IPS GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. DUNCAN SOLUTIONS, INC., et. al, Defendants.
Case No.: 15-CV-1526-CAB-(MDD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 1, 2017
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
[Doc. Nos. 136, 173, 176, 178, 188, 189]
Before the Court is Defendants Duncan Solutions, Inc. and Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,595,054. The moving defendants (collectively “Duncan”) assert that Plaintiff IPS Group, Inc., cannot establish that at least four of the claim limitations of the ‘054 pаtent are present in the accused Liberty parking meter. [Doc. Nos. 176 and 189, (184-1 sealed version)]. The motion has been fully briefed [Doc. Nos. 206 (221 sealed version), 230 (235 sealed version)], and the Court heard argument on November 9, 2017. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
The ‘054 рatent relates to single bay parking meters. [Doc. No. 34-1.] The meter device of the invention is solar powered and is capable of accepting payment by cash and non-cash means such as a credit or debit card, Smart card, smart phone, or electronic tag
Plaintiff IPS Group, Inc. (“IPS”) alleges Duncan’s meters infringe claim 1 of the ‘054 patent. Claim 1 covers:
A parking meter device that is receivable within a housing base of a single space parking meter, the parking meter device including:
a timer;
a payment facilitating arrangement operable in cooperation with a non-cash payment medium for effecting pаyment of a monetary amount for a parking period;
a display configured to visually provide a balance remaining of the parking period;
a power management facility that supplies power to the timer, payment facilitating arrangement, and display;
a wireless communications subsystem configured to receive information relating to the non-cash payment medium in respect of the payment facilitating arrangement;
a keypad sensor that receives input comprising manipulation by the user;
a coin slot into which coins are inserted for delivery to the cоin sensor and then to a coin receptacle; and
a lower portion and an upper portion;
wherein the keypad sensor operates the parking meter and determines parking time amount for purchase in accordance with the received input from the user;
wherein the display provides the amount of time purchased in response to the received input from the user; wherein the upper portion of the parking meter device includes a solar panel that charges the power management facility;
wherein the lower portion of the parking meter device is configured to have a shape and dimensions such that the lower portion is receivable within the housing base of the single space parking meter; and
wherein the upper portion of the parking meter device is covered by a cover that is configured to accommodate the upper portion and that is engageable with the housing base of the single space parking meter such that the payment facilitating arrangement is accessible by the user for user manipulation effecting the payment of the monetary amount for the parking period when the lower portion of the parking mеter device is received within the housing base and the upper portion is covered by the cover.
[Id., Col 5:43 – Col 6:17.]
Duncan contends that the accused Liberty meter fails to meet four limitations of claim 1: (1) it does not have a solar panel that charges the power management facility; (2) it does not include a power management facility that supplies power to a display; (3) it does not include a power management facility that supplies power to the timer; and (4) it does not have a lower portion configured to have a shape and dimensions such that the lower pоrtion is receivable within the housing base of the single space parking meter.
II. Legal Standard
Determining whether a claim has been infringed requires a two-step analysis. “First, the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process.” PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). To prove direct infringement, “the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused device infringes one or more claims of the patent either literally or under the doсtrine of equivalents.” Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 261 F.3d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, “[s]ummary judgment on the issue of infringement is proper when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accused
III. Discussion
A. A solar panel that charges the power management facility
Duncan contends that as a matter of law the accused Liberty parking meter does not meet the limitation of claim 1 requiring that the meter has a power management facility that is charged by a solar panel. The Court previously construed “power management faсility” as circuitry and software that directs power to the parking meter device as required. [Doc. No. 72 at 3.] It is undisputed that the accused Liberty meter has a solar panel that provides power to the meter. The parties also acknowledged at the hearing that circuitry that comрrises a power management facility may include capacitors that would store energy, i.e., could be charged.
IPS contends that a component of the Liberty meter identified as the multipurpose peripheral board (MPB) functions as the power management facility in the accused device. IPS argues that the solar panels of the Liberty meter provide energy directly to the MPB which is capable of storing that energy. The MPB then directs power to the components of the meter, including the battery. IPS contends this arrangement meets this claim limitation. [Doc. No. 221 at 7-8.]
Duncan, meanwhile, argues that the solar panels in the Liberty meter solely charge the meter’s battery which in turn provides power to meter’s other components. Duncan asserts that although the power from the solar panels may be directed by the MPB to the battery, the battery is the component thаt is charged, not the MPB, meaning the claim limitation is not met.
The Court finds there to be a material dispute as to the operation of the Liberty meter. If as IPS contends (1) the energy generated by the solar panels is sent to the MPB, (2) the MPB is capable of being charged, and (3) the MPB consists of circuitry and software that directs power to the parking meter device as required, a jury could find that this limitation
B. A power management facility that supplies power to the timer; to the display
Duncan proffered that supplying power means to make it available for use. [Doc. No. 184 at 9, ¶9.] IPS contends that the MPB in the accused device functions as the power management facility and that the MPB supplies power to the meter’s display and timer. Duncan asserts that the meter’s battery is thе sole source of power to the display and timer and that if the battery is disconnected the display and timer would not operate.
The Court again finds there is a material dispute as to the operation of the Liberty meter. If, as IPS contends, the MPB is the claimed power management facility, and the MPB directly supplies power to the meter’s timer and display, a jury could find that these limitations are met by the Liberty meter. The motion based on IPS’s inability as a matter of law to meet these claim limitations is therefore denied.
C. The lower portion of the parking meter device is configured tо have a shape and dimensions such that the lower portion is receivable within the housing base of the single space parking meter
Finally, Duncan argues that the accused device does not meet the claim limitation that the lower portion of the device be configured such that it is receivable within the housing base of the meter. The Court previously construed “upper portion” as the portion of the parking meter device that extends above the parking meter housing base when the lower is received within the housing base, and “lower portion” as the portion that is below the upper portion of the device. [Doc. No. 72 at 4; see also Doc. No. 34-1, Col. 3:28-45; Fig. 1 and 2.] The Court was not asked to and did nоt construe “receivable within.” In the context of this patent, the Court finds the ordinary meaning of “receive” to be contain and therefore construes “receivable” as capable of being contained and “within” as inside.
The claim requires that the lower portion of the meter device be “configured to have a shape and dimensions such that the lower portion is receivable within the housing basе
The claim further requires that the housing cover and the housing base must be engageable such that when the housing is closed the payment facilitating arrangement is accessible to the user for manipulation. [Id., Col. 6:8-17.] This is accomplished in the preferred embodiment2 by locating the card slot (whiсh is in the upper portion of the device) [id., Col. 3:46-49] and coin slot (which is in the lower portion of the device) [id., Col 3:44-45] in an “opening defined between the housing base and cover” when the cover is closed. [Id., Col 4:2-5.] Therefore the housing base and cover are configured such that they are not сompletely flush when engaged. The base is configured to have a cut-out or opening. The claim requires that lower portion of the device be configured to be contained inside this physical structure (34).
Picture 1. Picture 2.
Upper Portion
Lower Portion
The line drawn on Picture 1 demarks the portion of the accused device that is above the housing base when the device is inserted into the meter housing as shown in Picture 2. Applying the claim limitations as construed by the Court, the portion above the line is the upper pоrtion and the portion below the line is the lower portion. The lower portion of the Liberty meter includes a coin slot, a card slot and a keypad sensor. As shown in Picture 2, the housing used with the Liberty meter has an opening between the cover and the base such that when the cover is closed the card slot and the coin slot are accessible to user manipulation. (The parties refer to this as a U-shaped cut-out in the base.) When the Liberty meter is inserted into the housing, the card slot and coin slot, which are part of the lower portion, are located in an opening bеtween the base and the cover, not unlike the coin slot in the preferred embodiment. The key pad, however, which is also in the lower portion of the accused device, is not located in that opening between the base and the cover when the cover is closed. It extends below that opening and overlaps the structure of the base. It is on the outside of the housing base. The lower portion of the Liberty meter, therefore, is shaped and dimensioned such that it is not received within the base, but has a protrusion that is on the outside of the housing base.
IV. Conclusion
Because the Liberty meter does not meet a limitation, the Liberty meter does not infringe claim 1 of the ‘054 Patent. Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If any claim limitation is absent from the accused device, there is no literаl infringement as a matter of law.”). Further, because the other asserted claims all depend from claim 1, they cannot be infringed either. See London v. Carson Pirie Scott & Co., 946 F.2d 1534, 1539 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Duncan’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED and JUDGMENT shall be entered for Duncan.3
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2017
Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
United States District Judge