Commissariat A L’Energie Atomique v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., C.A. No. 03-484-MPT, October 31, 2007.
Thynge, M.J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment that three claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated is granted as to two claims and denied as to the third.
The patents-in-suit relate to LCD technology. A claim construction issued on October 3, 2007. Defendant argued that a European Patent Publication was invalidating prior art. Plaintiff’s argument that this prior art was before the examiner who nonetheless allowed the patent to issue failed because although the court may note the proceedings before the examiner, the question of validity is ultimately for the court to decide without deference to the examiner. The question of whether a reference teaches away from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. While the evidence was clear and convincing that two claims were anticipated by this art, that was not the case with the third claim. Defendant did not meet its burden to show the element “the two polarizing means are crossed rectilinear polarizers” was disclosed.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
