Taser Int'l Inc v. Stinger Sys. Inc, 07-042-PHX-MHM.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-042-PHX-MHM.,07-042-PHX-MHM. |
| Citation | 705 F.Supp.2d 1115 |
| Parties | TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff,v.STINGER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Aaron H. Matz, Chad Steven Campbell, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA, Phoenix, AZ, Holly L. Gibeaut, Taser International, Scottsdale, AZ, John R. Maley, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.
James Francis McNulty, Jr., James Francis McNulty Jr., Las Vegas, NV, Ray Kendall Harris, Fennemore Craig PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Stinger Systems, Inc.'s (“Stinger”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity or Noninfringement, (Dkt. # 160), and Plaintiff TASER International, Inc.'s (“TASER”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement. (Dkt. # 184). Having considered all the evidence and heard oral argument on March 23, 2010, the Court issues the following Order:
I. BackgroundA. Procedural History
On January 5, 2007, TASER filed an action against Stinger alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7,145,762 (filed Feb. 11, 2003) (“the '762 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 271, false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and false marketing under 35 U.S.C. § 292. (Dkt. # 1). TASER amended its complaint on July 9, 2007 to add infringement claims for two additional patents, U.S. Patent 6,999,295 (filed Feb. 5, 2005) (“the '295 patent”) and U.S. Patent 7,102,870 (filed May 29, 2003) (“the '870 patent”). (Dkt. # 32). Thereafter, on October 10, 2007, TASER filed a second amended complaint in which TASER dropped all claims related to the '762 patent and added claims pertaining to a fourth patent, U.S. Patent 7,234,262 (Dec. 2, 2005) (“the '262 patent”).
On November 6, 2007, Stinger filed an Answer to TASER's second amended complaint and counterclaim for false advertising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) to TASER's second amended complaint. (Dkt. # 54). Stinger asserts a number of affirmative defenses, including statute of limitations, laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, patent misuse, and inequitable conduct. (Dkt. # 54, pp. 4-5).
On May 7, 2008, the Court held a hearing in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996), to construe disputed claims of the '262, '295, and '870 patents. This Court issued its Markman Order construing the disputed claims on February 2, 2009, 2009 WL 1087040. (Dkt. # 146). In that Order, the Court construed disputed claim language as follows: for the '295 patent (1) “to ionize the air within the air gap” refers to the formation of ions within the air gap as a result of the high voltage, short duration output across the first and second electrodes during the first mode/time period; and (2) “to maintain the current flow” is self-explanatory, and refers to the maintenance of the current flow that is driven across the air gap by the low voltage output in the second mode/time period and is not limited to a continuous or uninterrupted current flow to the extent that the current flow is able to maintain a state of low impedance throughout the second mode/time period; for the 870 patent a “grounded user of the weapon” refers to a user coupled to a common reference conductor in the weapon; and for the '262 patent (1) “track date and time” means the tracking of date and time, in a program, in a microprocessor through whatever means available to a person of skill in the art at the time of the invention; (2) “period of time” means the predefined period recited in Claim 9. ( Id.).
On, May 18, 2009, Stinger filed a Motion for Summary judgment of Patent Invalidity or Noninfringement. (Dkt. # 160). On August 14, 2009 TASER filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement. (Dkt. # 184). The Court held oral argument on these motions on March 23, 2010.
B. General Description of the Technology
TASER and Stinger develop, manufacture, and sell electronic control devices (“ECD”), commonly known as “stun guns,” which are used to temporarily incapacitate a single person from a distance. While ECDs are intended to be non-lethal, they are somewhat similar to pistols: handheld devices that are activated by a trigger mechanism. Once activated, two dart electrodes, each of which are tethered to a wire connected to the internal circuitry of the weapon, are ejected out of the end of the weapon. The darts are intended to establish contact points with a living target, enabling a power supply circuit in the weapon to deliver current through the electrodes and the target in order to cause involuntary muscle contractions and temporarily immobilize the target.
At issue in this case are three of TASER's patents that relate to technology for reducing the size and weight of ECDs while increasing their efficiency, effectiveness, and traceability in deployment. TASER's '295 patent is entitled “Dual Operating Mode Electronic Disabling Device for Generating a Time-Sequenced, Shaped Voltage Output Waveform.” As the title suggests, the ' 295 patent claims a dual operating mode designed to addresses the challenge of establishing electrical contact with a target and efficiently deliver electric current flow to temporarily immobilize the target. In addition, the ' 870 patent is entitled “Systems and Methods for Managing Battery Power in an Electronic Disabling Device.” Likewise, as the title suggests, the '870 patent claims systems and methods for managing battery power. The two patents share a common specification.
Apparently, an ECD's darts may often lodge in a target's clothing, which results in an air gap between the electrodes and the target, preventing the electrodes from establishing direct contact with the target's skin. The air gap impedes the flow of electricity due to the high impedance of air, which is generally defined as the absence of charged particles, or the ratio of the voltage of the electrical potential between two points and the current passing there. High impedance exists when there is a large voltage potential and only a small amount of current; low impedance is the opposite. The application of voltage across an air gap, which can be administered by the functioning of ECD capacitors and transformers, accelerates the available electrons in the air and causes them to pick up speed and crash into each other, thus freeing additional electrons and creating ions. This process is known as ionization, which breaks down high impedance and enables a smaller voltage application over a larger current flow. Once voltage is removed, the air gradually returns to its original state and high impedance returns. In addition, during the process of ionization, electrons can recombine with ions to recreate stable molecules, and in doing so they release energy by emitting photons, the particles responsible for light energy. In some instances, the recombination process results in the creation of visible electrical arcs.
Importantly, the common specification of the '295 and '870 patents reveal that although conventional ECDs were designed to have the capability of causing voltage breakdown across a very high impedance air gap by administering a fifty to sixty thousand volt output, once the air gap has been ionized and the impedance reduced to a low level, the stun guns continued to operate in the same mode, resulting in a high power, high voltage stun gun circuit operating relatively inefficiently and yielding low electro-muscular efficiency with high battery power requirements. To overcome this inefficiency, the '295 patent provides for the operation of an ECD in a second mode. Once the air gap is ionized and the air impedance is reduced to a low level, current is able to flow across the air gap at a lower voltage level. At that point, a second lower voltage, longer duration output is generated to maintain an immobilizing current flow through the target. In addition, the '870 patent makes additional claims for, among other things, safety enhancements with respect to the operation of ECDs.
Finally, the '262 patent is entitled “Electrical Weapon Having Controller for Timed Current Through Target and Date/Time Recording.” As the title suggests, the patent claims an apparatus that includes a microprocessor programmed to track date and time, to initiate and maintain an electrical current for a period, and to record tracked date and time for each initiation of the current.
C. The Claims at Issue
The independent claims currently at issue are as follows 1:
1. The '295 Patent.
Claim 2:
A dual operating mode electronic disabling device for immobilizing a target comprising:
A method for immobilizing the muscles of a target, comprising the steps of:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Encore Med. L.P.
...is an entirely separate question capable of determination without regard to its validity.”); Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Stinger Sys., 705 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1154 (D. Ariz. 2010) (“Courts routinely enter summary judgment concerning infringement, saving questions of validity for trial.”); Al-Site Corp......
-
Leines v. Homeland Vinyl Prods., Inc., 2:18-cv-00969-KJM-DB
...whether Homeland infringed Claim 11 of the '961 Patent that defeat granting summary judgment. See Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Stinger Sys., Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1154 (D. Ariz. 2010) ("Courts routinely enter summary judgment concerning infringement, saving questions of validity for trial.").......
-
Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co.
...to liability"). Nor is it the case that deciding infringement in such a context is disfavored. See Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Stinger Sys., Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1153-54 (D. Ariz. 2010) (noting that "[c]ourts routinely enter summary judgment concerning infringement, saving questions of vali......
-
Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Karbon Arms, LLC
...that flyback and direct drive constituted separate modes so as to infringe claim 2 of the '295 patent. Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Stinger Sys., Inc., 705 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1156–58 (D.Ariz.2010). Because the Karbon MPID operates only in flyback configuration, Karbon argues that it cannot infringe th......