Mosaid Technologies v. Samsung Electronics Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 2005
• Docket Number: No. 01-CV-4340(WJM).,No. 03-CV-4698(WJM).,01-CV-4340(WJM).,03-CV-4698(WJM).
• Citation: 362 F.Supp.2d 526
• Parties: MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Defendants. Infineon Technologies North America Corp., Plaintiff, v. Mosaid Technologies Incorporated, Defendant. Mosaid Technologies Incorporated, Counterclaimant, v. Infineon Technologies North America Corp., Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Holding North America Corp., and Infineon Technologies Richmond LLP, Counterdefendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

362 F.Supp.2d 526

MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Defendants.

Infineon Technologies North America Corp., Plaintiff, v. Mosaid Technologies Incorporated, Defendant.

Mosaid Technologies Incorporated, Counterclaimant, v. Infineon Technologies North America Corp., Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Holding North America Corp., and Infineon Technologies Richmond LLP, Counterdefendants.

No. 01-CV-4340(WJM).

No. 03-CV-4698(WJM).

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

April 1, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas R. Curtin, Graham, Curtin & Sheridan, Morristown, NJ, Gregory S. Arovas, Paul A. Bondor, Thomas D. Pease, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff / Counterdefendants Infineon Technologies et al.

Liza M. Walsh, Connell Foley LLP, Roseland, NJ, Kenneth R. Adamo, Robert C. Kahrl, James L. Wamsley, III, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant / Counterclaimant MOSAID Technologies Inc.

OPINION

MARTINI, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                INTRODUCTION .........................................................................531
                BACKGROUND ...........................................................................531
                SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ............................................................532
                DISCUSSION ...........................................................................532
                  I.  INFRINGEMENT ...................................................................532
                      A.  Claim 15 of the Lines '643 Patent ..........................................533
                          1.  Direct Versus Indirect Infringement ....................................533
                          2.  The "Latching" Limitation ..............................................534
                          3.  The "Control Signals Applying" Limitation ..............................536
                      B.  Claim 1 of the Foss '654 patent ............................................536
                          1.  The "Switching Circuit ... Alternating the Level" Limitation and the
                                Clock Sources Disclaimer .............................................537
                          2.  The "Second Switch" Limitation .........................................540
                          3.  The "Clock Signal" Limitation ..........................................540
                      C.  Claims 1 and 10 of the Foss '201 Patent and the "Switching Means"
                            Limitation ...............................................................541
                      D.  Infringement Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents .............................542
                 II.  INVALIDITY .....................................................................544
                      A.  Anticipation: § 102(b) "On Sale" Bar ..................................544
                      B.  Anticipation: § 102(g) "Prior Invention" Bar ..........................546
                          1.  TI Design ..............................................................546
                          2.  Micron 4M DRAM .........................................................548
                      C.  Anticipation: § 102(b) "Printed Publication" Bar ......................548
                          1.  Fujii ..................................................................549
                          2.  Kajigaya ...............................................................550
                          3.  Yanagisawa .............................................................551
                          4.  Harmon, Holbrook, Horiguchi and Rosenthal ..............................551
                III.  UNENFORCEABILITY ...............................................................551
                      A.  Prosecution Laches .........................................................551
                      B.  Inequitable Conduct ........................................................553
                 IV.  MARKING ........................................................................555
                  V.  MOTION TO STRIKE ...............................................................558
                

                CONCLUSION ...........................................................................559
                

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on the parties' motions for summary judgment. MOSAID Technologies Inc. ("MOSAID") seeks summary judgment of infringement as to claim 15 of the Lines '643 patent and claim 1 of the Foss '654 patent, and on several of Infineon Technologies North America Corp. et al.'s ("Infineon's") invalidity and unenforceability defenses, including invalidity under §§ 102(b) and (g), prosecution laches, and inequitable conduct. Infineon seeks summary judgment of noninfringement as to all of the asserted Lines and Foss claims, and on its claim that MOSAID's potential damages are limited under the patent marking statute. Also before the Court is MOSAID's motion to strike the Rebuttal Expert Report of Joseph McAlexander Regarding Non-Infringement of MOSAID Patents or, in the alternative, for leave to supplement the expert report of David Taylor. For the following reasons, the parties' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, and MOSAID's motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

This is a patent infringement action. Currently, MOSAID asserts that Infineon infringes seven patents. Those patents can be broken down into two families named after the lead inventors: the Lines patent family and the Foss patent family. The asserted Lines patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,822,253 (the "'253 patent"), 5,751,643 (the "'643 patent"), 6,278,640 (the "'640 patent"), and 6,603,703 (the "'703 patent"). The asserted Foss patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,828,620 (the "'620 patent"), 6,055,201 (the "'201 patent"), and 6,580,654 (the "'654 patent"). Both families claim particular circuits found in a DRAM chip; the Lines patents claim a word line driver circuit and the Foss patents claim a voltage pump circuit.¹

This litigation began when Infineon filed a declaratory judgment patent action against MOSAID in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Aware that MOSAID had already filed a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co. et al. ("Samsung") in this district, Infineon sought to consolidate the two cases as a multidistrict litigation in the California court. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation agreed that it should be consolidated, but found that the District of New Jersey was the more appropriate court to conduct all pretrial proceedings. Accordingly, the Infineon action was transferred to this Court where it was consolidated with the Samsung action.²

The only pretrial proceeding that remains to be completed is resolution of the pending summary judgment motions and MOSAID's motion to strike. This Court has conducted Markman proceedings and issued a Markman Opinion. The parties have completed fact and expert discovery. Once these motions are resolved, it will then be appropriate for the Infineon action to be transferred back to the Northern District of California.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Patent cases are amenable to summary judgment. Knoll Pharm. Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 367 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2004). Summary judgment eliminates unfounded claims without resorting to a costly and lengthy trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). However, a court should grant summary judgment only "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). The burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists rests initially on the moving party. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. A litigant may discharge this burden by exposing "the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1976).

Once the moving party has made a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The substantive law determines which facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id. No issue for trial exists unless the nonmoving party can demonstrate sufficient evidence favoring it such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in that party's favor. Id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Knoll Pharm. Co., 367 F.3d at 1384.

DISCUSSION

I. INFRINGEMENT

MOSAID seeks summary judgment that Infineon's 256 RLDRAM Blaze ("Blaze") products infringe claim 15 of the Lines '643 patent and that Infineon's 256M Hatteras ("Hatteras") products infringe claim 1 of the Foss '654 patent. Infineon seeks summary judgment that the accused products do not infringe any of the asserted Lines claims that contain a "latching" limitation, any of the asserted Foss patents because of the "clock source" disclaimer, or claims 1 and 10 of the Foss '201 patent because of the "switching means" limitation. Infineon also seeks summary judgment that MOSAID cannot demonstrate infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for any asserted claim of the patents in suit. Because of the substantial overlap among these arguments, the Court will address them together by issue.

Infringement is a two-step process: the Court must construe the disputed...