Court declines to find inducement on a constructive or willfully blind theory
Apeldyn Corporation v. Au Optronics Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 08-568b-SLR, November 15, 2011.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s summary judgment of invalidity is denied. Defendant’s summary judgment with respect to inducement is granted, the motion is denied in all other respects. Another defendant’s motions for summary judgment of no inducement and noninfringement are granted.
The defendants in this patent infringement case involving Liquid Crystal Displays moved for summary judgment on the issues of invalidity, no inducement, and non-infringement. One of the defendant’s noninfringement motions was denied as not supported by the record, the other defendant’s motion was granted under the court’s claim construction. The defendants’ motions on the issue of no inducement were granted. Plaintiff’s “transitive knowledge” theory (constructive knowledge based on patents listed on the face of another patent) is not supported by the case law. A theory of willful blindness is not supported. At best, the defendants were reckless or negligent. A question of fact remains as to the issue of whether the patent is invalid based on the inherent teaching of a prior art reference. The court declined to invalidate the patent for obviousness on summary judgment, and facts in dispute remain on the issue of whether it is invalid for failing to comply with the best mode requirement.
