Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.

April 1, 2005.

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.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM J. MARTINI, District Judge

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s ("MOSAID's") and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. et al.'s ("Infineon's") motions for summary judgment and MOSAID's motion to strike the Rebuttal Expert Report of Joseph C. McAlexander Regarding Non-Infringement of MOSAID Patents, and the Court having considered the parties' submissions and having heard oral argument, and for the reasons set forth in its accompanying Opinion, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 1st day of April 2005 hereby,
ORDERED that the parties' motions for summary judgment are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as follows:

  Infringement

  1. Infineon does not directly infringe method claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,751,643.

  2. Infineon's accused products lack the "latching" limitation found in the asserted claims of the Lines U.S. Patent Nos. 5,822,253 (the "'253 patent"), 5,751,643 (the "'643 patent"), and 6,278,640 (the "'640 patent"), and therefore do not infringe claims 31-34 of the '253 patent, claims 1-3, 8-13, 15-17, and 22-28 of the '643 patent, and claim 1 of the '640 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

  3. Infineon's Blaze product lacks "control signals" as defined by this Court, and therefore does not literally infringe the "control signals applying" limitation of claim 15 of the '643 patent.

  4. Infineon's accused products fall within the clock sources disclaimer applicable to the asserted claims of the Foss U.S. Patent Nos. 5,828,620 (the "'620 patent), 6,055,201 (the "'201 patent"), and 6,580,654 (the "'654 patent"), and therefore do not infringe claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 17-21 and 24 of the '620 patent, claims 1, 10-11, and 20 of the '201 patent, and claims 1, 3-4, and 6 of the '654 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

  5. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Infineon's Hatteras product meets the "second switch" limitation of claim 1 of the '654 patent.

  6. Infineon's Hatteras product meets the "clock signal" limitation of claim 1 of the '654 patent.

  7. Infineon's accused products do not meet the "switching means" limitation of claims 1 and 10 of the Foss '201 patent, and therefore do not infringe these claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

  8. MOSAID has not provided particularized, limitation-by-limitation doctrine of equivalents analyses concerning the asserted Lines and Foss claims, namely claims 31-34 of the '253 patent, claims 1-3, 8-13, 15-17, and 22-28 of the '643 patent, claim 1 of the '640 patent, claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,603,703 (the "'703 patent"), claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-15, 17-21 and 24 of the '620 patent, claims 1, 10-11, and 20 of the '201 patent, and claims 1, 3-4, and 6 of the '654 patent. Accordingly, as a matter of law, no limitation of any of the asserted claims of the patents in suit is met under the doctrine of equivalents.

  Invalidity

  9. The OEM Agreement is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

  10. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Texas Instrument "old" circuit design is prior ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.