Wi-Lan Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case No.: 18-cv-01577-H-AGS
Citation | 421 F.Supp.3d 911 |
Decision Date | 04 November 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 18-cv-01577-H-AGS |
Parties | WI-LAN INC.; Wi-LAN USA, Inc. ; and Wi-LAN Labs, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.; and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Alden Harris, Pro Hac Vice, Christopher M. First, Pro Hac Vice, Eric J. Enger, Pro Hac Vice, Leslie V. Payne, Pro Hac Vice, Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX, Victor M. Felix, Procopio Cory Hargreaves and Savitch LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Benjamin Gilford, Pro Hac Vice, Gary Robert Jarosik, Pro Hac Vice, James J. Lukas, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Matthew J. Levinstein, Pro Hac Vice, Richard Daniel Harris, Pro Hac Vice, Callie J. Sand, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Chicago, IL, Joseph S. Leventhal, Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.
(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF OBVIOUSNESS BASED ON IPR ESTOPPEL;
On September 27, 2019, Plaintiffs Wi-LAN Inc., Wi-LAN USA, Inc., and Wi-LAN Labs, Inc. filed and a motion for partial summary judgment of Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.'s obviousness defense based on inter partes review estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). (Doc. No. 187.) On September 27, 2019, LG filed a motion for summary judgment that the patents-in-suit are not entitled to their claimed priority dates and for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102. (Doc. No. 188.) On October 11, 2019, the parties filed their respective responses in opposition to the motions for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 239, 240.) On October 18, 2019, the parties filed their respective replies. (Doc. No. 265, 266.)
In addition, on October 11, 2019, LG filed a motion to strike the declaration of Richard Ito that was filed as an exhibit to Wi-LAN's motion for partial summary judgment of IPR estoppel. (Doc. No. 238.) On October 14, 2019, Wi-LAN filed a response in opposition to LG's motion to strike. (Doc. No. 251.) On October 18, 2019, Wi-LAN filed a motion for leave to conduct limited discovery. (Doc. No. 268.) On October 23, 2019, LG filed a response in opposition to Wi-LAN's motion for leave. (Doc. No. 277.)
The Court held a hearing on the matters on November 1, 2019. Leslie V. Payne, Eric J. Enger, and Christopher M. First appeared for Wi-LAN. Richard D. Harris, James J. Lukas, and Matthew J. Levinstein appeared for LG. For the reasons below, the Court: (1) grants Wi-LAN's motion for partial summary judgment of LG's obviousness defense based on IPR estoppel; (2) denies LG's motion for summary judgment of priority date and for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ; (3) denies as moot LG's motion to strike the Ito declaration; and (4) denies as moot Wi-LAN's motion for leave to conduct additional discovery.
On July 11, 2018, Wi-LAN filed a complaint for patent infringement against LG, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,787,924, 8,867,351, 9,226,320, and 9,497,743. (Doc. No. 1, Compl.) Specifically, Wi-LAN alleges that LG's wireless communication products that are compliant with the 3rd Generation Partnership Project 4G LTE standard directly infringe the patents-in-suit. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 40, 53, 66, 79.)
On October 10, 2018, LG filed an answer to Wi-LAN's complaint along with counterclaims for: (1) declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit; (2) declaratory judgment of unenforceability for failure to disclose to standard setting organizations; (3) declaratory judgment of unenforceability of the '351 patent due to infectious unenforceability; (4) declaratory judgment that LG is entitled to license the patents-in-suit on FRAND/RAND terms and conditions; (5) breach of contract; (6) monopolization and attempted monopolization in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act; and (7) unfair business practices under California Business and Profession Code § 17200 et seq. (Doc. No. 17.)
On April 12, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Wi-LAN's motions to dismiss LG's counterclaims, and the Court dismissed with prejudice LG's counterclaim for declaratory judgment of unenforceability of the '351 patent due to infectious unenforceability. (Doc. No. 79.) On May 28, 2019, the Court issued a claim construction order in the action. (Doc. No. 112.) On September 3, 2019, the Court issued an amended scheduling order. (Doc. No. 143.)
On October 24, 2019, the Court issued an order on the parties' first set of motions for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 278.) Specifically, the Court: (1) denied LG's two motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of the patents-in-suit; (3) granted LG's motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement; (4) granted in part and denied in part LG's motion for summary judgment of its patent exhaustion defense; (5) denied Wi-LAN's cross-motion for summary judgment of no patent exhaustion based on the Qualcomm-SOMA agreements; and (6) granted Wi-LAN's motion for summary judgment of LG's standard development organization defenses and counterclaims. (Id. at 79.) In so doing, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of LG on: (1) Wi-LAN's claim for willful infringement of the patents-in-suit; and (2) LG's patent exhaustion defense as to the '351 patent based on the 2000 Qualcomm-SOMA agreement. (Id. ) And the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Wi-LAN on: (1) LG's defense and counterclaim of unenforceability for failure to disclose to standard setting organizations; (2) LG's defense and counterclaim that LG is entitled to license the patents-in-suit on FRAND/RAND terms and conditions; (3) LG's counterclaim for monopolization; (4) LG's counterclaim for attempted monopolization; and (5) LG's counterclaim for unfair business practices under California's UCL. (Id. )
By the present remaining motions for summary judgment: (1) Wi-LAN moves for partial summary judgment of LG's obviousness defense as to the '743 patent based on IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ; and (2) LG moves for summary judgment that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are not entitled to their claimed priority dates, and, therefore, are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102. (Doc. No. 187-1 at 1; Doc. No. 188-1 at 1.)
In the present action, Wi-LAN asserts infringement of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 17, and 19 of the '924 patent, claims 6-9 of the '743 patent, and claims 7 and 10-12 of the '351 patent.1 (Doc No. 207, Ex. 2 Lomp Expert Report ¶¶ 78, 86, 100, 114, 184, 256.)
The 924 Patent at 1:23-27. Independent Claim 1 and independent claim 17 of the '924 patent are the only asserted independent claims from that patent, and independent claim 6 of the '743 patent is the only asserted independent claim from that patent.
Independent claim 1 of the '924 Patent provides:
Id. at 22:42-67.
Independent claim 17 of the '924 Patent provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sioux Steel Co. v. Prairie Land Mill Wright Servs.
... ... No. 16-cv-2212 United States District Court, N.D ... the Court stayed the case pending the IPR proceedings. [83] ... The ... Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The party ... Tex. Aug. 24, 2020); ... see also Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc. , 421 ... F.Supp.3d ... ...
-
Innovative Memory Sys. v. Micron Tech.
... INNOVATIVE MEMORY SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., ndant. C. A. No. 14-1480-RGA United States District Court, D ... principles and methods to the facts of the case ... Fed. R. Evid. 702. As the Third ... v. Samsung Elecs. Co. , Ltd. , 802 F.3d 1283, ... 1296 ... reference.”); Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc. , ... 421 F.Supp.3d ... ...
-
Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Cook Grp.
..."a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover." Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 421 F.Supp.3d 911, 924 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (citations omitted). Still, Defendant's motion to exclude is granted to the extent the court will not consider any state......
-
Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US LLC.
...district courts reject the argument that IPR estoppel does not apply to non-petitioned grounds. See, e.g., Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 421 F. Supp. 3d 911, 924 (S.D. Cal. 2019); see also Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Sys. Inc., No. 19-CV-00410-EMC, 2019 WL 7589209, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. ......