EPOS Technologies Ltd. v. Pegasus Technologies Ltd.
916 F. Supp. 2d 88
D.D.C.2013Background
- EPOS Technologies sued Pegasus to declare noninfringement or invalidity of six patents; Pegasus counterclaims for infringement and joined Luidia and Dane-Elec entities.
- Court conducted Markman claim construction in 2011, constraining terms including drawing implement, intermittent, temporary attachment, and marking implement.
- EPOS moved for summary judgment arguing noninfringement; Pegasus opposed arguing literal infringement or infringement under doctrine of equivalents.
- Court held EPOS products do not infringe any asserted Pegasus claims across the ‘565, ‘742, ‘371, ‘330, ‘461, and ‘051 patents, granting EPOS partial summary judgment and dismissing counts V–VIII without prejudice as moot.
- Dane-Elec (Dane-Elec Memory and related entities) is found not to infringe, and the court will enter judgment in Dane-Elec’s favor on the record.
- The court declined to consider validity issues as moot and denied Pegasus’s related inequitable conduct motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infringement of the ‘565 patent, claim 1 | Pegasus contends EPOS products meet drawing implement and time interval limitations. | EPOS products meet the Court’s construed terms and thus infringe. | EPOS does not infringe |
| Infringement of the ‘742 patent (claims 2–8) | Pegasus argues corresponding claims cover EPOS devices via drawing implement and time interval. | With same constructions as ‘565, no infringement for ‘742 claims. | EPOS does not infringe |
| Infringement of the ‘371 patent (intermittent signal) | Pegasus asserts EPOS’s ultrasound signaling is intermittent as claimed. | EPOS signals are continuous; not intermittent under construction. | EPOS does not infringe |
| Infringement of the ‘330 patent (given frequency) | EPOS uses a spectrum that could fall within “given frequency.” | Court construed given frequency as a specific frequency; EPOS operates across a range. | EPOS does not infringe |
| Infringement of the ‘461 and ‘051 patents (marking/attachment features) | Pegasus argues EPOSs infringe retrofittable apparatus claims via marking/attachment. | Construction and evidence show noninfringement for marking/temporary attachment. | EPOS does not infringe |
Key Cases Cited
- SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (summary judgment standard and infringement burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine dispute of material fact necessary for trial)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (claim construction is a matter of law)
- Conroy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (patentee must prove infringement by showing each claim element)
- Planet Bingo, LLC v. GameTech Int'l, Inc., 472 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (doctrine of equivalents limits cannot erase claim limitation)
- Warner–Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1997) (doctrine of equivalents scope)
- London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (limits of the doctrine of equivalents)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard.)
- Mantech Envtl. Corp. v. Hudson Envtl. Servs, Inc., 152 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (summary judgment appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact)