I hate to interupt the proxy issues here. However, isn't anyone concerned over this filing for summary judgement made by Barco. They are asking that the court end this case now.
See details below:
Barco moves herein for summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 Patent”) pursuant to Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc., 442 F. 3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In Exigent, the Federal Circuit held that a party seeking summary judgment of noninfringement need not present evidence of noninfringement. Instead, a party may move for summary judgment of noninfringement by stating the limitations that are not met by its product, pointing out how they are not met, and stating that the patent holder does not have evidence of infringement: “[W]e conclude that nothing more is required than the filing of a summary judgment motion stating that the patentee had no evidence of infringement and pointing to the specific ways in which accused systems did not meet the claim limitations.” 442 F. 3d at 1308-09. In this motion, Barco does precisely what is set forth in Exigent. Barco states that TPL will not be able to establish that any accused Barco product infringes any claim of the ‘336 patent. Specifically, as more fully set forth herein, each claim of the ‘336 patent requires a microprocessor with a variable speed clock, and the accused microprocessors in Barco’s products lack a variable speed clock. Further, Barco states that the clocks in the accused products are fixed, not variable, and are thus the opposite of what the claims require.
3. TPL’s Contentions Are Speculative And Conclusory Rather Than Factual. TPL’s contentions are also deficient because they ask the Court to assume that limitations are present without showing where the accused devices contain them. As a glaring example, for the limitation of an “entire ring oscillator variable speed system clock” (or “entire variable speed clock”) of asserted claims12 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13-16, the contentions are devoid of any showing of a variable speed clock in any of the accused products.
11. TPL does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a current controlled oscillator would form a variable speed clock that varies due to the operating voltage of the integrated circuit as required by the claims. TPL’s contentions that rely on such speculation are inadequate to resist a motion for summary judgment. The co-inventor of the ‘336 Patent, Charles Moore, admitted that it is not possible to tell from the mere presence of a phase-locked loop (PLL) if a circuit contains the on-chip clock of the invention: Exh. Q, Dep. Of Charles Moore, TPL v. Matsushita, 2-05CV-494 (TJW).
V. CONCLUSION
Barco submits that it has established it is entitled to summary judgment on two bases: under the approach set forth in Exigent, and by reason of the inadequacy of TPL’s infringement contentions. Accordingly, Barco respectfully requests that this Court enter summary judgment of noninfringement of the ‘336 patent in favor of Barco.
