Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Good Law

78 F. Supp. 3d 952·2015 WL 273140

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 2015Case Nos. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG, 5:13-cv-01777-PSG, 5:13-cv-01778-PSG, 5:13-cv-01844-PSG, 5:13-cv-02023-PSGCalifornia2,106 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Grewal, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

(Re: Docket No. 311, 312)

(Re: Docket No. 339, 336)

(Re: Docket No. 303, 305)

(Re: Docket No. 288, 289)

(Re: Docket No. 310, 312, 315)

A short while ago, Defendants Apple, Inc., Verizon Wireless, AT & T Mobility LLC and HTC Corporation filed motions for summary judgment of no direct infringement of the asserted method claims. 1 Citing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 2 Defendants argued that they could not have directly infringed because it is undisputed that they merely sold prepro-grammed accused handsets and did not perform any of the required steps. Adap-tix countered with the decision by the Federal Circuit in SiRF Technology, Inc. v. ITC, 3 in which the court found direct infringement based on the sale of accused devices preprogrammed to automatically perform certain steps at issue. As the undersigned struggled to reconcile these holdings following a spirited oral argument, into his lap fell a new Federal Circuit decision issued on December 4, 2014— *954 Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc. 4 — that reconciled these seemingly contradictory holdings for him. Under…

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.