......
-
Siemens Mobility Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp.
...and acceptable to its customers "go to the weight of the expert's testimony, not to the admissibility." MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d 756, 766 (D. Del. 2016) (denying motion to exclude expert opinion on commercial acceptability of non-infringing alternatives). Even t......