Competitive Technologies v. Fujitsu Ltd.

Good Law
286 F. Supp. 2d 1161·2003 WL 22138467·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23526
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 8, 2003C-02-1673 JCSCalifornia18,454 words

Opinion

Opinion

Spero, J.

CORRECTED ORDER:

1)CONSTRUING DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 4,866,349 AND 5,081,400 [Docket Nos. 323, 343];

2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Docket No. 344];

3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Docket No. 362];

4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE [Docket No. 370] AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LI-MINE [Docket No. 374]

5)SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, Plaintiff University of Illinois (“UI”) has sued various Fujitsu Defendants (“Fujitsu”) for infringement of two patents (“the Patents”): 1) United States Patent No. 4,866,349 (“the '349 patent”); 2) United States Patent No. 5,081,-400 (“the '400 patent”). The '400 patent is a continuation of the '349 patent, and both are entitled “Power Efficient Sustain Drivers and Address Drivers for Plasma Panel.” Currently before the Court is the parties’ dispute over the proper construction of a number of the claims in the two patents. The parties also have filed cross-motions for summary judgment: Fujitsu seeks a declaration that claims 5-11 of the '349 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness while UI seeks a declaration that the same claims are not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.