Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion Corporation

Filing 381

ORDERED that defendant's # 287 Motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in-part and DENIED in-part in accordance with this order. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/28/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

Before the court is defendant American Power Conversion Corp.’s (“APC”) motion for

16

summary judgment on the issues of anticipation, obviousness, and non-infringement. Doc. #287.1

17

Plaintiff Server Technology, Inc. (“STI”) filed an opposition (Doc. #301) to which APC replied

18

(Doc. #324).

19

I.

10

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,

11

v.

12

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION
CORPORATION,

13
Defendant and Counterclaimant

3:06-CV-00698-LRH-VPC
ORDER

Facts and Procedural History

20

A. Procedural Overview

21

Plaintiff STI manufactures intelligent power distribution devices. STI brought the

22

underlying patent infringement action against defendant APC alleging that APC’s product designs

23

infringe three of its patents: United States Patents numbers 7,043,5432 (“the ‘543 patent”),

24
25

1

26

2

Refers to the court’s docket number.

A copy of the ‘543 patent is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Kristopher R. Kiel in support
of APC’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. #288, Exhibit 1.

1

7,141,4613 (“the ‘461 patent”), and 7,702,7714 (“the ‘771 patent). Specifically, STI alleges that

2

APC’s various products infringe claims 1-3, 6, and 15-17 of the ‘543 patent; claims 1, 3, and 8 of

3

the ‘461 patent; and claims 15-17 of the ‘771 patent.

4

Like STI, APC manufacturers intelligent power distribution devices. APC denies that its

5

products infringe STI’s patents and has raised three defenses: (1) anticipation under 35 U.S.C.

6

§ 102; (2) obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and (3) non-infringement.
On April 13, 2010, the court issued a Markman order construing various disputed terms of

7
8

the patents in suit. Doc. #163. Thereafter, APC filed the present motion for summary judgment.

9

Doc. #287. On February 23, 2012, the court heard argument on the motion.

10

B. The Patents Generally5

11

STI’s patents in suit (‘543, ‘771, and ‘461 patents) describe and relate to intelligent power

12

distribution devices, also referred to as “intelligent plugstrips” or “PDUs.” Like an ordinary

13

electrical plugstrip used in a home or office, intelligent plugstrips are primarily intended to

14

distribute power from a wall outlet through an input power cord to a number of power outlets. But

15

unlike ordinary plugstrips, intelligent plugstrips are intended for large scale applications such as

16

commercial data centers and include several enhanced features. These enhanced features enable a

17

user to locally or remotely control and monitor the power supply to connected appliances such as

18

computers, servers, routers, and other electronic equipment through various internal relay controls.

19

///

20
21
22

3

A copy of the ‘461 patent is attached as Exhibit 2 to the declaration of Kristopher R. Kiel in support
of APC’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. #288, Exhibit 2.
4

23
24
25
26

The ‘771 patent is a c o ntin u atio n of the ‘543 patent. A copy of the ‘771 patent is attached as
Exhibit 47 to the declaration of Kristopher R. Kiel in s u p p o r t of APC’s motion for summary judgment. Doc.
#288, Exhibit 47.
5

For a more thorough discussion of the features of the individual patents, see the court’s claim
construction order (Doc. #163).

2

1

II.

Legal Standard

2

Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to

3

interrogatories, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, and other materials in the record

4

show that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment

5

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, the

6

evidence, together with all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom, must be read in the

7

light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

8

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); County of Tuolumne v. Sonora Cmty. Hosp., 236 F.3d 1148,

9

1154 (9th Cir. 2001).

10

The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion,

11

along with evidence showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v.

12

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On those issues for which it bears the burden of proof, the

13

moving party must make a showing that is “sufficient for the court to hold that no reasonable trier

14

of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259

15

(6th Cir. 1986); see also Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1141 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

16

To successfully rebut a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must point to

17

facts supported by the record which demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Reese v.

18

Jefferson Sch. Dist. No. 14J, 208 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2000). A “material fact” is a fact “that might

19

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

20

242, 248 (1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, summary

21

judgment is not appropriate. See v. Durang, 711 F.2d 141, 143 (9th Cir. 1983). A dispute

22

regarding a material fact is considered genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

23

return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. The mere existence of

24

a scintilla of evidence in support of the party’s position is insufficient to establish a genuine

25

dispute; there must be evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the party. See id. at 252.

26

3

1
2

III.

Discussion
In its motion, APC seeks an order from the court (1) that asserted claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 of

3

the ‘543 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102; (2) that asserted claims 15, 16,

4

and 17 of both the ‘543 patent and the ‘771 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103;

5

and (3) that accused APC product designs, the AP7900 and AP8900, do not infringe asserted

6

claims 1, 3, and 8 of the ‘461 patent. Doc. #287. The court shall address each argument below.

7

A. Anticipation

8

APC argues that claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the ‘543 patent are invalid as anticipated based on

9

two pieces of prior art, the MasterSwitch VM (“MSVM”) manufactured by APC and the RPC-21

10
11

manufactured by non-party BayTech. Doc. #287.
In opposition, STI argues that the ‘543 patent is not anticipated because neither identified

12

prior art design (1) contains a “current-related information display” in “current-related information-

13

determining communication,” or (2) is a “plugstrip” as that term is used and understood in the

14

patent. Doc. #301.

15
16

1. Anticipation Standard
An issued patent is presumed valid by statute. 35 U.S.C. § 282. However, a patent may be

17

held invalid as a matter of law if it is anticipated. 35 U.S.C. § 102. A patent is anticipated if a

18

single reference, either printed publication or prior use, published more than one year before the

19

date of the patent application, discloses, expressly or inherently, every limitation of the claim such

20

that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without experimentation.

21

35 U.S.C. § 102(b); see also Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272,

22

1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

23

The anticipating reference must describe the patented features “with sufficient clarity and

24

detail” such that a person of ordinary skill in the field would recognize the existence of the patent

25

features in the reference. Crown Operations Int’l v. Solutia, Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir.

26

4

1

2002). Moreover, “all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior

2

reference, arranged as in the claim.” Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376,

3

1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

4

2. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art

5

A person of ordinary skill in the art is a person presumed to think “along the line of

6

conventional wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to innovate, whether by patient, and

7

often expensive, systematic research or by extraordinary insights.” Standard Oil Co. v. Am.

8

Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985). For purposes of this motion, the parties agree

9

that a person of ordinary skill in the art is one who would have an electrical or computer

10

engineering degree (or the equivalent industry experience) and at least one to three years of

11

experience designing power distribution devices.

12

3. Identified Prior Art

13
14

APC identifies two pieces of prior art anticipating the ‘543 patent: the RPC-216 and the
MSVM.7 See Doc. #287. Both of these products were advertised and sold in 1999,8 and as such,

15
16
17
18

6

In 1999, non-party BayTech developed several different PDUs culminating in the RPC-21, a vertically
mounted device w hich included certain common features of intelligent PDUs including (1) an input power cord;
(2) a number of pow er outlets; (3) associated relays; (4) an LED display; and (5) the ability to remotely report
c u r r en t-related information to a technician over a netw ork using a NIC component housed in a separate
enclosure from the vertical outlet enclosure. See Doc. #287, Exhibit A, Claim Chart at 1-6; Doc. #288 Exhibit
16, North Depo.

19
7

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

In the fall of 1999, APC develo p ed an intelligent PDU similar to BayTech’s RPC-21, the MSVM.
Like the RPC-21, the MSVM w as a vertical device w ith (1) an input cord; (2) a number of outlets; (3) a number
of relays; (4) an LED display; and (5) and a NIC component housed in a separate enclosure associated w ith the
outlet component that allow ed for reporting of current informatio n over a netw ork. See Doc. #287, Exhibit A,
Claim Chart at 1-6; D oc . # 2 88, Exhibit 4. Similar to the LED display of the RPC-21, the LED of the MSVM
displayed c u r r en t- r elated information, but displayed three different indicators: the LED lit up green w hen
current w as at a normal level, flashed green w hen current almost reached a potentially unsafe level, and lit up
red w hen current exceeded that safe threshold level. Id.
8

The RPC-21 w as advertised as early as October 1999. Doc. #288, Exhibit 13, BayTech October 1999
Press Release; Exhibit 14, BayTech November 1999 Press Releas e. T h e MS VM w as first exhibited at the
Internet Service Provider Tradeshow in October 1999. See Doc. #288, Exhibit 8, McNally Depo., p.77-79.

5

1
2

these designs pre-date the ‘543 patent application of December 8, 2000, by more than one year.
STI concedes that the RPC-21 and MSVM are prior art references for the purpose of the

3

court’s anticipation analysis. Further, the parties do not distinguish between the MSVM and the

4

RPC-21 in addressing APC’s motion. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity, the court will analyze

5

APC’s anticipation arguments using the MSVM design.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

3. Claim Language
Independent claim 1 of the ‘543 patent discloses:
An electrical power distribution plugstrip connectable to one or more electrical loads
in a vertical electrical equipment rack, the electrical power distribution plugstrip
comprising in combination:
A. a vertical strip enclosure having a thickness and a length longer than a width of
the enclosure;
B. a power input penetrating said vertical strip enclosure;
C. a plurality of power outputs disposed along a face of said length of the strip
enclosure, each among the plurality of power outputs being connectable to a
corresponding one of said one or more electrical loads;
D. a plurality of power control relays disposed in said vertical strip enclosure, each
among said plurality of power control relays being connected to said power input
and in independent power controlling communication with one or more
corresponding power outputs among said plurality of power outputs;
E. a current-related information display disposed on said vertical strip enclosure in
current-related information- determining communication with at least one among
said power input and said plurality outputs; and
F. a current-related information reporting system associated with said vertical strip
enclosure and being (i) in current-related information-determining
communication with at least one among said power input and said plurality of
power outputs, and (ii) connectable in current-related information transfer
communication with a separate communications network distal from the
electrical power distribution plugstrip.

19
20

Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 10:57-11:19. Claim 2 is a dependent claim of claim 1 and

21

discloses:

22
23

The electrical power plugstrip of claim 1 further comprising at least one intelligent
power section disposed in the vertical strip enclosure and in which is disposed at least
one of the plurality of power control relays.

24

Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 11:20-24. Claim 3 is a dependent claim of both claims 1

25

and 2 and discloses:

26

6

1
2
3

The electrical power plugstrip of claim 2 further comprising an external power
manager application external to the vertical strip enclosure in network communication
with the intelligent power section disposed in the vertical strip enclosure, whereby a user
of the of the external power manager may control power provided to selectable ones of
said plurality of power outputs.

4

Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 11:25-31. Finally, claim 6 is a dependent claim of claim 1

5

and discloses:

6
7

The electrical power plugstrip of claim 1 wherein the current-related information
display is in current determining communication with all among the plurality of power
outputs through at least one current sensing device.

8

Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 11:45-48.

9

4. Independent Claim 1

10

The plain language of claim 1 requires a power distribution plugstrip with the following

11

limitations: (a) a vertical strip enclosure; (b) a power input; (c) a number of outlets; (d) remotely

12

controllable relays associated with the outlets; (e) a current-related information display; and (f) a

13

current reporting system. See Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 10:57-11:19.

14

In its motion for summary judgment, APC argues that the MSVM includes all these

15

limitations. See Doc. #287. STI concedes that the MSVM meets limitations (a) through (d) of

16

claim 1 but argues that the MSVM does not contain (1) a “current-related information display . . .

17

in current-related information-determining communication” as required by limitation (e); and (2) a

18

network device contained within the vertical strip enclosure as required by limitation (f). See

19

Doc. #301. The court shall address each argument below.

20

a. Current-related Information Display

21

In substance, limitation (e) requires that the device contain a display that conveys current-

22

related information. See Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, claim 1(e). During the claim

23

construction process, the court did not construe the phrase “current-related information-

24

determining communication” because the parties agreed that “current-related information-

25

determining communication” meant “communication in which current is measured.” See Doc. #94,

26

7

1
2

STI’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, p.45-46; Doc. #122, APC’s Response, p.39.
STI now argues that because “current-related information-determining communication”

3

means “communication in which current is measured,” limitation (f) requires that the same

4

measured current information be communicated to the display. STI’s interpretation requires a

5

numerical value that is then transmitted and displayed, which, it argues, can only be accomplished

6

through a digital display. Thus, at its core, STI’s interpretation of limitation (e) requires a digital

7

display. As the MSVM used an LED display which did not, and could not, display a numerical

8

value, STI argues that it cannot anticipate the ‘543 patent.

9

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that,

10

contrary to STI’s arguments, (1) limitation (e) does not require a digital display, and (2) the MSVM

11

contains a “current-related information display . . . in current-related information-determining

12

communication.” First, STI’s interpretation of limitation (e) is in direct contradiction to the court’s

13

claim construction order. In that order, the court found that STI’s interpretation of “current-related

14

information display” to mean a digital display that conveyed a numerical current value was

15

contrary to the plain claim language and specification of the ‘543 patent. See Doc. #163, p. 21-22

16

(“STI’s interpretation is contrary to the terms plain meaning and usage” and “would improperly

17

limit the claim language based on the specification.”).

18

Second, STI’s attempt to salvage its argument by relying on the word “determining” in the

19

claim phrase is equally unavailing. Both claims 1 and 15 of the ‘543 patent require a display in

20

“current-related information-determining communication,” but while claim 1 discloses a display,

21

claim 15 specifically discloses a digital display confirming that the “determining” language is not

22

determinative for claim construction. STI’s attempt to limit claim 1 to require a digital display

23

would render the specific “digital display” language in claim 15 meaningless. See e.g., AllVoice

24

Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc'ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[C]laim

25

differentiation takes on relevance in the context of a claim construction that would render

26

8

1

additional, or different, language in another independent claim superfluous.”).

2

Finally, the court finds that the MSVM’s LED display does, in fact, display determined

3

current information. The crux of STI’s argument is that the only kind of current information that

4

can be determined is a numerical value. However, information other than a numerical value can be

5

“determined.” For example, one can determine whether something is hot or cold, without

6

measuring a precise value of temperature. Similarly, a PDU device can determine that current is

7

high or low, or above or below a certain threshold, and this determined information can then be

8

communicated to an LED display.
Here, it is undisputed that the MSVM’s LED determines and communicates a condition:

9
10

when the PDU is operating in a normal current condition under a pre-programmed threshold value

11

the LED displays a solid green indicator; when the PDU’s current draw is approaching an overload

12

condition the LED displays a flashing green indicator; and when the current level has passed the

13

overload condition the LED displays a solid red indicator. See Doc. #310, Exhibit 6, Bors Depo.,

14

p.47:13-18. Hence, the MSVM measures the level of input current, determines whether the

15

measured input current is above or below a threshold level, and communicates this information to

16

the LED. Based on this function, the court finds that the MSVM displays determined current-

17

related information, and therefore, meets limitation (e) of the ‘543 patent.
b. “Plugstrip”

18

STI also argues that the MSVM does not anticipate claim 1 of the ‘543 patent because it is

19
20

not a “plugstrip” as that term is used and understood in the ‘543 patent. STI contends that claim 1

21

of the ‘543 patent discloses a single piece vertical plugstrip that houses all identified parts

22

including the “current-related information reporting system” disclosed in limitation (f). Because it

23

is undisputed that the MSVM is a two-piece device that has a separate network component for

24

remote communication, STI argues it is not a “plugstrip.” The court agrees.

25

///

26

9

1

Claim 1 discloses “[a]n electrical power distribution plugstrip . . . comprising in

2

combination . . . (F) a current-related information reporting system associated with said vertical

3

strip enclosure . . . .” Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, claim 1. The claim term “comprises” is

4

presumed to mean “includes as a part of.” See Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelecs.

5

Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The transition ‘comprising’ creates a

6

presumption that the recited elements are a part of the [claimed] device. . . .”). Thus, the use of the

7

word “comprising” in claim 1 requires that all the limitations of the claim, including the current

8

reporting system, are contained within the plugstrip.

9

In opposition, APC argues that limitation (f) only requires that the current-related

10

information reporting system be “associated with” the vertical strip enclosure. APC contends that

11

the use of the phrase “associated with” means that the reporting system need not reside in the

12

plugstrip. However, the term “associated with” must be understood in the context of the entire

13

patent. The ‘543 patent as a whole makes it clear that the “plugstrip” is a one-piece, fully-

14

integrated device. First, the patent is entitled “Vertical-Mount Electrical Power Distribution

15

Plugstrip.” Second, the summary of the invention refers repeatedly to the invention as a “power

16

distribution plugstrip.” Third, the specification describes the device as a fully integrated plugstrip.

17

See Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 10:17-18 (“All of PDU is preferably fully integrated

18

within power distribution plugstrip . . . .”). Finally, the design of the plugstrip shown in Figure 1

19

displays a one-piece plugstrip that houses all the design features, including the reporting system.

20

See Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Figure 1. Therefore, the court finds that claim 1 discloses a

21

fully integrated plugstrip that contains the current-related information reporting system.

22

Because the reporting system of the MSVM is an external system connected to the plugstrip

23

by a cable, it is not contained within the plugstrip. As such, the MSVM does not meet

24

limitation (f). Therefore, the MSVM does not contain every limitation of claim 1 and cannot

25

anticipate claim 1 as a matter of law. See Karsten Mfg. Corp., 242 F.3d at 1383 (“[A]ll of the

26

10

1

elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the

2

claim.”). Accordingly, the court shall deny APC’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of

3

anticipation.
5. Remaining Claims

4
5

Claims 2, 3, and 6 of the ‘543 patent are dependent claims of claim 1. Because the court

6

finds that claim 1 is not anticipated by the MSVM as addressed above, these dependent claims are

7

also not anticipated.

8

B. Obviousness

9

In its motion for summary judgment, APC argues that asserted claims 15, 16, and 17 of

10

both the ‘543 patent and ‘771 patent are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically,

11

APC argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined APC’s prior art PDU,

12

the MSVM, with APC’s identified prior art digital displays, United States patents no. 5,650,7719

13

(“the Lee patent”) and 6,476,7291 0 (“the Liu patent”), to arrive at STI’s patented PDU designs in

14

order to alleviate the known problem of alerting an end-user to a current overload condition.1 1 See

15

Doc. #287.

16

In opposition, STI argues that summary judgment is not appropriate because: (1) combining

17

the MSVM with the digital displays disclosed in the Lee and Liu patents does not encompass the

18

design disclosed in independent claim 15; (2) there is a disputed issue of material fact as to

19

whether one skilled in the art would have had a reason to combine the prior art references; and

20

(3) there is sufficient evidence of secondary considerations to support a finding of non-obviousness

21
9

22
23
24
25
26

A copy of the Lee patent is attached as Exhibit 22 the declaration of Kristopher R. Kiel in support of
APC’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. #288, Exhibit 22.
10

A copy of the Liu patent is attached as Exhibit 23 to the declaration of Kristopher R. Kiel in support
of APC’s motion for summary judgment. Doc. #288, Exhibit 23.
11

A current overload condition occurs w hen the level of current w ithin th e PDU begins to exceed a
potentially safe level w hich, if not corrected, w ould lead to a current overload and cause the PDU, and attached
devices to shut dow n.

11

1

on summary judgment. See Doc. #301.

2

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter, as well as the

3

arguments and submissions by counsel at the February 23, 2012 hearing, and finds that there are

4

disputed issues of fact as discussed below precluding summary judgment that claims 15, 16, and 17

5

of the ‘543 and ‘771 patents are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. Accordingly, the court

6

shall deny APC’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.
1. Obviousness Standard

7

Under the Patent Act, a patent may be deemed invalid as a matter of law “if the differences

8
9

between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter

10

as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having

11

ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

12

A patented invention is obvious if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a

13

reason to combine the particular elements or technologies in the way the claimed new invention

14

does. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The mere fact that prior references

15

could be combined to reach the patented design does not render the resultant combination obvious

16

absent a reason to combine the references in such a manner. In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682 (Fed.

17

Cir. 1990). This “apparent reason” can be shown by identifying some teaching, suggestion or

18

motivation in the prior art to combine or modify the prior art in the manner identified in the claims.

19

KRS, 550 U.S. at 418-19. However, an invention is not obvious “where vague prior art does not

20

guide an inventor toward a particular solution.” Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc.,

21

575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). For purposes of summary judgment, the evidence must

22

support particular findings “as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed

23

invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner claimed.” In re

24

Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

25

///

26

12

1

Although the ultimate determination of obviousness under § 103 is a question of law, it is

2

based on several underlying factual findings, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;

3

(2) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention

4

and the prior art; and (4) evidence of secondary factors, such as commercial success, long-felt

5

need, and the failure of others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). A defendant

6

proffering the affirmative defense of obviousness bears the burden to prove the patent is obvious

7

by clear and convincing evidence. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir.

8

2001); see also, Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
2. Prior Art

9
10

For purposes of the present motion, the parties agree that the MSVM, Lee patent, and Liu

11

patent are prior art references to STI’s ‘543 and ‘771 patents. The parties further agree that both the

12

Lee and Liu patents disclose a digital display to measure and display current on a power regulating

13

device.1 2
3. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art

14
15

As stated above, the parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art is one who would

16

have an electrical or computer engineering degree (or the equivalent industry experience) and at

17

least one to three years of experience designing power distribution devices.
4. Claim Language

18
19

Independent claim 15 - and thereby dependent claims 16 and 17 - contains the same

20

limitations identified in claim 1 of the ‘543 patent except claim 15 also requires a digital current

21

information display. Specifically, claim 15 discloses:

22
23
24
25
26

12

The Lee patent, issued in 1997, discloses a design for an electrical socket containing digital displays
to monitor various operating conditions including ambient temperature, voltage, and current. See Doc. #288,
Exhibit 22, Abstract; Figure 1.
The Liu p atent, issued in 2002, discloses a digital display pow er monitoring module that can be
mounted into different types of pow er regulating devices, and measures various electrical parameters including
current. See Doc. #288, Exhibit 23, Col. 1:44-46; Col. 4:47-5:2; Abstract Figure 1 and Figure 3.

13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

An electrical power distribution plugstrip connectable to one or more electrical
loads in a vertical electrical equipment rack, the electrical power distribution
plugstrip comprising in combination:
A. a vertical strip enclosure having a thickness, and a length longer that a width
of the enclosure;
B. a power input penetrating said vertical strip enclosure;
C. a plurality of power outputs disposed along an area on a face of said length
of the strip enclosure, each among the plurality of power outputs being
connectable to a corresponding one of said one or more electrical loads;
D. a plurality of power control relays disposed in said vertical strip enclosure,
each among said plurality of power control relays being connected to said
power input and to one or more corresponding power outputs among said
plurality of power outputs;
E. a digital current information display disposed on another area of said vertical
strip enclosure and adjacent to said plurality of outputs in current-determining
communication with at least one among said power input and said power
outputs; and
F. a plugstrip current reporting system (i) associated with the vertical strip
enclosure (ii) in power information determining communication with at least
one among said power input and said plurality of power outputs, and (iii)
communicatingly connectable with a distal current reporting system through
a communications network external to the electrical power distribution
plugstrip.

13

Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 12:21-50. Claim 16 is a dependent claim of claim 15 and

14

discloses:

16

The electrical plugstrip of claim 15 further comprising at least one intelligent
power section disposed in the vertical strip enclosure and in which is disposed at
least one of the plurality of power control relays.

17

Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 12:51-54. Claim 17 is also a dependent claim of both

18

claims 15 and 16 and discloses:

15

19
20

The electrical power plugstrip of claim 16 further comprising, an external power manager
application external to the vertical strip enclosure in network communication with the intelligent
power section disposed in the vertical strip enclosure, whereby a user of the external power
manager may control power provided to selectable ones of said plurality of power outputs.

21
22

Doc. #288, Exhibit 1, ‘543 patent, Col. 12:55-62.

23

Claims 15-17 of the ‘771 patent are virtually identical to those of the ‘543 patent, except

24

that the ‘771 patent claims are broader in nature in that they are not limited to a “vertical” device.

25

See Doc. #288, Exhibit 47, ‘771 patent, Col. 12:19-57. Because the claims of the ‘771 patent are

26

14

1

broader than those of the ‘543 patent, a finding that the ‘543 patent claims are not obvious

2

necessarily means that those of the ‘771 patent are likewise not obvious. Thus, for purposes of this

3

motion, the court analyzes obviousness with respect to the claims of the ‘543 patent only.

4
5

5. Combined Prior Art
In order for a patented design to be obvious as a matter of law, the combination of all prior

6

art references must include all the limitations of the patented design. See KRS, 550 U.S. at 418-

7

419. As addressed in the previous section on anticipation, the court has found that the MSVM does

8

not contain all the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘543 patent because the MSVM does not contain a

9

current-related information reporting system contained within the vertical plugstrip enclosure. That

10

finding carries over to the court’s analysis of obviousness. Thus, for claim 15 of the ‘543 patent to

11

be obvious, that additional limitation, along with the disclosure of a digital display, must be found

12

in the Lee and Liu patents. Reviewing the Lee and Liu patents, the court finds that neither

13

reference meets the “plugstrip” limitation of claim 1, and thus does not meet the same limitation of

14

claim 15. Because the Lee and Liu patents do not disclose this limitation, combining these

15

references with the MSVM does not reach the patented design of claim 15 of the ‘543 patent.

16

Therefore, the patented design cannot be held invalid as obvious as a matter of law. Accordingly,

17

the court shall deny APC’s motion as to this issue. Nevertheless, the Court will consider the

18

obviousness question in light of the remaining Graham factors.

19

6. Reason to Combine

20

APC argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the identified

21

prior art references in order to solve the known problem of how to alert a user about a possible

22

current overload condition. See Doc. #287. APC contends that during the relevant time period,

23

those skilled in the art were aware of the problem of excessive current levels in a PDU and knew

24

that adding a display showing current output could alert the end user that he was approaching a

25

current overload condition.

26

15

1

It is undisputed that both an LED and a digital display were known design options to those

2

in the art as a way to alert an end user of a possible current overload condition.1 3 However, the

3

relevant question before the court is not whether a digital display was a known option to alert an

4

end-user to a current overload condition as APC contends, but whether one skilled in the art would

5

have had a reason to use a digital display as a design alternative to an LED. See In re Kotzab, 217

6

F.3d at 1371 (holding that for a patent to be obvious, a person of ordinary skill must have had a

7

reason to use a particular component over another). As the problem of alerting an end-user to a

8

current overload condition was already addressed in the market by the use of an LED, for the

9

digital display to be obvious, a person of ordinary skill must have had a reason, articulated by clear

10
11

and convincing evidence, to use the digital display in lieu of an LED.
Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to STI, the court finds that there was

12

no reason a person of ordinary skill would have combined a digital display into a vertical plugstrip

13

solely to alert an end-user of a current overload condition. The evidence before the court

14

establishes that an LED worked better than a digital display for alerting an end-user to a current

15

overload condition. See Doc. #310, Exhibit 14, Rohr Depo., p.296:8-297:7 (testifying that a digital

16

display was too “complex” and that an LED was the “best solution” to providing an end-user with

17

a visual display). In particular, Alex North, the lead engineer at BayTech testified that he believed

18

a display was “worthless” because an LED indicator provided technicians with all of the

19

information required. Doc. #310, Exhibit 12, North Depo., p.72:10-73:13; p.146:17-147:7.

20

Further, the evidence establishes that a digital display was more costly than an LED display to add

21

to a vertical plugstrip and lead to additional unnecessary “complications” in product design.

22
23
24
25
26

13

By its nature, the LED of the MSVM (w hich lights up when a potentially unsafe current level has
been reached) w as directed to address this problem. Further, the Lee patent teaches that the digital display may
be used to alert a user to a potential overload condition. Doc. #288, Exhibit 22, Col.1:42-47 (“The object of the
p r es en t in v ention is to provide an electrical socket with a monitoring unit that is capable of monitorin g
operating conditions of the electrical socket and that can be used to aler t th e us er in the event that a preset
overload condition has been detected to help avert actual occurrent of an overload.”).

16

1
2

Doc. #310, Exhibit 14, Rohr Depo., p.296:8-297:7.
Finally, the evidence establishes that there were no design incentives to incorporate a

3

digital display into a PDU. APC’s expert Douglas Bors, in his export report, stated that there was

4

no need for a digital display because users had acceptable alternative means, including the use of

5

manufacturers’ “name plate” data, to determine appropriate equipment use. Doc. #314, Exhibit 1,

6

Bors Expert Report, § 247. Thus, designers during that time thought the inclusion of a digital

7

display was unnecessary. Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that there is no clear and

8

convincing evidence establishing any reason for a person of ordinary skill to include a digital

9

display in a PDU.

10
11

7. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
Before a court can make a finding of obviousness, and thereby hold a patent invalid, a court

12

must determine whether there are any “secondary considerations” supporting a finding of

13

nonobviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 405 (2007). This is because

14

“[s]econdary considerations ‘may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious

15

in light of the prior art was not.’” Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

16

(quoting Stratoflex, Inc. v. Areoquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Further,

17

“[s]secondary considerations ‘can be the most probative evidence of non-obviousness in the

18

record, and enables the . . . court to avert the trap of hindsight.’” Id. (quoting Custom Accessories,

19

Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 960 (Fed Cir. 1986)); see also, Gambro Lundia AB

20

v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Stratoflex, Inc., 713 F.2d

21

at 1538 (“[O]bjective indicia may often be the most probative and cogent evidence [of non-

22

obviousness] in the record.”).

23

Secondary considerations relevant to an obviousness determination include: commercial

24

success; skepticism in the field; copying by others; meeting a long felt, but unsolved need; and

25

failure by others. See e.g., KRS, 550 U.S. at 405 (commercial success and long felt need);

26

17

1

Metabolite Labs. Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (initial

2

skepticism); Akami Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir.

3

2003) (copying); Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.,

4

617 F.3d 1296, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (affirming non-obviousness based on commercial

5

success, copying by others).

6

In further support of its opposition, STI argues that substantial evidence of secondary

7

considerations establish that adding a digital display to a vertical plugstrip was not obvious. See

8

Doc. #301. In particular, STI focuses on (1) the commercial success of its digital display PDUs; (2)

9

subsequent copying by others, including APC; and (3) a long felt, but unsolved need of knowing

10

the exact measured current value. As addressed below, the court finds that STI’s evidence of

11

secondary considerations supports the court’s finding that claims 15-17 of the ‘543 and ‘771

12

patents are not obvious.

13
14
15
16

a. Commercial Success
Initially, STI argues that the commercial success of its digital display PDUs establishes the
products’ novelty and non-obviousness.
Taken in the light most favorable to STI, the evidence indicates that STI’s digital display

17

PDUs have been commercially successful. First, the combined sales revenue for STI’s PDUs

18

containing a digital display have grown significantly over the last several years since their

19

introduction in 2003. Doc. #13, Exhibit 41, Ewing Decl., ¶14, 17-18. Second, STI’s products have

20

carved out a large market share of the total intelligent PDU market. Id. at ¶21-22 (quoting Frost &

21

Sullivan Award for Product Line Strategy through Competitive Growth Strategy Report).

22

Further, the evidence supports STI’s contention that its commercial success is related

23

directly to the use of a digital display in its PDUs. Id. at ¶ 21 (quoting Frost & Sullivan Award for

24

Product Line Strategy through Competitive Growth Strategy Report) (“Server Technology, Inc.

25

was the first company to bring input current monitoring (ICM) to the market with digital display

26

18

1

indicators built into the Sentry enclosures to report the true RMS input.”).
b. Copying By Others

2

STI also contends that its design of a digital display has now become the industry standard

3
4

in vertical PDUs, further establishing the patented design’s novelty and non-obviousness.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to STI, the court finds that STI’s digital

5
6

display has now become the industry standard. See Doc. #311, Exhibit 1, Mares Decl., ¶23

7

(“[V]ertical PDUs having a local display remote reporting, and switchable output design

8

characteristics have become a de facto standard in the industry.”). Testimony of representatives

9

from both APC and BayTech confirms this fact. APC’s designer, Joe Kramer, testified that he was

10

“not aware of a single competing product” available today without the local current display. Doc.

11

#310, Exhibit 9, Kramer Depo., p.171:5-172:17. Further, BayTech’s lead engineer Alex North

12

testified that having a digital display is standard, and that BayTech “would be at a competitive

13

disadvantage” if it did not have a digital current display. Doc. #310, Exhibit 12, North Depo.,

14

p.239:22-240:4; p.303:8-17.
c. Long Felt, but Unsolved Need

15

Finally, STI argues that its digital display solved the problem of allowing an end-user to

16
17

maximize the capacity of each individual PDU which was a desired outcome. It is undisputed that

18

prior art intelligent PDUs did not provide an end-user with a measured value of how much current

19

was being drawn by the equipment connected to the PDU. It is further undisputed that end-users

20

wishing to maximize PDU efficiency by connecting the maximum amount of equipment into each

21

PDU would have to add pieces individually to see when a current overload condition was being

22

approached. STI argues that its digital display allowed an end-user to locally determine how much

23

current was being used and therefore maximize the total draw of the PDU without overloading the

24

plugstrip and causing the connected equipment to fail.

25

///

26

19

STI argues that at the time it was necessary for end-users to know, particularly in large data

1
2

centers, how much equipment could be connected to an individual PDU to maximize efficiency

3

and save space. Data center technicians using conventional methods without readily visible digital

4

displays would risk making significant and costly errors in determining power consumption and in

5

building data centers. LED displays did not provide this information and discouraged users from

6

adding additional equipment to the racks, whereas digital displays showed exactly how much

7

current was being used. The digital display end user knew how much more current he could draw,

8

and how many more pieces of equipment could be added before reaching an overload condition.

9

The ability to monitor current levels locally allowed users to observe the amount of remaining

10

capacity, and determine actual power consumption of the various network devices and storage

11

equipment.
In short, reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to STI, it appears that only STI

12
13

solved the problem arising from the lack of a digital display: that technicians needed detailed

14

information concerning the amount of current drawn by a PDU displayed directly on the PDU. It

15

appears that STI alone discovered that a current-related information display could be used to

16

maximize rack capacity.

17

C. Patent Non-Infringement

18

In its motion for summary judgment, APC argues that its accused product designs, the

19

AP7900 and AP8900, do not infringe claims 1, 3, and 8 of the ‘461 patent because these designs

20

do not: (1) include a current sensor in communication with a communication bus; (2) display

21

“power-related information;” (3) monitor or display parameters at the “output” level; or (4) include

22

more than one intelligent power section.
In opposition, STI argues that there are disputed issues of material fact concerning the

23
24

accused designs that preclude summary judgment on the issue of non-infringement.

25

///

26

20

1. Patent Infringement Standard

1

A district court analyzes a patent infringement claim in two steps. First, the court construes

2
3

the claims as a matter of law, then the court applies the properly construed claims to the accused

4

invention. K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir.1999); EMI Group N.

5

America, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 157 F.3d 887, 891 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Infringement can occur either

6

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Kahn v. Gen’l Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 147-78

7

(Fed. Cir. 1998). Literal infringement occurs when every limitation set forth in a patent claim is

8

found in an accused product. Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir.

9

1991). The smallest deviation from the literal claim language precludes infringement. Telemac

10

Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Under the doctrine of equivalents, infringement “requires a showing that the difference

11
12

between the claimed invention and the accused product [is] insubstantial.” Sumbo v. Eastman

13

Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air

14

Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950)). This is accomplished by demonstrating on a limitation by

15

limitation basis that the accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially

16

the same way and with substantially the same result as each limitation of the patented product. Id.
2. APC’s Allegedly Infringing Devices

17

APC’s AP7900 and AP8900 product designs are for intelligent PDUs. The AP7900

18
19

product design has been sold since 2003 and the AP8900 product design since 2010. Both designs

20

include a power input, a number of relay controlled outlets, a display, and the ability to remotely

21

monitor and control the devices over a network. But the AP7900 and AP8900 product designs

22

differ with respect to which electric parameters the devices measure and display. The AP7900

23

design measures and displays information solely about current. Doc. #293, Exhibit 45, Horenstein

24

Decl., Exhibit 2 at 16-17. The AP8900 design measures and displays both current and power. Id.

25

///

26

21

3. Claim Language

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Independent claim 1 of the ‘461 patent discloses:
A remotely manageable power management output strip comprising in
combination:
A. a power strip housing;
B. a plurality of power inputs disposed in the power strip housing;
C. a first plurality of power outputs disposed in the power strip housing, each
among the first plurality of power outputs being connectable to one or more
electrical loads external to the power strip housing and connected to a first
power input among the plurality of power inputs;
D. a second plurality of power outputs disposed in the power strip housing, each
among the second plurality of power outputs being connectable to one or
more electrical loads external to the power strip housing and connected to a
second power input among the plurality of power inputs;
E. a communications bus disposed in the power strip housing;
F. a plurality of power control sections disposed in the power strip housing, each
said power control section being in communication with the communications
bus and thereby in power controlling communication with one or more
corresponding power outputs among the first or second plurality of power
outputs;
G. a communications system disposed in the power strip housing, being in
communication with said communications bus, and having a communications
processor system in communication with (i) said communications bus; (ii)
said plurality of power control sections through the communications bus; (iii)
a communications port connectable to an external communications link
external to the power strip housing;
H. a display disposed in the power strip housing in communication with the
communications bus; and
I. a current determining section disposed in the power strip housing in
communication with the communications bus, whereby the current
determining section may communicate power-related information to said
display.

18
19

Doc. #288, Exhibit 2, ‘461 patent, Col. 21:44-22:17. Claim 3 is a dependent claim of claim 1 and

20

discloses:

21
22
23
24
25
26

The remotely manageable power management output strip of claim 1wherein
each among the plurality of power control sections includes a power-on status
determination circuit, whereby the power-on status determination circuit may report
power-on status of said corresponding power output through said communications
bus.
Doc. #288, Exhibit 2, ‘461 patent, Col. 22:24-29. Finally, independent claim 8 discloses:
A remotely manageable power management output strip of the type useable to
remotely control, or assess information relating to, power provided to external
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

electrical loads from a manager location distal from the external electrical loads, the
remotely manageable power management output strip comprising in combination:
A. a power strip housing;
B. a power input disposed in the power strip housing;
C. a plurality of power outputs disposed in the power strip housing, each said
power output being connectable to an electrical load external to the powerstrip housing;
D. at least one intelligent power section disposed in the power strip housing in
power controlling communication with at least one corresponding power
output among said plurality of power outputs;
E. a network communications module (i) having memory and a transfer-controlprotocol/Internet Protocol network interface application system residing in
the memory and providing a web page interface, and (ii) being disposed in the
power strip housing in independent communication with the intelligent power
sections and in communication with at least a first external network
communications port; and
F. a current display mounted in association with the power strip housing in
current-determining communication with at least one among the plurality of
power outputs; whereby an external power manager and the network
communications module may exchange, through the first external network
communications port and an external network link, information relating to the
intelligent power sections in the power strip housing.

12
13
14
15

Doc. #288, Exhibit 2, ‘461 patent, Col. 22:53-23:16.
4. Claim 1
In its motion, APC argues that its AP7900 and AP8900 product designs do not literally

16

infringe claim 1 of the ‘461 patent because these designs do not have a “current determining

17

section” in communication with a “communications bus.” See Doc. #287. APC also argues that the

18

AP7900 design does not literally infringe claim 1 because it does not display power-related

19

information. The court shall address both arguments below.

20
21

a. Current-determining Section
The plain language of limitation (i) of claim 1 requires a current determining section in

22

communication with a communications bus. Doc. #288, Exhibit 2, ‘461 patent, Col. 22:15-17.

23

APC argues that its accused designs do not have a current determining section that is in

24

communication with a communications bus because STI, in its final infringement contentions,

25
26

23

1

identified the current determining section as only the “load sensors” or “load sensing toroids”1 4 of

2

the accused designs. Doc. #290, Exhibit 32 at C-5. It is undisputed that the current sensing toroids

3

are not “in communication” with the communications bus as no information passes directly from

4

the toroids to the communications bus. Therefore, APC argues there is no literal infringement of

5

claim 1.

6

In opposition, STI argues that the accused designs include a “current determining section”

7

in communication with a “communications bus” because the current determining section is more

8

than just the current sensing toroids. STI argues that the current determining section also

9

comprises the signal conditioner, the analog-to-digital converter, and the microprocessor; all of

10

which are housed on the PCB board with the current sensing toroids. STI argues that there is

11

evidence that the PCB board and its components are in communications with the communications

12

bus, and therefore, APC’s accused designs literally infringe claim 1.

13

In reviewing STI’s arguments in opposition, the court finds that STI effectively seeks to

14

amend its final infringement contentions to add these additional components. The Patent Rules

15

allow a plaintiff to modify its infringement theory upon a showing of “good cause.” N.D. Cal.

16

Patent Local R. 3-7 (2001); cf. D. Nev. Patent Local R. 16.1-12 (2011).

17

Here, the court finds that there is no good cause to allow STI to amend its final

18

infringement contentions concerning limitation (i) to include the additional components in the

19

PCB board. First, STI has waited over four years to identify these components as part of the

20

infringing design even though STI knew all of these components were on the PCB board at the

21

time it filed its final infringement contentions. Second, expert discovery has already concluded in

22

this action. Allowing amendment would require also allowing expanded expert discovery and

23

increased litigation costs. Finally, the new components were only identified in response to APC’s

24

motion for summary judgment after STI conceded that the current sensing toroids alone were not

25
26

14

The toroids are the component w ithin the APC designs that senses current.

24

1

in communication with a communications bus and thus, did not infringe claim 1. Therefore, the

2

court finds there is no good cause to allow STI to amend its final infringement contentions

3

concerning claim 1 of the ‘461 patent. As such, the court finds that, as addressed above, APC’s

4

AP7900 and AP8900 product designs do not literally infringe claim 1 of the ‘461 patent.1 5

5

Accordingly, the court shall grant APC’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.
b. Power-related Information1 6

6
7

APC also argues that its AP7900 design does not literally infringe limitation (i) of claim 1

8

because it does not display “power-related information.” The court agrees. It is undisputed that the

9

AP7900 design displays only current-related information. In the court’s claim construction order,

10

the court found that current and power are distinct concepts and that current alone is insufficient to

11

determine power. Specifically, the court construed the terms “power information” from the

12

‘543 patent and “power-related information” from the ‘461 patent to mean “information necessary

13

to quantify or describe power, rather than current alone.” Doc. #163, p. 25. A current only display,

14

as in the AP7900 design, does not meet this limitation. Accordingly, based on the court’s claim

15

construction of these terms, the court holds that the AP7900 design does not infringe claim 1 of the

16

‘461 patent.

17

In opposition, STI argues that the court’s construction of “power information” and “power-

18

related information” should be reconsidered. STI contends that the court’s construction rendered

19

the term “related” in “power-related information” superfluous. In STI’s opinion, once the court

20

construed the term “power information” narrowly, it became necessary to differentiate between the

21

meaning of “power information” and “power-related information.” Construing the two phrases

22
23
24
25
26

15

Because claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, the court’s finding that the AP7900 and AP8900 designs
do not literally infringe claim 1 necessarily means that these designs also do not literally infringe claim 3 of
the ‘461 patent.
16

This section applies only to the AP7900 product as APC concedes that the AP8900 product displays
pow er-related information.

25

1

identically discounts the word “related.” STI concludes that the construction of the term “power-

2

related information” should be revised to mean: “information related to power, namely, at least one

3

of power, voltage or current.”

4

The court disagrees and finds that reconsideration of the court’s claim construction order is

5

not warranted. First, during claim construction proceedings, STI offered the same argument that

6

“power information” and “power-related information” are broad enough to include the concept of

7

current. However, the court rejected that argument. See Doc. #163, p. 25 (“Permitting current

8

information to satisfy the power information limitation” in STI’s claims “would eliminate the

9

distinction suggested by the plain language of the claims.”).

10

Second, in support of its request for reconsideration, STI now asserts that “power

11

information” and “power-related information” must necessarily have a different scope because the

12

word “related” only appears in one of the terms. This position is entirely inconsistent with STI’s

13

position during claim construction. There, STI proposed the same construction for both of these

14

terms, and presented the same analysis treating the terms as identical in scope. See Doc. #163, p.

15

25, fn. 9. Further, STI’s reliance on the word “related” as a basis to expand the scope of “power-

16

related information” would again eliminate the distinction between power and current suggested

17

by STI’s patent claims. As noted above, some of STI’s claims require “current” or “current-

18

related” information, and other claims specifically require “power” or “power-related”

19

information. This language clearly suggests a difference between current and power, whether the

20

claim language at issue is “power” information or “power-related” information, and thus, the term

21

“related” is not determinative of the claims.

22

In light of the above, the court declines to reconsider its earlier claim construction of the

23

terms “power information” and “power-related information.” Therefore, the court finds that the

24

AP7900 design also does not infringe claim 1 of the ‘461 patent because it does not display

25

“power-related information.”

26

26

5. Claim 8

1

In its motion, APC argues that its designs do not literally infringe claim 8 of the ‘461

2
3

patent. Specifically, APC argues that its designs: (1) contain a display of input, rather than output,

4

current; and (2) do not contain “intelligent power sections.” The court shall address each argument

5

below.

6

a. Display of Outputs

7

Limitation (f) of claim 8 discloses in relevant part: “a current display mounted in

8

association with the power strip housing in current-determining communication with at least one

9

among the plurality of power outputs.” Doc. #288, Exhibit 2, ‘461 patent, Col. 23:13-16. Based on

10

the plain language limitation (f) requires that the display communicates with at least one power

11

output. It is undisputed that APC’s accused designs do not communicate with any power output,

12

and instead only display total input current. Accordingly, the court finds that the accused products

13

do not literally infringe claim 8 because they do not have a current display “in current-determining

14

communication with at least one among the plurality of power outputs the output.”

15

In opposition, STI argues that even though the accused designs do not literally infringe

16

limitation (f), the accused designs infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. See Doc. #301. The

17

equivalent at issue here is whether a display in current determining communication with the power

18

input is equivalent to communication with at least one of the power outputs.

19

The function of limitation (f) is to display the amount of current flowing to the connected

20

devices. There is evidence that the APC designs display total aggregate current being used by the

21

PDU. See Doc. #310, Exhibit 3; Doc. #309, Exhibit 9. That is the same function served by

22

limitation (f). There is also evidence before the court that APC’s designs serve that function in

23

substantially the same way as described in claim 8. See Doc. #320, Exhibit 15, Aucoin Decl., ¶ 45.

24

Even though APC’s designs measure aggregate input current, that measured value, minus some

25

negligible draw from internal parts, is equal to the aggregate output current flowing to the

26

27

1

connected devices. Id. at ¶¶ 41-43. Thus, the result of both designs is that a user has a measured

2

value of all current flowing to the connected devices. Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.
Applying the doctrine of equivalents to this claim, and viewing the evidence in the light

3
4

most favorable to STI, the court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning

5

whether the APC accused products infringe limitation (f). Accordingly, the court shall deny APC’s

6

motion for summary judgment as to this issue.
b. Intelligent Power Sections

7
8

When the ‘461 patent issued, limitation (e) and (f) required a design that included

9

“intelligent power sections.” See Doc. #288, Exhibit 2, ‘461 patent, Claim 8(e) and (f). The court

10

construed “intelligent power section” to require a microcontroller and associated outlet/relays

11

combinations. See Doc. #163. It is undisputed that APC’s designs only contain a single

12

microcontroller and therefore, do not include “intelligent power sections” as required by

13

limitations (e) and (f). Thus, the court finds that the AP7900 and AP8900 designs do not literally

14

infringe claim 8 of the ‘461 patent.
In opposition, STI argues that a certificate of correction, issued by the patent office on April

15
16

10, 2007, revised limitations (e) and (f) to require only a single “intelligent power section.” The

17

Federal Circuit has held that the issuance of a certificate of correction applies only to causes of

18

action that accrue after the certificate issues. Southwest Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc., 226 F.3d

19

1280, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“for causes arising after the PTO issues a certificate of correction, the

20

certificate of correction is to be treated as part of the original patent-i.e., as if the certificate had

21

been issued along with the original patent.”). But,“each act of infringement gives rise to a separate

22

cause of action.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C., 525

23

F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, STI seeks to revise its final infringement contentions

24

regarding claim 8 to refer to the revised language in the certificate of correction issued on the ‘461

25

patent.

26

28

1

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that

2

there is not good cause to allow STI to amend its final infringement contentions to include the

3

revised language of claim 8. The court notes that STI was obligated to amend its pleadings to

4

assert the ‘461 patent as corrected or in some way alert APC and the Court that it was proceeding

5

under the patent as corrected as soon as the certificate of correction was issued. See LG Elecs., Inc.

6

v. Quanta Comp., Inc., 566 F. Supp. 910, 912-13 (W.D. Wis. 2008) (“any certificate of correction

7

[patentee] received from the patent office would not be effective for the purpose of enforcement

8

unless it filed a new lawsuit or amended its complaint”). In LG Electronics, the court refused to

9

allow a patentee to raise a corrected version of the patent in light of the fact that the plaintiff

10

waited three months after it had received a Certificate of Correction and raised the corrected

11

version of the patent three days before the deadline for filing summary judgment motions.

12

Here, STI’s actions are even more egregious in that it failed to raise its corrected claim at

13

any point during the four years of this litigation, and did so only in response to APC’s motion for

14

summary judgment. Indeed, at no point in this litigation did STI seek to amend its complaint to

15

add the altered ‘461 patent to the list of STI patents asserted against APC even though STI filed an

16

amended complaint after having the certificate of correction issued. See Doc. #185. Rather, in

17

litigating this case between 2007 and 2011, STI consistently asserted only the original claim 8 and

18

completely ignored the revised claim 8. For example, STI relied on the original claim 8 in its

19

pleadings (Doc. ##21, 185), its claim construction documents (Doc. #94, Exhibit C, original

20

‘461 patent), its preliminary and final infringement contentions (Doc. #284, App. 48 at “Exhibit

21

C,” p. 5-7; Doc #290, Ex. 32 at “Exhibit C,” p. 10-11), and even in the exhibits that STI presented

22

to the court in support of its own motion for summary judgment (Doc. #281, App. 16, original

23

‘461 patent).

24

Thus, the court finds that STI relied on the original claim 8 throughout this litigation. There

25

is no good cause to allow STI to amend its contentions after more than four years of litigation. To

26

29

1

allow STI to raise the revised claim 8 in this litigation at this stage, and solely in response to a

2

motion for summary judgment, would be fundamentally unfair and prejudicial to APC. Thus, the

3

court holds that STI is precluded from relying on the corrected claim 8 language in this litigation

4

and the court shall deny STI’s request to amend its final infringement contentions to add in the

5

revised claim 8 language.
Because it is undisputed that APC’s accused designs do not have “intelligent power

6
7

sections,” APC is entitled to summary judgment that the AP7900 and AP8900 designs do not

8

literally infringe limitations (e) and (f) of claim 8 of the ‘461 patent. Accordingly, the court shall

9

grant APC’s motion for summary judgment on this issue.

10
11

III.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the court finds: (1) that asserted claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the ‘543 patent are

12

not invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102; (2) that asserted claims 15, 16, and 17 of both the

13

‘543 patent and the ‘771 patent are not invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103; (3) that the

14

AP7900 and AP8900 designs do not literally infringe claims 1 and 3 of the ‘461 patent; and

15

(4) that the AP7900 and AP8900 designs do not literally infringe claim 8 of the ‘461 patent.

16
17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. #287) is GRANTED in-part and DENIED in-part in accordance with this order.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 28th day of September, 2012.

21
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26

30