Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., No. 2008-1334 (Fed. Cir. 6/4/2010), 2008-1334.
| Decision Date | 04 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008-1353.,No. 2008-1334.,2008-1334.,2008-1353. |
| Parties | SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC, AND ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in Case No. 06-CV-0611, Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb.
JAMES M. BOLLINGER, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant. With him on the brief was PHILIP L. HIRSCHHORN.
WILLIAM H. MANNING, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were JACOB S. ZIMMERMAN and AARON R. FAHRENKROG.
Before RADER,* Chief Judge, LOURIE and PROST, Circuit Judges.
This case features computer graphics systems such as the type used to animate the Pixar Animation Studios ("Pixar") movies Toy Story and Wall-E. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants ATI Technologies, Inc. ("ATI Inc."), ATI Technologies ULC ("ATI ULC"), and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") (collectively "ATI") on a number of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,650,327 (the "'327 patent"). Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., No. 06-611, 2008 WL 4200359 (Jan. 30, 2008) ("Summary Judgment Opinion"). The District Court concluded that plaintiff Silicon Graphics, Inc., ("Silicon Graphics" or "SGI") did not create a genuine factual dispute on direct infringement. Id. at *18-20. The trial court also concluded that a license between Silicon Graphics and Microsoft Corp. (the "Microsoft license") authorized users of Microsoft operating systems to practice the claimed technology. Id. at *21-23. Following its summary judgment ruling, the district court held a jury trial on the validity of the '327 patent. The jury concluded that certain claims were not proved to be invalid. Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 819 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ("JMOL Opinion").
Because the district court erroneously construed two of the three contested limitations in the '327 patent this court vacates the summary judgment on claims with those terms. This court also determines that the district court erred with respect to the effect of the Microsoft license on direct infringement. In all other respects, this court affirms.
where m is the mantissa and e is the exponent. If m equals 2 and e equals 1, n equals 20; if m equals 2 and e equals -1, then n equals 0.2. The decimal point therefore "floats" based on the value of e.
where "s" represents the sign bit (0 is for positive and 1 is for negative), "e" represents the exponent bits (000 equals 0, 001 equals 1, 010 equals 2, and so on), and "m" represents the mantissa bits (e.g., 0101 equals 5). In that 8-bit format, the largest number that can be written is 01111111, or 15 × 27. Floating point format contrasts with fixed point format, where numbers are simply portrayed by a string of bits that represent a fraction and/or an integer.
Figure 2 of the '327 patent represents a graphics program that produces interactive three-dimensional images as a pipeline through which data passes.
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The first stage of the pipeline is called the "geometry subsystem" and encompasses display list 133, evaluators 134, and per-vortex operations/primitive assembly 135. The geometry subsystem receives instructions from a computer's CPU and builds an interactive three-dimensional world. The world contains points, lines, triangles, and polygons, which the '327 patent refers to as "primitives." Id. col.6 ll.51-54.
The second stage of the pipeline is called "rasterization," 138. In rasterization, the three-dimensional world of primitives is converted to a displayable two-dimensional image with a three-dimensional appearance. Rasterization involves the assignment of primitives to pixels, or sub-pixels called "fragments," and it also involves making adjustments in order to provide color, transparency, texture, and shadows to the displayed image.
In the third and final stage, the frame buffer memory, 140, stores the pixel data. The pixel values are eventually read from the frame buffer and used to draw the three-dimensional images on the computer screen.
According to the '327 patent, prior art graphics systems performed rasterization in a fixed point format, which, although faster and less burdensome, resulted in less flexibility and accuracy. Generally, the range and precision of a floating point format are greater than those of a fixed point format using the same number of bits. A greater range allows a user to generate a greater variety of graphics images, and a greater precision permits the storage of a greater number of gradations of data, which gives the user a greater degree of control over the graphics images to be displayed.
Although some prior art systems performed floating point rasterization through software emulation on a fixed point hardware platform, the '327 patent explains that the prior art approach was both slow and limited. It was slow because software emulation relies on a general purpose CPU and limited because the frame buffer ultimately only stored fixed point data.
The inventors of the '327 patent "discovered . . . that it is now practical to implement some portions or even the entire rasterization process by hardware in a floating point format." Id. col.2 ll.55-57. In addition, the inventors discovered that it had become cost beneficial to expand the memory for the frame buffer to accommodate floating point data. For example, leaving frame buffer data in floating point format allows the graphics system to "operate directly on" the data stored in the frame buffer, "without having to unnecessarily repeat some of the preceding steps in the graphics pipeline." Id. col.3 ll.15-18. By operating directly on data, the CPU can more quickly refine pixel data, and a user can more quickly enhance or change an image when she, for example, changes her point of view or magnifies a point of interest.
Silicon Graphics initially asserted claims from three different patents: the '327 patent; U.S. Patent No. 6,292,200 (the "'200 patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 6,885,376 (the "'376 patent"). Silicon Graphics dropped its claims of infringement with respect to the '376 patent following an early summary judgment ruling in favor of ATI. That summary judgment ruling is not at issue on appeal. On the '200 patent, ATI prevailed on its summary judgment motions of non-infringement, and Silicon Graphics has not appealed those rulings either. As to the '327 patent, Silicon Graphics originally asserted claims 16-, 9-12, 15-18, and 21-24. Those claims remain relevant on appeal.
Claims 1-6 are all independent apparatus claims. Claim 1 is representative (important phrases underlined):
A computer system, comprising: a processor for performing geometric calculations on a plurality of vertices of a primitive;
a rasterization circuit coupled to the processor that rasterizes the primitive according to a rasterization process which operates on a floating point format;
a frame buffer coupled to the rasterization circuit for storing a plurality of color values; and
a display screen coupled to the frame buffer for displaying an image according to the color values stored in the frame buffer wherein the rasterization circuit performs scan conversion on vertices having floating point color values.
Claims 2 through 6 are substantially similar to claim 1, except that the last limitation is replaced with one or more different limitations that relate to either the rasterization circuit or, most importantly for this appeal, the floating point format. For example, in claim 3 the "scan conversion" limitation of claim 1 is replaced with "wherein the floating point format is comprised of sixteen bits in a s10e5 format."
Claims 9-12, 15, and 16 all essentially claim the same thing as claims 1-6 but are method claims. The remaining claims that Silicon Graphics asserted will be discussed in more detail as they become relevant.
ATI makes and sells graphics chips and processors. AMD acquired the entire business of ATI Inc. on October 24, 2006, re-incorporated it, and now operates it as ATI ULC. Because all of the asserted claims of the '327 patent require a display (or, in the case of the method claims, "drawing the image for display on a display screen"), Silicon Graphics asserts that ATI indirectly infringes through its sales of products to computer manufacturers and end-users.
The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1-6, 9-12, and 15-16 of the '327 patent. Summary Judgment Opinion, 2008 WL 4200359, at *31. As noted, the district court based its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of ATI on two independent grounds. First, the court construed the claims to preclude direct infringement by ATI's customers. Id. at *18-20. Second, the court held that the Microsoft license authorized end-users of certain Microsoft products to use Silicon Graphics' patented apparatuses and methods. Id. at *21-23.
ATI originally contended that claims 3, 10-12, and 151-6 are invalid for lack of enablement. The district court declined to address that argument at summary judgment in light of its non-infringement ruling. Id. at *24. The court did...
To continue reading
Request your trial