In Netgear, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 10-999-SLR (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2013), Judge Sue L. Robinson recently considered a number of motions and cross-motions for summary judgment, a Daubert motion, and construed several claim terms. The five patents-in-suit in this case are “directed to wireless communications systems, which use radio waves to communicate.” Id. at 2.
The Court denied plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment for infringement and validity, and granted-in-part defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity (as to four of the patents-in-suit) and non-infringement (as to three of the patents-in-suit). In the course of construing disputed claim terms, the Court found a number of claim limitations, across four patents-in-suit, indefinite. The Court therefore granted summary for invalidity as to the asserted claims of these four patents. Because “the court [could not] complete a meaningful infringement analysis” and because the claims were invalid, the Court additionally granted summary judgment for non-infringement of three of these patents. See, e.g., id. at 24 n.2.
The Court also considered other invalidity arguments with regard to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,621,454 (the ‘454 Patent), 7,263,143 (the ‘143 Patent), and 5,507,035 (the ‘035 Patent). As to the ‘454 Patent, the Court denied competing motions for summary judgment as to enablement because the plaintiff had offered “some” evidence of support for the limitation in the claim at issue, and therefore genuine issues of material fact remained. Id. at 34-35. The Court also denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity due to obviousness and/or anticipation because genuine issues of material fact remained. Id. at 36. As to the ‘143 Patent, defendant argued the asserted claims did not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101, but the Court concluded that the defendants had not identified clear and convincing evidence of invalidity under this section. Id. at 40. The Court also denied competing summary judgment motions on invalidity of the ‘143 Patent for lack of written description. Id. at 40-42. Finally, as to the ‘035 Patent, the Court concluded that it did not recite patent eligible subject matter under § 101: “[t]he ‘035 patent is an abstract idea, a strategy which consists of making random selections over multiple attempts, determining whether the attempt is successful and, if not, trying again. That the strategy is limited to the field of antenna diversity does not transform the abstract subject matter into patent eligible subject matter. . . . Moreover, the reference in the patent to a controller and means to accomplish certain functions does not supply an inventive concept that represents a nontrivial, nonconventional human contribution or materially narrows the claims relative to the abstract idea they embrace. . . . The recited means are also not indispensable to the claimed strategy.” Id. at 48-49 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Defendant had moved to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert regarding the source code related to the patents-in-suit, arguing that “he did not review the entirety of the source code, rather, he reviewed selections of source code provided to him by counsel” and because the expert did not test any accused infringing products. Id. at 49-50. The Court denied this motion because the expert “was not required to test the accused products. Defendant has not shown that [the expert’s] testimony is based on unreliable sources, indeed, it is based on defendant’s source code and the testimony of defendant’s witnesses. Defendant’s concerns go to the weight of the testimony and may properly be addressed on cross-examination.” Id. at 50.
Finally, the Court construed a number of disputed terms across the five patents-in-suit. As noted above, the Court concluded that several disputed terms were indefinite. Having found that other terms were not indefinite, the Court construed those terms:
“[O]ptimal conditions,” id. at 18-20;
“[M]eans, 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,” id. at 22-23;
“[M]eans to analyze the topology broadcast messages and enter in said topology table the network addresses of the wireless node transmitting the topology broadcast message and network addresses of other nodes contained in the topology broadcast messages; and,” id. at 25-26;
“[M]ultibeam antenna,” id. at 32-33;
“[S]canner,” id. at 33 (defendant argued this was means-plus-function limitation and moved for summary judgment for invalidity for indefiniteness; the Court concluded that this was was not a means-plus-function limitation and denied summary judgemnt. Id. at 33 n.10);
“[P]eriodicity,” id. at 33 & 38;
“[A] data transmission antenna pattern with a null in the direction of said interference,” id. at 33-34;
“[G]ain control circuit,” id. at 37;
“[R]eceiver gain,” id.