SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al
Filing
1249
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - The Court finds that the defendants have not proven by clear and convincing evidence that SynQor committed prosecution laches during prosecution of the applications in the patents-in-suit. Thus, the Court finds that the patents-in-suit are not invalid or unenforceable and therefore rules in favor of SynQor. The Court DENIES SynQors requests for attorneys fees and costs relating to the equitable issues in this case. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 7/13/11. (ehs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
SYNQOR, INC,
v.
ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.
§
§
§ CASE NO: 2:07-CV-497-TJW-CE
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
INTRODUCTION
In this case, Plaintiff SynQor, Inc. (―SynQor‖) obtained a jury verdict of infringement
against Defendants Artesyn Technologies, Inc. and Astec America Inc. (collectively ―Astec‖);
Bel Fuse, Inc. (―Bel Fuse‖); Cherokee International Corp. and Lineage Power Corporation
(collectively ―Lineage‖); Delta Electronics, Inc. and Delta Products Corp. (collectively ―Delta‖);
Murata Electronics North America, Inc. and Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (collectively
―Murata‖); Murata Power Solutions, Inc. (―MPS‖); and Power-One, Inc. (―PowerOne‖)(collectively ―Defendants‖) with respect to various claims of the patents-in-suit. (See Dkt.
No. 889, Jury Verdict). The jury failed to find invalidity of any of the patents-in-suit.
In the Joint Pretrial Order, certain defendants presented two equitable defenses,
prosecution laches1 and inequitable conduct. On March 24, 2011, the court scheduled a bench
trial regarding equitable issues for April 1, 2011. On March 28, 2011, Lineage and the Fish
Defendants2, the only defendants asserting inequitable conduct, moved the Court to dismiss their
1
Lineage/Cherokee, Artesyn/Astec, and Bel Fuse did not specifically plead the affirmative
defense of ―prosecution laches.‖ (Dkt. No. 437 at 9; Dkt. No. 438 at 9; Dkt. No. 522 at 29; Dkt.
No. 588.) Lineage/Cherokee and Artesyn/Astec merely asserted ―laches‖ (Dkt. No. 437 at 9;
Dkt. No. 438 at 9; Dkt. No. 522 at 29), but only ―prosecution laches‖ was included in the Joint
Pretrial Order. Bel Fuse did not even assert laches. (Dkt. No. 588.)
2
―Fish Defendants‖ refers to Defendants Delta Electronics, Inc., Delta Products Corp., Murata
Electronics North America, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Murata Power Solutions, Inc.,
inequitable conduct claims. (Dkt. Nos. 1081 and 1089.) In addition, the Fish Defendants and
Lineage requested that the Court decide the prosecution laches issue on the papers and cancel the
hearing set for April 1, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 1081 at 3; 1089 at 1.) The Court granted the motion to
dismiss the inequitable conduct claims and canceled the hearing. (Dkt. Nos. 1093, 1095, and
1097.) The parties then submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the
prosecution laches issue, making it the only remaining equitable defense in this case. (Dkt. Nos.
1090, 1091, and 1092.) The Court has carefully considered the facts and arguments presented
and the applicable law in this case. For the following reasons, the Court finds that the defendants
have not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable or
invalid, and therefore rules in favor of SynQor.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Prosecution laches is an equitable doctrine that may be applied to bar enforcement of
patent claims following ―an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution,‖ even if the
applicant technically complied with all pertinent statutes and rules. Symbol Techs., Inc. v.
Lemelson Med., 422 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Aristocrat Tech. Australia Pty., Ltd. v.
Int’l Game Tech., 543 F.3d 657, 664 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Symbol, 422 F3.d at 1385, and
noting that ―prosecution irregularities‖ is distinct from ―prosecution laches‖ and that
―[p]rosecution laches stems not from any procedural lapse or irregularity during prosecution, but
rather from an abuse of statutory provisions that results, as a matter of equity, in an unreasonable
and unexplained delay in prosecution.‖). The Federal Circuit has cautioned that prosecution
laches is a tool that has been used sparingly and ―should be applied only in egregious cases of
and Power-One, Inc. These defendants are represented by the law firm Fish & Richardson P.C.
and have been referred to by the parties as the Fish Defendants.
2
misuse of the statutory patent system.‖ Symbol, 422 F.3d at 1385. Courts have employed the
doctrine of prosecution laches to a patent very infrequently.
There are two elements to a prosecution laches defense. First, the defense requires proof
of an ―unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution that constitutes an egregious misuse of
the statutory patent system under the totality of the circumstances.‖ Cancer Research Tech. Ltd.
v. Barr Lab., Inc., 625 F.3d 724, 728 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Second, the defense requires proof that
the defendants were prejudiced by the unreasonable and unexplained delay. Cancer Research,
625 F.3d at 729 (―We agree with Cancer Research that prosecution laches‘ requirement of an
unreasonable and unexplained delay includes a finding of prejudice, as does any laches
defense.‖) (citing A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1028 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). ―[T]o establish prejudice an accused infringer must show evidence of intervening rights,
i.e., that either the accused infringer or others invested in, worked on, or used the claimed
technology during the period of delay.” Id.
In addition, ―there are no strict time limitations for determining whether continued
refiling of patent applications is a legitimate utilization of statutory provisions or an abuse of
those provisions.‖ Symbol, 422 F.3d at 1385. The Federal Circuit has explained that there are
legitimate grounds for refiling a patent application, such as to file a divisional application in
response to a requirement for restriction, to present evidence of unexpected advantages of an
invention when that evidence may not have existed at the time of an original rejection, or to add
subject matter in order to attempt to support broader claims as the development of the invention
progresses. Id. Even in the absence of these reasons, one may still refile an application as long
as the refiling is not ―unduly successive or repetitive.‖ Id. By contrast, ―refiling an application
solely containing previously-allowed claims for the business purpose of delaying their issuance
3
can be considered an abuse of the patent system.‖ Id. The Federal Circuit has explained that
―[t]aken singly, the delay in the prosecution on any one particular application will surely not
appear to merit relief by the courts in equity. On the other hand, an examination of the totality of
the circumstances, including the prosecution history of all of a series of related patents and
overall delay in issuing claims, may trigger laches.‖ Id. at 1385-1386.
III.
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
laches.
Defendants argue that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable based on prosecution
The patents-in-suit claim priority to a 1997 provisional application but were not
themselves filed until 2004 or later. Defendants contend that SynQor intentionally delayed the
prosecution of the patents-in-suit in order to incorporate the activities of the marketplace into its
patents. As further explained below, the Court disagrees with the defendants‘ view of the facts
and the law.
A.
2.
The Patents-in-Suit
The five patents-in-suit3 all claim priority to U.S. Provisional Application
60/036,245 filed by Dr. Schlecht in 1997. (PTX17 at SYN00852307.) In 1998, Dr. Schlecht
filed his first utility application based upon and claiming priority to the 1997 provisional
application. (PTX19 at SYN00851715.) As can be seen from a comparison of these two
documents, the 1998 utility application largely mirrored the disclosure of the 1997 provisional
application, with some additional exemplary embodiments of the previously disclosed inventions
enumerated.
3.
The ‗190 patent issued in 2006 from an application filed in 2004. (PTX1.) The
‗034 patent issued shortly thereafter in 2007 from an application filed in 2006. (PTX2.) The
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,072,190 (―the ‗190 patent‖) (PTX1), 7,269,034 (―the ‗034 patent‖) (PTX2),
7,272,021 (―the ‗021 patent‖) (PTX3), 7,558,083 (―the ‗083 patent‖) (PTX5), 7,564,702 (―the
‗702 patent‖) (PTX4).
3
4
‗083 and ‗702 patents both issued in 2009 from applications filed in 2007. (PTX4, PTX5). Each
of the aforementioned applications were continuations of the 1998 utility application and claimed
priority to the 1997 provisional application. (PTX1 at (60), PTX2 at (60), PTX4 at (60), PTX5 at
(60).) Dr. Schlecht is the sole named inventor for the ‗190, ‗034, ‗083, and ‗702 patents. (PTX1
at (75), PTX2 at (75), PTX4 at (75), PTX5 at (75).)
4.
The ‗021 patent issued in 2007 from an application filed in 2006. (PTX3.) This
application was a combination of the disclosures of Dr. Schlecht‘s 1997 and 1998 applications
and Dr. Richard Farrington‘s 2002 provisional application and the 2003 utility application (U.S.
Application No. 10/729,430, filed December 5, 2003) claiming priority to it. (Id. at (60).) Dr.
Schlecht and Dr. Farrington are the named inventors. (Id. at (75).) The ‗021 patent claims
priority to Dr. Schlecht‘s 1997 provisional application and Dr. Farrington‘s 2002 provisional
application. (Id. at (60).) The 2002 provisional application incorporates the contents of U.S.
Patent No. 5,999,417 (―the ‘417 patent‖) that issued from the 1998 utility application by
reference. (PTX20 at SYN00852349.)
5.
The ‗190, ‗021, and ‗702 patents are generally directed to isolated, unregulated
converters with various characteristics used to power two or more non-isolated, regulated stages
or converters in what is known as an unregulated intermediate bus architecture (unregulated
IBA). These isolated, unregulated converters are known today as unregulated or fixed ratio bus
converters, and the two or more non-isolated stages/converters are commonly called point of
load converters or POLs. The isolated, unregulated converters are called bus converters because
they provide an intermediate voltage to other power converters—the POLs—that in turn power
logic circuitry (also referred to as loads) on printed circuit boards (also called load boards). The
‗083 patent is directed at just the isolated, unregulated bus converter itself with characteristics
5
that make it suitable for unregulated IBA. The fifth patent (the ‗034) is directed at what is
known as semi-regulated IBA. (See, e.g., 12/13/2010 Afternoon Tr. at 11:19-13:11, 14:4-15:11,
40:7-52:25, 54:17-61:23 (Dr. Schlecht explaining that his claimed inventions are directed to
unregulated and semi-regulated IBA); 12/14/2010 Afternoon Tr. at 97:7-18 (Mr. Ballenger
agreeing that SynQor‘s patents are directed to unregulated and semi-regulated bus converters that
are used to provide voltage to two or more non-isolated regulated converters and that this
architecture is referred to as IBA); 12/17/2010 Afternoon Tr. at 39:12-21 (Mr. McAlexander
agreeing that some of SynQor‘s claims were directed to semi-regulated IBA and some were
directed to unregulated IBA); id. at 51:24-54:2 (agreeing that as the word IBA has come to be
used it refers to one isolating non-regulating converter that feeds multiple non-isolated regulated
converters and discussing the benefits and commercial success of IBA).)
6.
At trial, defendants bore the burden of persuading the jury, by clear and
convincing evidence, that the patents-in-suit are not entitled to claim priority to Dr. Schlecht‘s
1997 and 1998 applications. Defendants failed to meet this burden. The jury concluded that
each of the patents-in-suit met the written description requirement. (See Dkt. 889 at 32 (special
verdict form on written description).)
B.
Dr. Schlecht’s Prosecution Strategy was Grounded in Legitimate Business
Reasons and Not an Egregious Abuse of the Patent System.
7.
Given the breadth of the 1997 and 1998 applications, SynQor embarked on a
patent strategy to protect its inventions. But, as Dr. Schlecht noted at trial, SynQor was a startup company with limited resources that had to prioritize which patent claims to pursue at which
times:
Q.
How did you decide what patent claims to pursue
first?
6
A.
Every time you pursue a set of claims in a patent, it
takes a certain amount of resource to do that. Certainly, it takes
my time, and I usually was doing this all the time.
It also takes money for the lawyer who is prosecuting these
patents and for the Patent Office. So as a startup company, we had
limited resources of both time and money, and we devoted
ourselves to a priority of which of the inventions that were
described in this teaching document in this specification, which
ones to pursue claims for in some priority.
(12/13/2010 Afternoon Tr. at 27:2-14.)
8.
As Dr. Schlecht further testified, SynQor chose to pursue patent claims at around
the same time they were introducing, and the marketplace was adopting, specific products that
were embodiments of those claims:
And the priority I chose was to prioritize based on the kinds
of products that we were making and the acceptance of those
products in the marketplace. So, for instance, as I mentioned, we
started by making converters that used a two-stage approach that
both regulated and isolated. And that‘s what we were selling to the
marketplace and what they were initially accepting. And so we
pursued claims associated with that.
As that patent then issued, we would pursue other sets of
claims on other related inventions that are described here, again,
always with priorities.
(Id. at 27:15-28:1; see also generally id. at 25:14-29:23.)
9.
Defendants cross-examined Dr. Schlecht on his motivations for filing his various
applications in the order in which he did, and Dr. Schlecht elaborated on SynQor‘s rationale for
pursuing patent claims:
A startup company doesn‘t make money right away in the
beginning. And so it‘s -- the issue that I think is being addressed
here is not how much revenue we have but what our profits are.
And it was very difficult, as we were starting up and trying to build
the company and spend the money on the things we needed to
spend it on, to keep our nose above water, if you will, to try to not
lose money.
7
And so every penny counted. We ran our company,
SynQor, from the very first day, watching every single penny and
making sure we didn‘t spend anything we didn‘t have to spend
right at that time.
And then, of course, the other thing to mention here is, we
were filing many other patents, including one on bus converters,
unregulated bus converters, prior to that date.
(Id. at 159:6-23.)
10.
SynQor did, in fact, pursue this strategy.
Before SynQor filed the 2004
application that resulted in the ‗190 patent, it filed applications based on the same 1997/1998
disclosures in 1998, 1999, 2001, and 2003 resulting in patents issuing roughly every two years
between 1999 to 2004. (See, e.g., PTX1 at (60); see also U.S. Patent Nos. 5,999,417 (PTX18)
(issued 1999), 6,222,742 (Dkt. No. 1091-5) (issued 2001), 6,594,159 (Dkt. No. 1091-6) (issued
2003), and 6,731,520 (Dkt. No. 1091-7) (issued 2004).) SynQor also had other families of patent
applications it was pursuing, in addition to those depending from the 1997/1998 applications.4
11.
Further, given the continuous allowance and issuance of patents between 1998
and 2004, it is also clear that SynQor and Dr. Schlecht did not unreasonably prolong the
prosecution of claims once the claims were allowed by the examiner. Dr. Schlecht did not
abandon his applications and continuously re-file the same claims in order to extend the time the
applications were pending before issuance. Each issued patent between the time the ‗417 patent
issued in 1999 and the ‗520 patent issued in 2004 had discrete sets of claims. (See PTX18 at col.
17, ln. 15 – col. 22, ln. 18; Dkt. No. 1091-5 (‗742 patent) at col. 17, ln. 15 – col. 18, ln. 65; Dkt.
4
See also U.S. Patent Nos. 6,545,890 (Dkt. No. 1091-8) (filed 2000, issued 2003), 6,894,468
(Dkt. No. 1091-9) (filed 2000, issued 2005), 6,577,109 (Dkt. No. 1091-10) (filed 2001, issued
2003), 6,927,987 (Dkt. No. 1091-11) (filed 2002, issued 2005), 6,896,526 (Dkt. No. 1091-12)
(filed 2003, issued 2005), 7,050,309 (Dkt. No. 1091-13) (filed 2003, issued 2006), and 7,085,146
(Dkt. No. 1091-14) (filed 2003, issued 2006).
8
No. 1091-6 (‗159 patent) at col. 17, ln. 22 – col. 18, ln. 57, and Dkt. No. 1091-7 (‗520 patent) at
col. 17, ln. 21 – col. 18, ln. 65.)
12.
As for the defendants‘ assertions that he tailored his claims to their products, Dr.
Schlecht testified that he did not specifically draft the claims at issue to cover defendants‘
products:
Q. Okay. Let me change to a different topic. When you
wrote the claims that you‘re asserting in this case, your intention
was to cover the Defendants‘ bus converters; isn‘t that right?
A. No. The intention was to, with the claims, describe the
invention that I had created.
(12/14/2010 Morning Tr. at 57:11-16.)
13.
Dr. Schlecht‘s testimony also contradicts the defendants‘ suggestion that he did
not file the applications that led to the patents-in-suit until he saw defendants making substantial
sales. According to Dr. Schlecht:
Q. Now, the Defendants were making much out of the fact
yesterday that you did not file the ‗190 patent earlier than you did.
So I‘d like to go back to that, if I could, okay?
A. All right.
Q. Now, they seemed to suggest that you sat back and
watched lots of sales of unregulated bus converters being made
between 2002 and 2004. What, in fact, was happening in the
marketplace during those years?
A. In fact, the sales did not really pick up for unregulated
bus converters, as far as my understanding of it, until the year 2006
and later.
During the -- if I remember, the ‗190 patent claims were
filed in the 2005 timeframe, a year earlier than that. And during
that period there and in 2004 and before, people were still adopting
the idea of unregulated bus architecture. They were designing
them. They were qualifying things in, but they had not yet reached
a point, as far as I understand, where they were buying a great deal
of them.
9
As that began to become apparent it was going to happen,
as these people were -- these customers were qualifying parts in,
that‘s when I began to understand that the idea had been adopted,
and there was going to be a good market for it. And based on my - my approach to prioritizing the patent, that‘s when I decided to
file the patents in 2005.
(12/14/2010 Afternoon Tr. 17:20-18:22.)
14.
Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving the defense of prosecution
laches. The Court finds Dr. Schlecht‘s testimony regarding the timing of the prosecution of the
patents-in-suit credible, and that he and SynQor did not unreasonably delay prosecuting the
patents-in-suit.
15.
The Court further finds that the defendants failed to present sufficient evidence of
prejudice from the alleged delay. SynQor filed routine continuation applications, as permitted by
the statutory patent system, and was active in pursuing claims as its product line evolved. Any
―delay‖ was based on legitimate business and financial reasons and was not an egregious misuse
of the patent system that renders the patents unenforceable. In sum, Dr. Schlecht‘s and SynQor‘s
prosecution strategy for the patents-in-suit did not result in unreasonable delay and did not
constitute an egregious abuse of the patent system.
C.
16.
There was No Unreasonable Delay.
There is no evidence of an unreasonable delay. The jury concluded that the
patents-in-suit satisfied the written description requirement and were all entitled to a 1997 and/or
1998 priority date. (See Dkt. 889 at 32 (special verdict form on written description).) At trial,
SynQor also presented evidence explaining the timeline on which Dr. Schlecht chose to
prosecute his patent applications. (12/13/2010 Afternoon Tr. at 25:14-29:23, 159:6-23.) As a
startup company, SynQor had limited resources and had to prioritize which claims to pursue at
which times. (Id. at 27:2-14, 159:6-23.) As various patents would issue, SynQor would move
10
on to pursue the next set of claims related to the products it was selling substantial volumes of at
the time. (Id. at 27:15-28:1.)
17.
Defendants have presented no evidence showing that this type of strategy is
unreasonable. This is not the type of situation shown in Symbol where the patentee intentionally
kept valid claims from issuing in order to prolong the life of his patents. Symbol, 422 F.3d at
1385-86.
18.
Further, defendants cannot point to any ―unexplained gap‖ in the overall
prosecution in the priority chain.
From 1997 to 2004, SynQor continuously filed patent
applications. The longest any application was in the Patent Office prior to issuance was 27
months.
Defendants have produced no evidence that any of these time periods were
unreasonable in light of typical practices before the Patent Office.
Additionally, SynQor
obtained patents based on their other priority chains in this period. SynQor was not sitting on its
hands.
19.
In an effort to support their defense, defendants essentially argue that Dr. Schlecht
―lied in wait‖ while the market copied his invention. The Court disagrees and finds that Dr.
Schlecht did not specifically draft patent claims to cover defendants‘ products. (12/14/2010
Morning Tr. at 57:11-16.) Instead, his focus was on writing patent claims covering SynQor‘s
products and their uses. When it became apparent that the unregulated and semi-regulated bus
architecture that Dr. Schlecht taught the market was being adopted, SynQor focused its next set
of claims from the broad disclosure of the 1997/1998 applications on SynQor‘s bus converters
and the IBA systems utilizing them.
20.
Even if Dr. Schlecht drafted patent claims to cover the defendants‘ products, this
would not by itself require a finding of prosecution laches. There is nothing unusual or improper
11
about drafting claims to cover a competitor‘s product, as long as there is a basis in the pending
application. See Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 874 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) (―[T]here is nothing improper, illegal, or inequitable in filing a patent application for
the purpose of obtaining a right to exclude a known competitor's product from the market,‖);
PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chemical Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (―While it is
legitimate to amend claims or add claims to a patent application purposefully to encompass
devices or processes of others, there must be support for such amendments or additions in the
originally filed application.‖). This is not the type of ―egregious‖ misuse of the patent system the
doctrine of prosecution laches was designed to remedy.
21.
The broad disclosure in the 1997/1998 applications set the table for all future
claims in that family, and SynQor chose to pursue claims in that family in line with the types of
products that it was currently manufacturing and the market was adopting in volume. There is
no evidence in the record indicating that such a strategy is unreasonable. SynQor presented
ample evidence that Dr. Schlecht and SynQor chose to file the continuation applications at issue
over the course of a number of years because of legitimate business and financial reasons. The
timetable on which Dr. Schlecht and SynQor filed the applications that led to the patents-in-suit
was neither unreasonable nor unexplained. Accordingly, the Court holds that the defense of
prosecution laches is not appropriate in this case.
D.
22.
There is a Lack of Sufficient Evidence of Prejudice.
Defendants‘ prosecution laches defense thus also fails for lack of sufficient
evidence of prejudice, an essential element of the defense. In response to SynQor‘s Interrogatory
No. 16, each defendant provided purported reasons for the unreasonableness of the supposed
12
delay.5
But not a single defendant identified any evidence of prejudice in its interrogatory
responses. Moreover, the defendants elected not to proceed with a bench trial on equitable issues
after the Court scheduled a hearing. There is a lack of sufficient evidence in the record that any
defendant has been prejudiced by any purported ―delay.‖
23.
The Court has considered the totality of the circumstances in this case and finds
that defendants have not met their burden of proving that there was an unreasonable delay by
SynQor in the prosecution of the applications of the patents-in-suit. SynQor has provided
reasonable explanations for its prosecution strategy. In summary, the defendants have not shown
why SynQor‘s actions are to be considered an abuse of the patent system or are so egregious as
to invoke the doctrine of prosecution laches. Symbol, 422 F.3d at 1385. The Court finds that this
is not a case where there was ―an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution.‖ Id.
Further, the Court also finds that the defendants have not proven that they have been prejudiced
by any actions of SynQor. Thus, the Court finds that the patents-in-suit should not be held
unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches. The Court also finds that SynQor‘s
requests for attorneys‘ fees and costs relating to the equitable issues in this case should be
denied.
Murata Elecs. N. Am, Inc. & Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.‘s Third Suppl. Answer to
SynQor, Inc.‘s Interrog. No. 16 to Defs. (Jan. 9, 2009) (Dkt. No. 1091-16) at 10-11; Murata
Power Solutions, Inc.‘s Third Suppl. Answer to SynQor, Inc.‘s Interrog. No. 16 to Defs. (Jan. 9,
2009) (Dkt. No. 1091-17) at 10-11; Power-One, Inc.‘s Second Suppl. Answer to SynQor, Inc.‘s
Interrog. No. 16 to Defs. (Jan. 9, 2009) (Dkt. No. 1091-18) at 10-11; Delta Elecs., Inc. & Delta
Prods Corp.‘s Third Suppl. Answer to SynQor, Inc.‘s Interrog. No. 16 to Defs. (Jan. 9, 2009)
(Dkt. No. 1091-19) at 10-11; Def. Bel Fuse Inc.‘s Suppl. Objections and Answers to Pl‘s.
Interrog. Nos. 4 & 11-18 (Nov. 17, 2009) (Dkt. No. 1091-20) at 39, 41-42; Artesyn Techs., Inc.‘s
Eighth Suppl. Responses to SynQor‘s First Set of Interogs. to Defs. (Aug. 23, 2010) (Dkt. No.
1091-21) at 55; Astec Am., Inc.‘s Eighth Suppl. Responses to SynQor‘s First Set of Interogs. to
Defs. (Aug. 23, 2010) (Dkt. No. 1091-22) at 53-54; Lineage‘s & Cherokee‘s Joint Further Suppl.
Responses to SynQor‘s Interog. Nos. 3-4, 10, 14, 16-19, 22, 24, 24, 26, & 28-29 (Aug. 23, 2010)
(Dkt. No. 1091-23) at 22-23.
5
13
24.
The Court makes these findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 52. The Court‘s findings of fact are based on the admissible evidence. Any finding of
fact that is actually a conclusion of law should be treated as such. Any conclusion of law that is
actually a finding of fact should be treated as such.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the defendants have not proven by clear and convincing evidence
that SynQor committed prosecution laches during prosecution of the applications in the patentsin-suit. Thus, the Court finds that the patents-in-suit are not invalid or unenforceable and
therefore rules in favor of SynQor. The Court DENIES SynQor‘s requests for attorneys‘ fees
and costs relating to the equitable issues in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2011.
__________________________________________
T. JOHN WARD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?