St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. C.A. Nos. 04-1436-LPS, 06-404-LPS, 08-371-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2012).

of 31
8 views
PDF
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD; MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JVC AMERICAS CORPORATION; NOKIA CORPORATION; NOKIA, INC.; HEWLETT- PACKARD COMPANY, Defendants. ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PALM, INC.; KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION; KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; VNIT AR CORPORATION; PETTE
Document Share
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYCONSULTANTS, INC.,Plaintiff, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,LTD; MATSUSHITA ELECTRICCORPORATION OF AMERICA;JVC AMERICAS CORPORATION; NOKIACORPORATION; NOKIA, INC.; HEWLETTPACKARD COMPANY,Defendants.ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYCONSULTANTS, INC.,Plaintiff, v. PALM, INC.; KYOCERA WIRELESSCORPORATION; KYOCERACOMMUNICATIONS, INC.; VNIT AR CORPORATION; PETTERS GROUPWORLDWIDE, L.L.C.; POLAROID CONSUMER :ELECTRONICS, L.L.C.; POLAROID HOLDINGCOMPANY; POLAROID CORP.; HTC CORPORATION; H.T.C. (B.V.I..) CORP.; HTC AMERICA, INC.,Defendants.C.A. No. 04-1436-LPSC.A. No. 06-404-LPS  ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYCONSULTANTS, INC.,Plaintiff, v. RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD.;RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.,Defendants.C.A. No. 08-371-LPSFrederick L. Cottrell, III, Chad M. Shandler, Laura D. Hatcher, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER P.A., Wilmington, DE; George H. Seitz, II, Jared Thomas Green, Patricia McGonigle,SEITZ VAN OGTROP & GREEN, P.A., Wilmington, DE; R. Terrance Rader, Charles W.Bradley, Glenn E. Forbis, RADER FISHMAN & GRAUER PLLC;Attorneys for Plaintiff.Jack B. Blumenfeld, Julia Heaney; MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,Wilmington, DE; Robert F. Perry, Alexas D. Skucas, Allison H. Altersohn, Susan A. Kim; KINGAND SPALDING LLP, New York, NY,Attorneys for Defendants Nokia Corporation & Nokia, Inc.Richard L. Horwitz, David E. Moore, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington,DE; Charlene M. Morrow, FENWICK & WEST LLP, Mountain View, CA; Heather N. Mewes,David D. Schumann, Bryan A. Kohm, Jeffery V. Lasker, FENWICK & WEST LLP, SanFrancisco, CA,Attorneys for Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company.John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, SHAW KELLER LLP, Wilmington, DE; David C. Doyle, M. Andrew Woodmansee, Philip A. Morin, Greg Riley, Christian Andreu-von Euw, MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, San Diego, CA,Attorneys for Defendant Kyocera Wireless Corp. & Kyocera Communications, Inc.John G. Day, Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Caroline Hong, ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE;Thomas G. Pasternak, Huan-Yi Lin, STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Los Angeles, CA,Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corporation, H.T.C. (B.V.I.) Corporation, and HTC America, Inc.Collins J. Seitz, Jr., SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, DE; John G. Day, ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE; Kevin F. Brady, CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ, Wilmington, DE; William F. Lee, Dominic E. Massa, Christopher R. Noyes, WILMERHALE, Boston, MA,Attorneys for Defendants Research In Motion Corp. and Research In Motion, Ltd.March 26, 2012Wilmington, Delaware MEMORANDUM OPINION  t~P.~ STARK, U.S. District Judge: Pending before the Court are Defendants' motions for summary judgment (C.A. No. 04-1436 D.I. 1071, 1072; C.A. No. 06-404 D.l. 775,778, 781; C.A. No. 08-371 D.l. 482) and St.Clair's motion to supplement expert reports (C.A. No. 04-1436 D.I. 1086; C.A. No. 06-404 D.I.792; C.A. No. 08-371 D.I. 487). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grantDefendants' motions for summary judgment and deny St. Clair's motion to supplement. I. BACKGROUNDA. Roberts Patents These related actions 1 were filed by Plaintiff St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants,Inc. ( St. Clair ) alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,138,459 (' 459 patent ); 6,094,219( '219 patent ); 6,323,899 (' 899 patent ); 6,233,010 ( '010 patent ) (collectively, the Robertspatents ) by Defendants Palm, Inc. ( Palm ), Kyocera Communications, Inc., Kyocera WirelessCorporation (together, Kyocera ), Nokia Corporation, Nokia, Inc. (together, Nokia ), HewlettPackard Company ( HP ), HTC Corporation, H.T.C. (B.V.I.) Corporation, HTC America, Inc.(together, HTC ), Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research in Motion Corporation (together, RIM ) (collectively, Defendants ). The Roberts patents share a common specification thatdescribes an electronic still camera that selectively formats the compressed digital image to acompatible format for either the IBM Personal Computer and related architectures or the AppleMacintosh PC architecture as selected by the operator. ('459 Patent, Abstract) The commonspecification explains that the user select[ s] the desired PC format (IBM PC/Clone or AppleMacintosh, etc.) and the image is formatted into either an IBM PC/Clone (such as GIFF) or 1 The related actions are C.A. No. 04-1436, C.A. No. 06-404, and C.A. No. 08-371. 1  Apple Macintosh (such as PICT II) image file format. ('459 patent col.4 11.168-col.5 11.4, col.6 11.42-45) Each claim St. Clair asserts against Defendants includes a limitation requiring the abilityto format an image in a plurality of what are referred to in the claims as data formats, fileformats, or computer formats (herein, collectively referred to as plurality of different dataformats ). 2 B. Related Proceedings and Federal Circuit Appeal Litigation over the Roberts patents has been ongoing for more than a decade. St. Clairfiled suit in this Court against Sony in 2001, alleging infringement ofthe Roberts patents. InSeptember 2002, Judge Farnan held that the plurality of different data formats terms did notrequire correspondence with different manufacturers' computers but, instead, covered any two arrangement[ s] of digital data in a file, provided that each format was read by differentapplication software. See St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Sony Corp., 2002WL 31051605, at *2-3 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2002). The Sony case was eventually settled and,consequently, there was no appeal of the Sony claim construction order. In 2003, St. Clair sued Canon and Fujifilm, among others, alleging infringement ofthe Roberts patents. See St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon, Inc., 2004 WL 1941340, at * 1 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2004 . The parties disputed whether the claims were limitedto formats relating to different computer architectures (e.g. formats for IBM or Apple computers) 2 The exact terms used in the asserted claims are: (1) plurality of different data formatsfor different types of computer apparatus ('459 patent, claim 16); (2) plurality of different datafile formats for different types of computer apparatus (' 219 patent, claim 10); (3) plurality of computer formats ('010 patent, claim I); and (4) plurality of computer image file formats ('899 patent, claim 3).2
Similar documents
View more...
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x