Defendants prevail on reargument over noninfringement.
Apeldyn Corporation v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Civ. No. 08-568-SLR, December 19, 2011.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for reargument of summary judgment decision of noninfringement is denied; Defendant AUO’s motion for reargument of claim construction is granted, and motion for reargument of summary judgment opinion is granted.
Plaintiff argued that the court erred in finding Defendant CMO failed to provide evidence in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on noninfringement. The court clarifies its claim construction of the terms “first retarded means” and “first control means.” Based on these constructions, the court finds the patent is not identical to the accused product. Plaintiff’s expert fails to provide the limitation by limitation discussion of equivalence; thus the DOE argument fails. The court agreed with AUO’s reargument that its noninfringement motion should be reconsidered and granted in order to allow plaintiff to go forward on legally insufficient evidence. Again, there is no DOE evidence.
