Claim construction rehash resulted in non-infringement ruling in telecommunications case
Telecordia Technologies, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., Nos. 04-875-GMS, 04-876-GMS, May 1, 2007.
Sleet, J. Summary judgment of non-infringement was granted with respect to the '306 patent and denied as to a second patent. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not anticipated was granted in part. Plaintiff's motion that the '306 patent was not invalid due to lack of enablement was granted. Defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '306 patent for failure to disclose the best mode was denied.
The patents-in-suit related to telecommunications networks.
Plaintiff's infringement arguments relating to the '306 patent merely rehashed claim construction arguments made by this Court, Judge Farnan in related litigation, and the Federal Circuit. On summary judgment, plaintiff did not meet its burden to refute defendants' non-infringement arguments and in fact hardly addressed those issues. With respect to a second patent, genuine issues of material fact as to the "inserting an error signal on designated ones of said [the] sub-rate communications" so as to preclude summary judgment. There was in fact a battle of the experts between plaintiff's expert Dr. Paul Prucnal and defendant's expert Dr. Wayne D. Grover. With respect to anticipation, the Court rejected defendant's argument that a prior art article incorporated by reference a tutorial and granted a summary judgment of no anticipation. Material issues of fact remained with respect to two other references, and summary judgment of no anticipation was denied as to them. Plaintiff's motion that the patent is not invalid due to lack of enablement was unopposed and thus granted. Material issues of fact precluded summary judgment regarding best mode.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
