Universal remote controls found to infringe
Philips Electronics N. Am. Corp. et al. v. Contec Corp. et al., No. 02-123-KAJ, Jan. 9, 2006.
Jordan, J. Motion for summary judgment on liability of indirect infringement was granted; motion for summary judgment of inducement of infringement was denied as moot. A direct infringement claim was dismissed at the consent of the patentee. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and failure to provide damages, as well as Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs, were denied.
The patent relates to a method for programming universal remote control units called “autoscan” for controlling various appliances from different manufacturers. Where there is no dispute that the accused products contain the patented method as well as a non-infringing method, patentee need not show more specific evidence of direct infringement in order to prove contributory infringement or inducement of infringement. A product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes. Defendants directly infringe where the device already embodies the patented method when it reaches the customer and requires nothing more from the end user than to use a product without modification. Although there was sufficient proof of direct infringement, patentee consented to dismissal of this claim. Plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs was denied in the absence of defendants acting in bad faith. Although defenses were raised late, and were ultimately unsuccessful, there was no prejudice and of sufficient weight to be considered on the merits. Defendants’ counter-motions for summary judgment were denied as moot.
