Published on:

Judge Andrews rules on summary judgment motions

Judge Andrews recently issued a memorandum opinion addressing summary judgment motions in HSM Portfolio LLC, et al. v. Elpida Memory Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-770-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2016).  The Court first granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the plaintiff’s ‘853 patent, explaining that “[t]he patent requires . . . that for a product to infringe, it must satisfy the predetermined factor limitation, when the predetermined factor is calculated using Equation (37).”  The Court found “two independent reasons for concluding that the algebraically-reduced expression for K,” the calculation used by the plaintiff’s expert, “is not Equation (37).”  Summary judgment of literal infringement was therefore denied.  The Court also granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘853 patent under the doctrine of equivalents, finding that “[a]n equation that arrives at a scaling factor based on information that is derived from a completed circuit – though ideal for proving infringement – is not, as a matter of law, equivalent to an equation which utilizes prefabrication information to arrive at a predetermined factor.  This would read ‘predetermined’ out of the claims.”

The Court next considered the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘212 patent, directed to a clocked latch.  The Court explained that in its claim construction order, it held that the “clock input signal must have multiple pulses with intervals between those pulses.”  Here, though, the plaintiff failed to identify any evidence that the accused products had components “capable of receiving a periodic signal with a constant frequency used for synchronization,” so summary judgment of no literal infringement was granted.  The Court also found that the disclosure-dedication rule did not apply and could not be used to render a “logic signal” described in the specification unclaimed and therefore in the public domain.  The Court found that it was not clear that the “logic signal” was not, in fact, claimed, and moreover it was not clear from the specification that the “logic signal” was an alternative to the claimed “clock input signal.”

Contact Information