Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

The technology relates to liquid Cristal display products.  This matter involves 3 patent suits and 23 patents.  Proceedings relating to CMO have been stayed. T he court required the parties to reduce the number of patents and claims to 4 patents and seven claims per side.  The court notes the parties expanded that number by asserting several dependent claims.  A bench trial was held on Phase I (AUO’s infringement claims) from June 2-8, 2009.  LGD’s infringement claims were tried in Phase II from June 16-22, 2009.  The court first makes claim construction rulings, noting that claim construction has been a “moving target” which enhanced the difficulty of this case.  Based on the court’s claim constructions, the court finds that AUO has established that LGD literally infringes.  The court rejects a contention that AUO lacked standing to sue with respect to one of the patents, finding it was the rightful owner at the commencement of this action. Based upon the court’s claim construction rulings, the court further finds that LGD cannot establish invalidity based on indefiniteness.  After reviewing the prior art and trial evidence the court further finds that LGD has not proved anticipation or obviousness by clear and convincing evidence.  The court also concludes that LGD cannot establish by clear and convincing evidence that the on-sale bar applies.  Finally, the court further concludes that LGD possessed the requisite intent to induce infringement and did in fact induce infringement in part by providing product information and marketing materials to U.S. customers for the purpose of encouraging U.S. sales and by touting AUO’s patented features to LED’s U.S. customers.  The Court withholds entry of final judgment until Phase II is completed.