Illumination Management Solutions, Inc. v. Ruud Lighting, Inc.
Filing
341
ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 10/31/12 granting 161 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Noninfringement; this Order is limited to devices in Defendants series 77x and 83x optics, thus Plaintiffs claims of infringement as to the 73x series remain viable. See Order. (cc: all counsel) (nm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ILLUMINATION MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-CV-34-JPS
v.
RUUD LIGHTING, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This action, filed by plaintiff Illumination Management Solutions, Inc.
(“IMS”), alleges two counts of patent infringement and one count of civil
conspiracy against defendant, Ruud Lighting, Inc. (“Ruud”). (Docket #1 and
#89). Currently before the court is Ruud’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment of Noninfringement (“Noninfringement Motion”) (Docket #161).
When evaluating a claim of patent infringement, the court engages in
a two-step process. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The first step is to
construe any disputed terms of the patent claims, and the second step is to
compare the claims, once properly construed, with the accused device. Id.
Claim construction is a question of law for the court, id. at 979, while
comparison of the construed claims to the accused device is typically an issue
of fact for a jury. Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In this case, the first step of this process is complete, as the court decided the
construction of disputed claim terms on June 8, 2012. (“Claim Construction
Order”) (Docket #147).
With the benefit of the parties’ submissions on the Noninfringement
Motion, it is apparent to the court that one of the definitions from the Claim
Construction Order requires further clarification. This Order thus revisits the
June 8, 2012 Claim Construction Order, and then resolves Ruud’s
Noninfringement Motion.
First, a brief review of the background facts of the case and the June
8, 2012 Claim Construction Order. IMS is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos.
7,674,018 (“the ‘018 patent”) and 7,993,036 (“the ‘036 patent”), both entitled
“LED Device for Wide Beam Generation.” The ‘018 and ‘036 patents assert
claims requiring a “lens” or a “lens means”1 that is “optically coupled” to a
light source, typically an LED. See ‘018 patent, claims 1, 50, and 51; ‘036
patent, claims 6 and 19. In its claim construction briefing, the parties disputed
what it means for a lens and light source to be “optically coupled.” Ruud
advocated for a construction of “optically coupled” as a lens “positioned to
directly receive light, or receive light via an index-matching material, such
that no substantial air gap is present relative to the light source.” Ruud’s
Opening Claim Construction Memorandum (Docket #114) at 14. IMS first
suggested that construction of the term was unnecessary, but alternatively
proposed a broader definition that a lens is “optically coupled” to a light
source if it is “arranged to receive light from a light source.” IMS’s Initial
Claim Construction Brief (Docket #117) at 16. The court, considering these
arguments and the patents’ claims and specifications, determined that the
term “optically coupled” as used in the patents means “positioned to directly
1
The term “lens means” appears only in the ‘018 patent. “Lens means” and
“lens” will be collectively referred to as “lens” for purposes of this Order.
Page 2 of 15
receive light such that no substantial air gap is present relative to the light
source.” Claim Construction Order at 14.
The purpose of claim construction in a patent case is to “determin[e]
the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.”
Markman, 52 F.3d at 976. “The court must properly interpret the claims,
because an improper claim construction may distort the infringement [ ]
analys[is].” Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Barnes-Hind/Hydrocurve, Inc., 796
F.2d 443 (Fed. Cir.1986)). It is apparent from the filings submitted by both
parties regarding the Noninfringement Motion that the use of the adjective
“substantial” to modify the noun “air gap” lacks sufficient precision to
“determin[e] the meaning and scope” of “optically coupled.” In its
Noninfringement Motion, Ruud interprets the claim construction as follows:
under the Court’s construction, a lens may be optically coupled
if the air gap is eliminated—or virtually eliminated—by the use
of an optical coupling gel or other index-matching material, or
by molding the lens directly over the LED
or—theoretically—by any other material or method that might
eliminate this air gap. But elimination—or virtual
elimination—of the air gap is required under the Court’s
construction.
Brief in Support of Noninfringement Motion (“Motion Brief”) (Docket #162)
at 13. With this argument Ruud endeavors to construe the construction to
read the prohibition of a “substantial air gap” as a requirement of
“elimination—or virtual elimination—of the air gap.” Ruud offers a
definition of “substantial air gap” as “an air gap that is larger than the
wavelength of light emitted by the light source.” Motion Brief at 18. The
Page 3 of 15
justification of this definition is the elimination of “optical discontinuity,”2
which Ruud contends is fundamental to the patents’ teachings.
IMS’s
Response
rejects
Ruud’s
position
regarding
optical
discontinuity. On one hand, IMS contends that the disagreement over what
constitutes a “substantial air gap” presents a question of fact for the jury.
Response (Docket #167) at 16. On the other hand, while not directly urging
the court to adopt a more specific definition of “substantial air gap,” IMS
contests Ruud’s motion by citing analysis from its expert that considers what
IMS terms the “efficiency impact of the air gap.” Response at 15.
Fundamental to IMS’s argument is the idea that the air gaps in Ruud’s optics
are not substantial because Ruud’s optics are efficient.
“District courts may engage in a rolling claim construction, in which
the court revisits and alters its interpretation of the claim terms as its
understanding of the technology evolves.” Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake
Enters., Inc., 302 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Sofamor Danek Group,
Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). It is evident
from the parties’ briefing that the current construction of the term “optically
coupled” has added a layer of contention, rather than clarifying the scope of
the patent for comparison to Ruud’s devices. It is also evident that the
parties’ divergent views are fundamental to their arguments on the
Noninfringement Motion. Therefore, rather than muddle through the
pending motions for summary judgment with imprecise claim construction,
2
IMS’s expert, Dr. Mistrick, defines optical discontinuity as “additional
losses from those surfaces that lie on either side of the air gap.” Mistrick Report
(Docket #165-7) ¶ 56.
Page 4 of 15
the court opts to “revisit[] and alter[]” the claim construction for this term.
Id.
Contrary to IMS’s position, the parties’ disagreement does not
automatically constitute a question of fact that must be decided by the jury.
Quite the opposite: claim construction is a question of law, and “the court has
the power and obligation to construe as a matter of law the meaning of
language used in the patent claim.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. Having
concluded that the court’s June 8, 2012 Claim Construction Order does not
adequately fulfil this obligation, the court now revisits its construction of the
claim “optically coupled” as utilized in the patents.
1.
Legal Standards: Claim Construction
The Federal Circuit’s seminal opinion on claim construction is Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Phillips recognizes that the issue
of claim construction breaks down into two scenarios: those that involve
“little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
commonly understood words[,]” and those that involve “examination of
terms that have a particular meaning in a field of art.” Id. at 1314. For the
former scenario, Phillips advises that “general purpose dictionaries may be
helpful.” Id. For the latter scenario, Phillips advises use of “‘the words of the
claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history,
and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning
of technical terms, and the state of the art.’” Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water,
Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
The words of the patent's claims are given their ordinary and customary
meaning that would have been attributed to them by a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
Page 5 of 15
“Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to
the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Id. at 1321.
2.
Analysis: Claim Construction
The term “optically coupled” appears several times in IMS’s patents.
Claim 1 of the ‘018 patent is representative of the use of the phrase, and
recites: “An apparatus for illuminating a selected surface with an
illumination pattern comprising: a light source […]; and lens means optically
coupled to the light source…” ‘018 patent, col. 19 at 22-26 (spacing modified;
emphasis added). The specification describes the invention as having lens
surfaces that are “optically closely coupled to the LED source and ideally
have no air gap or at least no substantial air gap between the LED and [lens
surface].” ‘018 col 13 at 14-18. Considering this description of the invention,
and hereby incorporating the reasoning from the original Claim Construction
Order, the court concludes that the requirement that the patented devices
have “no air gap or at least no substantial air gap” supports two conclusions:
(1) that the lens and light source may have at a minimum no substantial air
gap between them; and (2) that this requirement applies not only to a
preferred embodiment, but to the invention in its entirety. Claim
Construction Order at 13-14.
The parties have divergent views regarding when an air gap
separating a lens and light source is substantial enough that the lens and light
source are not “optically coupled” for purposes of the patent. Ruud notes
that the patents repeatedly teach two ways of preventing losses or refraction:
(1) bonding the light source and lens with an optical coupling gel or an
Page 6 of 15
index-matching material;3 or (2) integrally manufacturing the lens and light
source to be the same piece.4 The patent explains that this “optical coupling”
prevents any intervening air gap “from causing any losses or providing any
refraction.” ‘018 col.11 at 6-10. Citing these passages, Ruud argues that the
patents teach that an air gap is substantial if it is large enough to cause losses
or refraction.
IMS cites the report from its expert witness, Dr. Mistrick, for support
that the air gaps in the Ruud devices are not substantial. Response at 13-18.
The main portions of Dr. Mistrick’s analysis discuss the efficiency of the
3
See, e.g., ‘018 col. 11 at 6-10 (“In this embodiment the hemispherical cavity
is filled with a material whose index of refraction matches that of the protective
dome of the LED to virtually eliminate the cavity defining interior surface of dome
from causing any losses or providing any refraction.”); col. 9 at 31-34 (“In the
preferred embodiment of the invention the lens is 'glued' to the original LED
protective cover with an index matching material so as to virtually eliminate the
seam between the two.”); col. 5 at 66 to col. 6 at 3 (“In one embodiment the lens is
separate from the LED and is glued, affixed or disposed on the light source or
original LED protective dome with an index matching material so as to virtually
eliminate the seam or any optical discontinuity between the two”); and col. 13 at 2732 (“LED emitter is disposed approximately at the center of the hemispherically
shaped surface of FIGS. 7 and 8, which matches the shape of dome. LED package
and the device are optionally bonded with an index matching material at surface
of lens and the dome of the LED package.”) (internal references to element
numbers omitted).
4
See, e.g., ‘018 col. 13 at 32-37 (“It is contemplated by the invention that the
device be incorporated in the production of the LED package in an alternate
embodiment whereby the manufacturer of the LED does not bond a separate lens
to the LED; however, the lens of device is the protective dome of the LED package
itself.”) (internal references to element numbers omitted).
Page 7 of 15
devices.5 IMS’s Response Brief summarizes Dr. Mistrick’s opinion as follows:
“Through his analyses, Dr. Mistrick determined that the air gaps between the
LED domes and the inner surfaces of Ruud’s 73x, 77x and 82x series lenses
do not contribute substantially to the losses of flux through the lenses.”
Response at 13. Thus, IMS argues that because Ruud’s devices are efficient
devices, the air gap is insubstantial and the lenses are optically coupled to the
light sources.
Ruud argues that IMS’s efficiency analysis is irrelevant because “the
patents do not teach, much less claim, an ‘efficient’ optic with or without an
air gap.” Motion Brief at 14. Instead, Ruud argues, the patents “only teach
one cause of and manner of addressing inefficiency—that the presence of an
air gap leads to inefficiency, and that the way you deal with that inefficiency
is to eliminate (or at least virtually eliminate) the gap.” Motion Brief at 14.
Considering these two arguments, the court agrees with IMS’s
assessment that, “both sides agree that the impact on efficiency is a
consideration in determining whether an air gap is substantial.” Response at
16. Efficiency of the devices is fundamental to IMS’s analysis, and Ruud’s
5
Dr. Mistrick concludes from the “geometry” of the devices that they
“allow[] substantially all the light from the LED to be corrected by the nano optic
and subsequently refracted into the beam at the exterior surface of the nano optic.”
Mistrick Report (Docket #165-7) ¶ 52. Dr. Mistrick then states that the conclusion
is confirmed by Ruud's “IES” files of photometric analyses for the lenses at issue,
and by deposition testimony from Kurt Wilcox, the designer of Ruud’s products.
Mistrick Report ¶¶ 53-55. Dr. Mistrick opines that the air gap’s contribution to loss
of flux is not substantial because the light that would be lost due to refraction are
is “eventually refracted into the beam.” Mistrick Report ¶ 56. Mistrick further
opines that the gap is insubstantial because it does not cause transmission losses or
create a path for substantial quantities of light to avoid striking the lens. Mistrick
Report ¶ 57. Dr. Mistrick opines that many of the losses from Ruud lenses appear
to be caused by the outside lens surface. Mistrick Report ¶ 58.
Page 8 of 15
standard considering optical discontinuity ultimately describes losses (which
are inefficiencies). In the court’s view, the real dispute can be framed as
whether the lens is a consideration in determining whether an air gap is
substantial. That is, by IMS’s proposed “efficiency impact” standard, the data
relevant to determining whether or not an air gap is substantial quantifies the
efficiency of the entire device; by Ruud’s proposed optical continuity
standard, the relevant data is the measurement of the air gap alone.
The court concludes that Ruud’s proposed definition incorporating
consideration of optical discontinuity to the construction of “optically
coupled” accurately reflects the teachings of the patents-in-suit. First, the
court returns to the principal passage on air gaps, which describes the
invention as follows:
In the present inventions [lens] surfaces are near field surfaces
in that they are optically closely coupled to the LED source and
ideally have no air gap or at least no substantial air gap
between the LED and the [lens] surface.
‘018 col. 13 at 15-19 (internal references to element numbers omitted). This
passage is describing distances, not efficiency. The parties acknowledged as
much when they submitted proposed constructions of “near field” during the
initial claim construction briefing.6 Moreover, Ruud is entirely correct that
the patents teach integral manufacturing or using a coupling gel to achieve
a “seamless” connection to prevent optical discontinuity. There is no
6
IMS suggested that “near field” means “close enough to the light source that
the rays entering the lens and passing through the lens must be considered to be
coming from different directions.” IMS's Initial Claim Construction Brief (Docket
#117) at 14 (emphasis added). Ruud suggested, and the court adopted, a definition
of “near field” as “very close to the light source which is not separated from the light
source by a substantial gap.” Ruud's Opening Claim Construction Memorandum
(Docket #114) at 16 (emphasis added).
Page 9 of 15
embodiment of the patent that suggests manipulating the inner surface of the
lens to achieve efficiency. The court, therefore, concludes, as a matter of
law, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made, upon considering the entire patent, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321, would
have understood the term “optically coupled” to mean “positioned to
directly receive light, such that no air gap causing optical discontinuity is
present relative to the light source.” The court agrees with Ruud that this
construction reflects an understanding of the “entire patent,” Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1321, and limits “the asserted patents to the only mechanisms of
improving efficiency that are actually described and claimed therein.”
Motion Brief at 19.
IMS objects to constructing “optically coupled” as requiring optical
continuity on the ground that it “would require an invention that is virtually
impossible to manufacture in the real world.” Response at 3. IMS points to
an embodiment of the invention generally denoted in the ‘018 patent by
reference numeral 10, and depicted in figures 21-26. Response at 7. This
embodiment comprehends the existence of an air gap in its non-ideal form.
Figure 24 of the ‘018 patent is briefly described as “a side plan view of the
embodiment of the invention […] showing in phantom outline the LED on
which the lens of the device is mounted.” ‘018 col. 8 at 10-12. Figure 24 is
described in greater detail as follows:
In FIG. 24, interface 62 between dome 19 and lens 21 is utilized
if the lens 21 is a molded optic separate from the LED. […]
Interface 62 is comprised of the two mating surfaces of the LED
dome 19 and the inside of the lens 21. It would be most
desirable if the interface were bonded with an index matching
cement or a thixtropic index matching material were retained
in interface 62.
Page 10 of 15
‘018 col. 15 at 48-56. The patent’s embodiment thus comprehends the
existence of an air gap, in the instance where the “lens is a molded optic
separate from the LED” and the “most desirable” arrangement whereby the
interface is bonded with index matching material is not utilized.
IMS contends that the application of Ruud’s proffered claim
construction to this embodiment would require that the air gap (interface 62)
be small enough that it does not result in optical discontinuity, and that such
a device would be impossible to manufacture. Response at 3. IMS encourages
the court to consider the real-world implications of such construction,
citing Talbert Fuel Sys. Patents Co. v. Unocal Corp., 275 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (vacated and remanded on other grounds 537 U.S. 802 (2002)) (“a
construction that renders the claimed invention inoperable should be viewed
with extreme skepticism.”).
First, the Federal Circuit has clarified that the above-quoted statement
from Talbert “refers to a construction that would render all embodiments of a
claimed invention inoperable, not a construction that might cover some
inoperable embodiments.” Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1174
(2008) (emphasis added). The construction does not render all embodiments
inoperable, and in fact preserves the embodiments that are described
consistently and repeatedly throughout the patent: integrally manufacturing
the lens and LED dome as the same piece, or bonding the two pieces using
an optical coupling gel. Indeed, the description cited by IMS encourages the
use of a coupling gel, stating that “[i]t would be most desirable if the
interface were bonded with an index matching cement or a thixtropic index
matching material were retained in interface 62.” ‘018 col. 15 at 53-56.
Page 11 of 15
Second, judging the evidence before the court, the parties appear
to agree that manufacturing such a device would be difficult, but not
impossible. IMS’s expert, Dr. Mistrick, opined that manufacturing such a
device would be “virtually impossible,” but did not state it would actually
be impossible. See PF ¶ 10. Ruud’s expert, Mr. Falicoff, conceded that it
would be “difficult” and likely expensive, but testified that it would not be
impossible. See PF ¶ 10.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, the court concludes, as a matter of
law, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made, upon considering the entire patent, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321, would
have understood the term “optically coupled” to mean “positioned to
directly receive light, such that no air gap causing optical discontinuity is
present relative to the light source.”
3.
Legal Standards: Motion for Summary Judgment
Having properly constructed the claim, the court now considers
Ruud’s Noninfringement Motion.
The general standard for assessing
motions for summary judgment applies, namely: “The court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
247-48 (1986). “Material facts” are those under the applicable substantive law
that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A
dispute over a “material fact” is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
When evaluating a claim of patent infringement, the court engages in
a two-step process. Markman, 52 F.3d at 976. The first step is to construe any
Page 12 of 15
disputed terms of the patent claims, and the second step is to compare the
claims, once properly construed, with the accused device. Id. It is well within
the purview of the district court to decide the question of infringement short
of trial, and the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly emphasized that ‘summary
judgment is as appropriate in a patent case as in any other.’” Avia Group Int'l,
Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., 853 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed.Cir.1988) (citations). “Summary
judgment of noninfringement may only be granted if, after viewing the
alleged facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and drawing all
justifiable inferences in the nonmovant's favor, there is no genuine issue
whether the accused device is encompassed by the patent claims.” Novartis
Corp. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir.1999)).
4.
Analysis: Motion for Summary Judgment
4.1
The Structure of Ruud’s Devices
IMS alleges that optics in three series of Ruud products (series 73x,
77x, and 82x) infringe on its patents. Proposed Facts (“PF”) (Docket #206)
¶ 16. In its Noninfringement Motion, Ruud contends that two of its allegedly
infringing product lines, the 77x and 82x models,7 do not infringe on IMS’s
patents because the gap between the light source and lenses result in optical
discontinuity and are, therefore, not “optically coupled” as the term is used
in the patents. The structure of Ruud’s optics is undisputed. Ruud’s 77x
series optics include a lens with intricate internal surfaces that are exposed
7
Ruud concedes that the lens and light source in the 73x series devices are
“optically coupled.” PF ¶ 22. The 73x series is designed so that the internal cavity
of the lens has the same shape as the LED package over which it is placed. PF ¶ 19.
Ruud admits to filling the air gap between the lens and the LED package with
optical coupling gel. PF ¶ 20.
Page 13 of 15
by the air gap between the LED package and the lens.8 PF ¶ 25. These
internal surfaces are able to reflect and redirect light from the light source. PF
¶ 26. Similarly, Ruud’s 82x series optics include an air gap and reflective
surfaces internal to the device. PF ¶ 31. Ruud does not use an optical
coupling gel or any other mechanism to fill the air gap between the light
source and the internal surface of the lenses for these two series of optics. PF
¶ 34. The parties describe the size of the air gaps in Ruud’s optics with
respect to the wavelength of light emitted by the light source, in this case,
LEDs. PF ¶ 36. It is undisputed that the gaps in Ruud’s devices are
exponentially larger than the wavelength of light from the LED light source.
PF ¶ 58. The wavelengths of light emitted from the LEDs used by Ruud in
the 77x and 82x optics range from 400 to 750 nanometers. PF ¶ 54. The air
gaps in the optics range from 0.002 inches to 0.312 inches, or 100 times to
nearly 20,000 times the wavelength of the LED light. PF ¶ 55, ¶ 57.
4.2
Comparison of the Constructed Patent Claim to Ruud’s
Devices
Applying the properly-constructed claims to the undisputed structure
of Ruud’s devices, it is obvious that Ruud’s series 77x and 82x devices do not
infringe the patents-at-suit because the lens and light source are not
“optically coupled.”
8
The parties dispute the import of Ruud’s advertisements for “direct contact
refractors,” both citing PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Ruud correctly states that the court in PharmaStem concluded that
advertisements did not provide a proper basis for a finding of infringement. Motion
Brief at 17. In rebuttal, IMS accurately recites the very next paragraph of the
opinion, which states that admission of advertisement as evidence is not prohibited
in an infringement case. Response at 16. The court concludes that this dispute does
not constitute a “genuine issue of material fact” because there is no dispute that
Ruud’s actual devices utilize lenses that are not in direct contact with the LED.
Page 14 of 15
Though the parties dispute the precise point at which an air gap
results in optical discontinuity, definition of this exact point is unnecessary
to the resolution of Ruud’s motion. Dr. Mistrick, IMS's expert, opines that
“even air gaps less than the wavelength of light will result in reflected light
energy.” Mistrick Report ¶ 56. Ruud has offered opinions from two experts
on this point; Dr. Miñano testified that discontinuity results in any air gap
larger than one wavelength of light, and Mr. Falicoff believes the cut off
to be at a distance of less than a half-wavelength. By any of those standards,
the air gap between the light source and lens in Ruud’s 77x and 82x series
optics results in optical discontinuity because the gaps are at least 100 times
the wavelength of the LED light. PF ¶ 57. Thus, no reasonable jury could
conclude that Ruud’s 77x and 82x series optics are“encompassed by the
patent claims” Novartis, 271 F.3d at 1046, and Ruud is entitled to summary
judgment of noninfringement.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Ruud’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
of Noninfringement (Docket #161) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
This Order is limited to devices in Ruud’s series 77x and 83x optics, thus
IMS’s claims of infringement as to the 73x series remain viable.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 31st day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 15 of 15
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?