Vehicle IP, LLC v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., C.A. No. 10-503 – SLR, September 9, 2013
Robinson, J. The court construed eight patent terms. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted in part. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement was denied. Plaintiff’s motion that a particular system is not prior art was denied as moot, as was defendant’s invalidity motion.
The patent-in-suit relates to a method and apparatus for determining taxes on vehicles travelling through taxing jurisdictions.
A Markman hearing was held on August 1, 2013. The court construed the following disputed terms:
“determine a tax in response to the distance traveled by the vehicle within the region”;
“determining the tax in each [of the two] taxing region[s] in response to the predetermined vehicle positions”;
“generating geographic information”; and
“generating a table” / “referencing a table.”
The court next addressed the parties’ respective summary judgment motions. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted with respect to certain claims because the accused system does not use predetermined vehicle positions as a direct input based on the court’s claim construction. It was ddenied with respect to claims where the court adopted neither party’s proposed construction. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement, which was based on a construction the court did not adopt, was denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity was denied as moot because the proposed invalidity theory had been excluded as untimely raised. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the pre-1995 system is not prior art was also denied as moot for the same reason.