Panavision Imaging, LLC v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 357

ORDER GRANTING MICRON and APTINA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT by Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer. 320 , 250 See Order for full details. (cs)

Links: 250, 320

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

PANAVISION IMAGING, LLC,

13

ORDER GRANTING
MICRON/APTINA’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. NONINFRINGEMENT
ET AL.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

v.

Case No. 2:09-CV-01577-MRP (CTx)

Plaintiff,

17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Panavision Imaging, LLC, accuses Defendants Micron Technology,

20

Inc., Aptina Imaging Corp., and Aptina, LLC (collectively, “Micron/Aptina”) of

21

infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,818,877 (“the ‘877 Patent”) (filed May 17, 2002)—

22

embodying an invention that reduces the amount of power consumed by a digital-

23

image sensor. Micron/Aptina move for summary judgment of noninfringement on

24

the ground that Panavision failed to identify column output amplifiers and column

25

select switches in its infringement contentions against Micron/Aptina’s products as

26

is required by claims 1(b) and 1(c) the ‘877 Patent.

27
28

-1-

1

Micron/Aptina originally moved for summary judgment in May 2011.

2

Because Panavision’s infringement contentions were not final, the Court declined

3

to rule at that time. After Panavision served its final infringement contentions,

4

Micron/Aptina renewed their motion for summary judgment on December 2, 2011.

5

In its opposition, Panavision argues that there is no distinction between the

6

row select switches that exist in the accused product and the column select switch

7

in the patent. Pl.’s Opp. at 2, ECF No. 345. Additionally, Panavision utilizes the

8

expert testimony of David Taylor to show that show that Micron/Aptina’s accused

9

products’ row select switches are actually column select switches. Id. Finally,

10

Panavision argues that the accused products infringe, even if the switching means

11

are not column select switches, because the accused row select switches are

12

equivalent to the column select switches. Id.

13

Panavision fails to identify any genuinely controverted facts regarding

14

whether Micron/Aptina’s products infringe the ‘877 Patent. Specifically,

15

Panavision’s expert failed to point out why Micron/Aptina’s products meet the

16

column select switch limitations. Further, Panavision only identifies the

17

conclusory statements of its own expert to show that Micron/Aptina’s products

18

utilize column output amplifiers and to show that row select switches are

19

equivalent to column select switches. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the

20

motion for summary judgment.

21
22

II.

DISCUSSION

“[I]f the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

23

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . ,” a court shall grant

24

summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking to show a genuine

25

dispute can “cite to particular parts of materials in the record, including

26

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or

27

declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other

28

materials.” Id. “Since the ultimate burden of proving infringement rests with the
-2-

1

patentee, an accused infringer seeking summary judgment of noninfringement may

2

meet its initial responsibility either by providing evidence that would preclude a

3

finding of infringement, or by showing that the evidence on file fails to establish a

4

material issue of fact essential to the patentee’s case.” Novartis Corp. v. Ben

5

Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Vivid Tech., Inc. v.

6

American Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Once the

7

accused infringer points to an absence of evidence of infringement, the patentee

8

(who bears the burden of proof) must point to facts that genuinely contradict the

9

accused infringer. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-51 (1986).

10

Panavision asserts the ‘877 Patent against thirty-three of Micron/Aptina’s

11

products. See Taylor Decl. Ex. C at 1, ECF No. 346. The only independent claim

12

asserted is Claim 1. It states:

13

1. Analog bus for a solid state video imager, comprising;

14

(a) one or more conductive channels;

15

(b) a plurality of column output amplifiers, each
connected with a selected pixel of its associated
column, and having a low-impedance amplifier device;

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

(c) respective switching means for selectively
connecting outputs of the column amplifiers to said one
or more conductive channels; and
(d) a pre-charging high-impedance pull-up amplifier
coupled to said one or more conductive channels for
periodically charging up the one or more conductive
channels between connections of said switching means.

23

The ‘877 Patent, 3:5–17 (emphasis added). According to the ‘877 Patent

24

specification, the prior-art digital-image sensors utilized an array of pixel sensors,

25

in which the pixel sensors were fixed to the rest of the circuit and read sequentially

26

in order to store an image. See the ‘877 Patent, at 1:32–60. The ‘877 Patent

27

reduces power usage by selectively connecting the pixels, only when the pixels are

28

-3-

1

needed, and utilizing a pull-up amplifier to charge the bus (i.e. conductive channel)

2

between connections. Id. at 2:3–30. This reduces quiescent power consumption.

3

During claim construction, the parties agreed that the Court was to interpret

4

claim 1(c) as a means-plus-function claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Under 35

5

U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the Court must construe the claim to encompass the structures

6

disclosed by the patent in the specification. Following that directive, the Court

7

construed the structure for the switching means as “(1) Select1, Select2, . . .

8

SelectN; or (2) transmission gates. The row of column select switches constitutes

9

the only circuitry between the column output amplifiers and each conductive

10

channel.” Claim Construction Or. 7–8, ECF No. 234. Here, the structure disclosed

11

in the specification is a “column select switch.” The ‘877 Patent, at 2:50. When

12

read together, claims 1(b) and 1(c) require a column select switch that connects the

13

column amplifiers and pixels to the conductive channel.

14

Micron/Aptina argues that the components Panavision identifies in

15

Micron/Aptina’s products as infringing the ‘877 patent do not include column

16

output amplifiers nor do they include column select switches. Defs.’ Br. at 6–7,

17

ECF No. 250. According to Micron/Aptina’s expert, Christopher Zeleznik, all of

18

the switching means identified by Panavision in its final infringement contentions

19

are row select switches. See Zeleznik Decl. ISO Micron/Aptina’s Renewed MSJ

20

1–2, ECF No. 327 (“Zeleznik’s Second Declaration”). This is easily confirmed by

21

reviewing the schematics for the accused products. Many of those schematics

22

label the transistor switch as “MROW.” See Zeleznik’s Second Declaration Ex. B,

23

at 1. This provides an inference that the select switch is indeed a row select

24

switch. This testimony is not controverted by Panavision.

25

In order to show infringement, Panavision relies exclusively on its expert

26

David L. Taylor and his review of Aptina provided schematics. In his declaration,

27

Mr. Taylor testifies that the accused switches are “column select switches” under

28

Micron/Aptina’s definition, and his own definition. Taylor Decl. ¶¶ 1–2. But in
-4-

1

applying either definition, Mr. Taylor fails to show why the accused switches meet

2

the key requirement of a column select switch—namely, that the switch select the

3

column.1 Further, Mr. Taylor fails to provide any evidence for why the amplifier

4

in each accused device is a column amplifier rather than some other amplifier.

5

Indeed, the limitation in the patent, based both implicitly on the relationship

6

between claims 1(b) and 1(c) and based on the structure of the switching means,

7

requires the accused device have a column amplifier connected to a column select

8

switch. Panavision and Mr. Taylor cannot show that the accused product meets the

9

column amplifier limitation by merely pointing to a transistor and calling it a

10

column amplifier.
According to Micron/Aptina, persons of ordinary skill in the art distinguish

11
12

between switching means that select a column of pixels and those that select a row

13

of pixels. Defs.’ Br. at 3–4. Micron/Aptina’s expert, Mr. Zeleznik, gives a

14

detailed explanation on how the pixel arrays work and why the difference between

15

row select switches and column select switches is material. See Zeleznik Decl.

16

ISO MSJ, at ¶¶ 8–9, ECF No. 252 (“Zeleznik’s First Declaration”).2 Faced with

17

that argument, Panavision should have come forward with some evidence that the

18

row select switches and column select switches operate in substantially the same

19

way. Instead, Mr. Taylor testified consistently with Mr. Zeleznik’s description

20

regarding the difference between rows and columns.3

21

//
III.

22

CONCLUSION

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

The Court construed column as “all of the pixels within any vertical line that intersects the rows of the array.”
Claim Construction Or. 6.
2
In Mr. Zeleznik’s declaration, Mr. Zeleznik explains that signals are read from the array one row of pixels at a
time. Zeleznik’s First Declaration at ¶ 7. A row select signal activates all of the pixels in that row and causes the
information captured by all the pixels in a row to be sent out of the array at the same time (i.e. in parallel). Id. at ¶ 8.
Once the row information is sent out, a vertical column-by-column selection is performed so that each column is
read one at a time. Id. at ¶ 8.
3
Mr. Taylor testified that each alleged switching means in “successive rows selectively connects the outputs of the
column amplifiers to one or more conductive channels after the horizontal blanking period.” Taylor Decl. at ¶ 3.
-5-

Because Panavision fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing

1
2

that the components it identified in its final infringement contentions meet the

3

“column output amplifier” limitation and the “switching means” limitation, the

4

Court GRANTS Micron/Aptina’s motion for summary judgment. Additionally,

5

Panavision fails to identify any evidence that the alleged amplifier is a “column

6

amplifier” as that term is used in the ‘877 patent. Finally, because Panavision has

7

provided mere conclusory statements to show that a row select switch operates in

8

the same manner as a column select switch, Panavision’s doctrine of equivalents

9

argument also fails.4

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

DATED: February 03, 2012

14

__________________________________
Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

The Court disregards Mr. Taylor’s testimony regarding the equivalency of row select switches and column select
switches, see Taylor Decl. at ¶ 4, because the testimony is replete with conclusory statements. See Novartis Corp. v.
Ben Venue Labs., 271 F.3d 1043, 1051. Mr. Taylor provides no justification for his conclusion that the difference
between row select switches and column select switches is irrelevant.
-6-