Direct infringement dispositive motions are denied; noninfringement under the DOE is granted where no element analysis was provided
Thynge, M.J. Cross motions for summary judgment of infringement/noninfringement are denied as to literal infringement. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents is granted.
The technology involved in this action relates to vertically aligned LCD modules. One patent-in-suit had been found to be invalid for failure to disclose the best mode. Other claims were found to be anticipated, mooting the infringement contentions the court find genuine issues of material fact as to whether the accused modules infringe each and every element of the disputed claims, including whether those modules have uniaxial media in light of the court’s claim construction. Disputes facts remain as to the appropriate method of categorizing the accused modules. A party must specify which modules are representative of a particular series or group, why they are representative and how their particular properties or components directly infringe each and every element of a claim. With respect to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, plaintiff merely alleges that every claim limitation is met. No element analysis is done. The court rejected the conclusory statement and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents. With respect to the claim of inducement of infringement, the court has already found a factual issue relating to direct infringement precluding summary judgment. In addition, plaintiff failed to establish the requisite intent.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
