HSM Portfolio LLC, et al. v. Elpida Memory Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11-770 – RGA, February 11, 2016.

Andrews, J. Defendant Micron’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is granted in part and denied in part; for invalidity is denied; for no indirect infringement is granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and dismissed as moot in part.  Oral argument took place on December 8, 2015.

The disputed technology relates to image sensor products.  Three patents are in dispute. The ‘853 patent is not infringed because plaintiff’s infringement theory as set forth by its infringement expert Dr. Foty is inconsistent with the court’s claim construction and the court finds no literal o DOE infringement. The basis for defendant’s anticipation motion is a nullity due to the court’s non-infringement finding and summary judgment as to anticipation is denied.  With respect to the ‘212 patent, plaintiff has failed to identify a clock input signal that satisfies the “constant frequency” or “complementary inverter” limitations as construed by the court, and summary judgment of no literal or DOE infringement is granted. Since defendant’s anticipation motion was based on plaintiff’s infringement theory now rejected by the court, summary judgment is denied as to anticipation. With respect to the ‘949 patent, there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiffs have produced evidence sufficient to show the accused products include a first and second input, and summary judgment of is denied on that basis. Defendant’s anticipation motion is likewise denied based on a factual dispute. Finally, as to the ‘367 patent, defendant’s motion regarding non-infringement is denied because issues of fact remain for the jury.  Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment of non-anticipation and the ‘853 patent is not indefinite.