Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 289

Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 289

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

HENNIGAN, BENNETT & DORMAN LLP RODERICK G. DORMAN (CA SBN 96908) [e-mail] ALAN P. BLOCK (CA SBN 143783) [e-mail] MARC MORRIS (CA SBN 183728) [e-mail] 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 213-694-1234 Attorneys for Plaintiff ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION In re ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665
678337

Case No. 05 CV 01114 JW MDL No. 1665 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 56 ON ACACIA'S PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS AND ON DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS FOR PATENT INVALIDITY Date: July 7, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Ctrm: Hon. James Ware

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

Plaintiff Acacia Media Technologies Corporation ("Acacia") has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 on Acacia's patent infringement claims and on defendants' counterclaims for patent invalidity. Upon consideration of the papers filed in support of and in opposition to Acacia's motion for summary judgment, and the arguments of counsel therewith, as well as the relevant papers and pleadings in this action, and finding good cause thereon, this Court GRANTS Acacia's motion. The following claims are asserted by Acacia against one or more defendants in these MDL proceedings: Claims 41, 45, and 46 of the `992 patent; Claims 17-19 of the `863 patent; Claim 11 of the `720 patent; and Claims 1-42 of the `702 patent (the "Currently-Asserted Claims"). There is no dispute among the parties that all of the Currently-Asserted Claims are invalid, based upon the Court's patent claim constructions: · On April 4, 2008, Acacia stipulated (Exhibit 8 to Block Decl.)1 that claims 41, 45, and 46 of the `992 patent, claims 17-19 of the `863 patent, claim 11 of the `720 patent, and claims 1-42 of the `702 patent, among other claims, are invalid based on the Court's determination that "identification encoder" and "sequence encoder" are indefinite, based on the Court's construction of "transmission system" as requiring an "identification encoder," and based on the Court's construction of "central processing location" as requiring a "transmission system"; Defendants previously filed a motion for summary judgment that claims 1-42 of the `702 patent are invalid based on the Court's determination that "identification encoder" and "sequence encoder" are indefinite.2 (Exhibit 4); Acacia previously filed a motion for summary judgment that claims 1-42 of the `702 patent are invalid based on the Court's determination that "identification encoder" and "sequence encoder" are indefinite.3 (Exhibit 5); On March 28, 2008, defendants wrote to Acacia (Exhibits 6 and 7) explaining their intention to file certain summary judgment motions. On April 4, 2008,

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

·

·

·

All references to Exhibits in this Order are to those attached to the Declaration of Alan P. Block.

The Court denied defendants' motion without prejudice to defendants renewing the motion once claim construction is completed.
2

The Court denied Acacia's motion without prejudice to Acacia renewing the motion once claim construction is completed. -23

CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

Acacia responded (Exhibit 9) by stating that it would not oppose defendants' motions for summary judgment that claims 41, 45, and 46 of the `992 patent, claims 17-19 of the `863 patent, claim 11 of the `720 patent, and claims 1-42 of the `702 patent are indefinite based on the Court's determination that "identification encoder" and "sequence encoder" are indefinite, based on the Court's construction of "transmission system" as requiring an "identification encoder," and based on the Court's construction of "central processing location" as requiring a "transmission system." Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the Currently-Asserted Claims are invalid as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, based on the Court's constructions: · Claims 1-42 of the `702 patent are invalid, based on the Court's determinations in its 2nd Claim Construction Order ("CCO") that the claim terms "sequence encoder" (which appears in claims 1-26, 32, and 33 of the `702 patent) and "identification encoder" (which appears in claims 1-42 of the `702 patent) are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. (2nd CCO, at 18); Claims 41, 45, and 46 of the `992 patent and claims 17-19 of the `863 patent, which require a "transmission system," are invalid as being indefinite, based on: (1) the Court's constructions of the term "transmission system" to mean the "configurable, interconnected, assemblage of components labeled and described in the specification as `transmission system 100,' a detailed block diagram of which is shown in Figures 2a and 2b" (6th CCO, at 11:15-18); (2) the Court's statement that Figure 2a includes a component entitled "identification encoding process 112" and stated that the specification describes a component of the "transmission system 100" called the "identification encoder 112" (6th CCO, at 9:1-7); and (3) the Court's determination that the term "identification encoder" is indefinite; and · Claim 11 of the `702 patent is invalid as being indefinite based on: (1) the Court's construction of the term "central processing location" to mean "a single transmission system, as previously defined, from which compressed, digitized data representing a complete copy of at least one item of audio/video information, is transmitted at a non-real time rate to at least one of a multiple of local distribution systems" (4th CCO, at 6:18-21); -3CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

·

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

(2) the Court's construction of "transmission system" as requiring an "identification encoder"; and (3) the Court's determination that the term "identification encoder" is indefinite. Additionally, the parties have entered into two covenant not to sue stipulations and orders thereon, which the Court has now entered, relating to claims initially asserted by Acacia against one or more defendant, but which have since been withdrawn by Acacia. In one Stipulated Covenant Not to Sue; Order Thereon (Exhibit 2), Acacia provided defendants with a covenant not to sue on claims 19-22, 23, 24, 42-44, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, and 53 of the `992 patent; claims 2 and 5 of the `275 patent; claims 14-16 of the `863 patent; and claims 4 and 6-8 of the `720 patent. In the other Covenant Not to Sue; Order Thereon (Exhibit 3), Acacia provided the Internet defendants with a covenant not to sue on claims 1-18 of the `992 patent. Although the claims identified in the covenants not to sue were initially asserted by Acacia, these claims are no longer being asserted by Acacia against any defendant in these MDL proceedings and no defendant can be liable to Acacia on any of claims, as stated in the Court Order associated with each stipulated covenant not to sue. As each of the claims are either indefinite, and therefore invalid, based on the Court's constructions, or the subject of a covenant not to sue, Acacia is entitled to judgment, as matter of law, in favor of defendants on Acacia's patent infringement claims and in favor of defendants on their invalidity counterclaims.4 See, e.g., Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28382, *26-27 (N.D. Cal. 2004), affirmed, 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir., 2005); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) ("[t]he judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and the disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.") /// /// Although Acacia filed this motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in defendants' favor, Acacia's motion is not a waiver of any right to object to or appeal any of the Court's claim constructions set forth in any of its six claim construction orders, Acacia having expressly preserved such rights. (See, Acacia's Motion, at 2:15-19 and n 1 at page 4). -44

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Judgment is entered in favor of each and every defendant in these MDL proceedings on each and every one of Acacia's claims for patent infringement based on: (i) the Court's determination that all of the Currently-Asserted Claims are invalid as being indefinite based on the Court's claim constructions; and (ii) the Stipulated Covenants Not to Sue and Orders Thereon; and 2. Judgment is entered in favor of each and every defendant to these MDL proceedings on each and every one of defendants' counterclaims for patent invalidity based on: (i) the Court's determination that all of the Currently-Asserted Claims are invalid as being indefinite based on the Court's claim constructions; and (ii) the Stipulated Covenants Not to Sue and Orders Thereon. DATED: ______________________________________ The Honorable James Ware United States District Judge

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Presented by:

By

/S/ Roderick G. Dorman Roderick G. Dorman

RODERICK G. DORMAN (CA SBN 96908) ALAN P. BLOCK (CA SBN 143783) MARC MORRIS (CA SBN 183728) HENNIGAN, BENNETT & DORMAN LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90017 Attorneys for Plaintiff ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

-5CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

PROOF OF SERVICE-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) SS. )

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2900, Los Angeles, California 90017. On June 17, 2008, I served a copy of the within document(s) described as [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 56 ON ACACIA'S PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS AND ON DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIMS FOR PATENT INVALIDITY on the interested parties in this action by transmitting via United States District Court for the Northern District of California Electronic Case Filing Program the document listed above by uploading the electronic files for each of the above listed document(s) on this date, addressed as set forth on the attached Service List. The above-described document was also transmitted to the parties indicated below, by Federal Express only. Chambers of the Honorable James Ware Attn: Regarding Acacia Litigation 280 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113 3 copies I am readily familiar with Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman LLP's practice in its Los Angeles office for the collection and processing of federal express with Federal Express. Executed on June 17, 2008, at Los Angeles, California. I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made.

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665

/S/ Carol S. Yuson Carol S. Yuson

-6[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

SERVICE LIST Juanita R. Brooks Todd G. Miller Fish & Richardson 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, California 92130-2081 Counsel for: ACMP LLC;Ademia Multimedia LLC; Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network; Adult Revenue Services; Audio Communications; CJ Inc.; Club Jenna Inc.; Cyber Trend Inc.; Cybernet Ventures Inc.; Game Link Inc.; Global AVS Inc.; Innovative Ideas International; Lightspeedcash; National A-1 Advertising Inc.; New Destiny Internet Group LLC; VS Media Inc. Victor De Gyarfas William J. Robinson Foley & Lardner 2029 Century Park E, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Counsel for: International Web Innovations, Inc. Mark D. Schneider Gifford, Krass, Groh, Sprinkle, Anderson and Citkowski 280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 Birmingham, Michigan 48009-5394 Counsel for: Askcs.com Inc.

Jonathan E. Singer William R. Woodford Fish & Richardson 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Counsel for: ACMP LLC;Ademia Multimedia LLC; Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network; Adult Revenue Services; Audio Communications; CJ Inc.; Club Jenna Inc.; Cyber Trend Inc.; Cybernet Ventures Inc.; Game Link Inc.; Global AVS Inc.; Innovative Ideas International; Lightspeedcash; National A-1 Advertising Inc.; New Destiny Internet Group LLC; VS Media Inc. Gary A. Hecker James Michael Slominski Hecker Law Group 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Counsel for: Offendale Commercial Limited BV Alfredo A. Bismonte Daniel H. Fingerman Bobby T. Shih Mount & Stoelker, P.C. River Park Tower, 17th Floor 333 W. San Carlos St. San Jose, CA 95110 Counsel for: Askcs.com Inc. Rachel Krevans Jason A. Crotty Paul A. Friedman Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Counsel for: Satellite LLC; Echostar Technologies Corporation; Echostar Communications Corporation

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Adam Robert Alper David Allen York Latham & Watkins 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Counsel for: AP Net Marketing Inc.; ICS Inc.

David C. Doyle Morrison & Foerster LLP 3811 Valley Centre Dr., Suite 500 San Diego, California 92130 Counsel for: Echostar Technologies Corporation -7CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

Annemarie A. Daley Stephen P. Safranski Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Counsel for: Coxcom, Inc.; Hospitality Network, Inc. Jeffrey H. Dean Kevin D. Hogg Bradford P. Lyerla Carl E. Myers Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP 6300 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Counsel for: Armstrong Group; Arvig Communication Systems; Charter Communications, Inc.; East Cleveland TV and Communications LLC; Massillon Cable TV, Inc.; Wide Open West LLC Daralyn J. Durie Joshua H. Lerner David J. Silbert Keker & Van Nest LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111 Counsel for: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; Insight Communications, Inc. Stephen E. Taylor Jan J. Klohonatz Taylor & Co. Law Offices, Inc. One Ferry Building, Suite 355 San Francisco, California 94111 Counsel for: Mediacom Communications Corporation Jeffrey D. Sullivan Michael J. McNamara Baker Botts L.L.P. 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 Counsel for: Mediacom Communications Corporation; Bresnan Communications

Richard R. Patch J. Timothy Nardell Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP One Ferry Building, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111-4213 Counsel for: Coxcom, Inc.; Hospitality Network, Inc. William R. Overend Morgan D. Tovey Reed Smith Crosby Heafey Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111 Counsel for: Charter Communications, Inc.

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Victor G. Savikas Kevin G. McBride Maria K. Nelson Marsha E. Mullin Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Counsel for: DirecTV Group, Inc. Mitchell D. Lukin Baker Botts L.L.P. One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77022 Counsel for: Mediacom Communications Corporation; Bresnan Communications Rebecca Anne Bortolotti John Christopher Reich Albert L. Underhill Merchant & Gould 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 3200 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Counsel for: Arvig Communications Systems; Cannon Valley Communications, Inc.; Loretel Cablevision; Mid-Continent Media, Inc.; Savage Communications, Inc.; Sjoberg's -8[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
@Zcc^\Vc( :ZccZii $ <dgbVc aae

Cablevision, Inc.; US Cable Holdings LP Sean David Garrison Robert Francis Copple Lewis & Roca LLP 40 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429 Counsel for: Cable America Corp. Troy Blinn Forderman George Chun Chen Bryan Cave LLP 2 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4406 Counsel for: Cable System Service Inc. Patrick J. Whalen Spencer Fan Britt & Brown LLP 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Counsel for: NPG Cable Inc. Clay K. Keller Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs 50 South Main Street Akron, Ohio 44308 Counsel for: Nelsonville TV Cable, Inc. C. Mark Kittredge Perkins Coie Brown & Bain PA P.O. Box 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85001-0400 Counsel for: Cable One Inc. Gregory T. Spalj Fabyanske Westra & Hart PA 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 1900 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Counsel for: Cable System Service, Inc. Fritz Byers 824 Spitzer Bulding 520 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43604 Counsel for: Block Communications, Inc. Melissa G. Ferrario Barry S. Goldsmith Gary H. Nunes Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice 8065 Leesburg Pike, Fourth Floor Tysons Corner, VA 22182 Counsel for: Nelsonville TV Cable, Inc. Stephen S. Korniczky James V. Fazio Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Counsel for: Cebridge Connections David S. Benyacar Daniel Reisner Kaye Scholar LLP 425 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Counsel for: Time Warner Cable, Inc.

11 12
aVlnZgh adh Vc\ZaZh( XVa^[dgc^V

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Christopher B. Fagan Fay Sharpe Fagan Minnich & McKee 1100 Superior Avenue, Seventh Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2518 Counsel for: Armstrong Group; East Cleveland TV and Communications LLC; Massillon Cable TV, Inc.; Wide Open West, LLC Benjamin Hershkowitz Goodwin Proctor LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Counsel for: CSC Holdings, Inc.

-9CASE NO. 05-CV-01114 JW MDL NO. 1665 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ACACIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT