Infringement found on summary judgment; invalidity left for trial
Kenexa Brassring Inc. v. Taleo Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 07-521-SLR, November 18, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity is denied. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement is granted in part. Vurv products infringe all asserted claims, Taleo products infringe all but two claims of one patent-in suit, and all but one claim of the a second patent-in-suit.
The disputed technology relates to systems and methods for accurately entering information into a highly structured database from multiple non-uniformly formatted data sources, in particular systems and methods for collecting and maintaining information about job applicants. Plaintiff filed suit on august 27, 2007. Based on a challenged contention interrogatory response and 30(b)(6) testimony, plaintiff argues that defendants should be estopped from making the argument that the accused products operate differently. The court agrees that defendants’ interrogatory responses serve as an admission in this case that their products meet the claim limitations. The court additionally issues claim construction on disputed terms. After construing those terms, defendants are found to infringe all but three claims. The invalidity analysis turns on the priority date as plaintiff attempts to swear behind the prior art references cited by defendants. Plaintiff fails to prove conception by clear and convincing evidence earlier than the priority date of the ‘939 patent, establishing a priority date of December 21, 1997. The court determines that the resolution of invalidity issues is best left for trial.
