Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 10-999 – SLR, September 30, 2013
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment of infringement and validity are denied. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement are granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion to exclude testimony of expert Dr. Saunders is denied.
The technologies of the five patents-in-suit relate to RF data transmission systems. The court construes (1)“optimal conditions”; (2)“means for monitoring RF data transmission frequencies, having a plurality of polarizations, for optimal conditions for said RF data transmissions”; and (3) “means, responsive to said conditions, for selecting at least one of said beams having one of said orthogonal polarizations for data transmissions from said first transmitter” as indefinite and finds the claims with those terms invalid. With respect to a second patent, the court finds the following term indefinite: “Means for analyzing the topology table or broadcast messages received at said internetworking node to determine if a sending wireless node is to be registered or not registered to said internetworking node.” Summary judgment of infringement of the claim containing that terms is denied, and the cross-motion for non-infringement is granted. For the third patent, the terms “relative transmission rate” and “narrow antenna beams” are found to be indefinite. The claims containing these terms are invalid. Issues of fact prevent summary judgment on enablement and anticipation. A factual disagreement over whether defendant’s products practice the limitations in a fourth patent precludes summary judgment. Defendant has not presented clear and convincing evidence to invalidate this patent based on lack of statutory subject matter. However, the court finds claim 19 indefinite and thus invalid. With respect to the fifth patent, several claim limitations are found to be indefinite and thus summary judgment of non-infringement is granted. This patent is directed to a strategy for combining the use of a selection antenna diversity technique at a stationary unit such as a base station. The court finds the patented invention is abstract and ineligible under Bilski, and therefore invalid. Finally the motion to exclude the expert’s testimony as to source code on the basis that he did not review the entirely of the source code or test infringing products is denied.