Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 1, 2014

EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al., Defendants

Page 913

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 914

For EON Corp IP Holdings LLC, Plaintiff: John V. Picone , III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Aleksandr Korzh, Jennifer S. Coleman, Hopkins & Carley, A Law Corporation, San Jose, CA; Cary Ferchill, Daniel R. Scardino, Nicholas Andrew Wyss, Reed and Scardino LLP, Austin, TX; Craig Jepson, Chad Phillip Ennis, John L. Hendricks , Mark William Halderman, Matthew Murrell, Raymond William Mort , III, Steven Paul Tepera, PRO HAC VICE, Reed and Scardino LLP, Austin, TX; Christopher Andrew Hohn, Hopkins and Carley, A Law Corporation, San Jose, CA.

For Cisco Systems Inc, Defendant: Matthew Sean Yungwirth, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, David Carl Dotson, Louis Norwood Jameson, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA; Richard L. Seabolt, LEAD ATTORNEY, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA; Alison Marie Haddock, PRO HAC VICE, Duane Morris, LLP, Atlanta, GA; James Patrick Kelley, Otis W Carroll , Jr, Ireland Carroll & Kelley, Tyler, TX; John Robert Gibson, PRO HAC VICE, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA; Joseph Andrew Powers, Duane Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Stephanie Anne Hansen, PRO HAC VICE, Duane Morris - Atlanta, Atlanta, GA; Wesley Wei-Ien Yuan, Duane Morris - Houston, Houston, TX.

For HTC America Inc, Defendant: Eric Joseph Klein, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Jesse Davis Snyder, Kellie M Johnson, Todd Eric Landis, PRO HAC VICE, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX; Danielle Christine Crockett, Teresa Wang Ghali, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, San Francisco, CA; Fred I. Williams, PRO HAC VICE, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Austin, TX; Jerry Robin Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, Dallas, TX; Matthew Sean Yungwirth, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA.

For United States Cellular Corporation, Defendant: Ashish Nagdev, Bryan K. Anderson, Sidley Austin LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Richard John O'Brien , Jr., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL.

For Sprint Spectrum L.P., Defendant: Michael E Zeliger, LEAD ATTORNEY, KL Gates LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Andrea B Reed, Christopher H Centurelli, George S Haight , IV, John J. Cotter, V. Raman Bharatula, PRO HAC VICE, K& L Gates LLP - Boston, Boston, MA.

For Motorola Solutions, Inc., Defendant: Frederick L. Whitmer, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP, New York, NY; Byron Robert Chin, Jessica Lea Hannah, Steven David Moore, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA; Carl E Sanders, James Lyle Howard, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP, Winston-Salem, NC; Christopher Schenck, Dario A. Machleidt, PRO HAC VICE, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Seattle, WA; Eric H Findlay , Roger Brian Craft, Findlay Craft, LLP, Tyler, TX; Matthew Sean Yungwirth, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA.

For Motorola Mobility LLC, formerly known as Mobility Holdings Inc, Defendant: Frederick L. Whitmer, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP, New York, NY; Bonnie Marie Grant, PRO HAC VICE, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA; Byron Robert Chin, Jessica Lea Hannah, Steven David Moore, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA; Carl E Sanders, James Lyle Howard, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP, Winston-Salem, NC; Christopher Schenck, Dario A. Machleidt, PRO HAC VICE, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Seattle, WA; Eric H Findlay , Roger Brian Craft, Findlay Craft, LLP, Tyler, TX; Matthew Sean Yungwirth, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA.

For Motorola Mobility LLC, Counter-claimant: Frederick L. Whitmer, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP, New York, N.Y. Byron Robert Chin, Jessica Lea Hannah, Steven David Moore, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA; Carl E Sanders, James Lyle Howard, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP, Winston-Salem, NC; Eric H Findlay , Roger Brian Craft, Findlay Craft, LLP, Tyler, TX.

For Smith Micro Software Inc., Miscellaneous: William J. Brucker, LEAD ATTORNEY, Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker, Aliso Viejo, CA.

For Devicescape, Attorneys for Non-Party Devicescape Software, Inc, Miscellaneous: Edward V. Anderson, LEAD ATTORNEY, SheppardMullin LLP, Palo Alto, CA.

For EON Corp IP Holdings LLC, Counter-defendant: John V. Picone , III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jennifer S. Coleman, Hopkins & Carley, A Law Corporation, San Jose, CA; Chad Phillip Ennis, Craig Jepson, Matthew Murrell, Raymond William Mort , III, PRO HAC VICE, Daniel R. Scardino, Reed & Scardino LLP, Austin, TX.

For HTC America Inc, Counter-claimant: Eric Joseph Klein, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Kellie M Johnson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX; Danielle Christine Crockett, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, San Francisco, CA; Fred I. Williams, PRO HAC VICE, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Austin, TX; Jerry Robin Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, Dallas, TX; Todd Eric Landis, PRO HAC VICE, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX.

For Cisco Systems Inc, Counter-claimant: Matthew Sean Yungwirth, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, David Carl Dotson, Louis Norwood Jameson, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA; Alison Marie Haddock, PRO HAC VICE, Duane Morris, LLP, Atlanta, GA; James Patrick Kelley, Otis W Carroll , Jr, Ireland Carroll & Kelley, Tyler, TX; Joseph Andrew Powers, Duane Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Wesley Wei-Ien Yuan, Duane Morris - Houston, Houston, TX.

For Sprint Spectrum L.P., Counter-claimant: Michael E Zeliger, LEAD ATTORNEY, KL Gates LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Andrea B Reed, George S Haight , IV, John J. Cotter, PRO HAC VICE, V. Raman Bharatula, K& L Gates LLP - Boston, Boston, MA.

For Motorola Solutions, Inc., Counter-claimant: Eric H Findlay , Roger Brian Craft, Findlay Craft, LLP, Tyler, TX; Jessica Lea Hannah, Steven David Moore, Byron Robert Chin, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For EON Corp IP Holdings LLC, Counter-defendant: John V. Picone , III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jennifer S. Coleman, Hopkins & Carley, A Law Corporation, San Jose, CA; Aleksandr Korzh, San Jose, CA; Chad Phillip Ennis, Craig Jepson, Matthew Murrell, Raymond William Mort , III, PRO HAC VICE, Daniel R. Scardino, Reed & Scardino LLP, Austin, TX.

For EON Corp IP Holdings LLC, Counter-defendant: John V. Picone , III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jennifer S. Coleman, Hopkins & Carley, A Law Corporation, San Jose, CA; Chad Phillip Ennis, Craig Jepson, Matthew Murrell, Raymond William Mort , III, PRO HAC VICE, Daniel R. Scardino, Reed & Scardino LLP, Austin, TX; Christopher Andrew Hohn, Hopkins and Carley, A Law Corporation, San Jose, CA.

For Sprint Spectrum L.P., Counter-claimant: Michael E Zeliger, LEAD ATTORNEY, KL Gates LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Andrea B Reed, George S Haight , IV, John J. Cotter, V. Raman Bharatula, K& L Gates LLP - Boston, Boston, MA.

For Sprint Nextel Corporation, Counter-claimant: Michael E Zeliger, LEAD ATTORNEY, KL Gates LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Andrea B Reed, George S Haight , IV, John J. Cotter, K& L Gates LLP - Boston, Boston, MA.

For HTC America Inc, Counter-claimant: Danielle Christine Crockett, Teresa Wang Ghali, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, San Francisco, CA; Eric Joseph Klein, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX; Fred I. Williams, PRO HAC VICE, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Austin, TX; Jerry Robin Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, Dallas, TX; Kellie M Johnson, PRO HAC VICE, Todd Eric Landis, PRO HAC VICE, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Dallas, TX.

For Cisco Systems Inc, Counter-claimant: Matthew Sean Yungwirth, LEAD ATTORNEY, David Carl Dotson, Louis Norwood Jameson, Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA; Richard L. Seabolt, LEAD ATTORNEY, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA; Alison Marie Haddock, Duane Morris, LLP, Atlanta, GA; James Patrick Kelley, Otis W Carroll , Jr, Ireland Carroll & Kelley, Tyler, TX; Joseph Andrew Powers, Duane Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Stephanie Anne Hansen, Duane Morris - Atlanta, Atlanta, GA; Wesley Wei-Ien Yuan, Duane Morris - Houston, Houston, TX.

Page 915

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement action involving " Wireless Modem" Patent No. 5,592,491 (" the '491 Patent" ), Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc. (" Cisco" ), Sprint Spectrum L.P. (" Sprint" ), HTC America, Inc. (" HTC" ), United States Cellular Corporation (" U.S. Cellular" ), Motorola Mobility LLC, and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (collectively, " Motorola" ) (collectively, " Defendants" ) have moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. The matter came for hearing on March 13, 2014.

The '491 Patentee invented a system, and a set of methods, through which subscriber units respond to the unavailability of a cellular connection by transferring instead to a connection through a modem. But the accused networks do not do that. In the accused networks, cellular phones transfer to a modem-based Wi-Fi connection whenever there is a Wi-Fi connection, regardless of whether there is or is not an available cellular connection. Accordingly, and for other reasons set forth more fully herein, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement of all asserted claims.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings (" EON" ) filed this case in the Eastern District of Texas on October 22, 2010. Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC's Original Complaint, Case No. 2:10-cv-00448-DF (E.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2010), ECF No. 1. The current defendants are Cisco Systems, Inc. (" Cisco" ), Sprint Spectrum L.P. (" Sprint" ), HTC America, Inc. (" HTC" ), United States Cellular Corporation (" U.S. Cellular" ), Motorola Mobility LLC, and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (collectively, " Motorola" ) (collectively, " Defendants" ). In January 2012, the Texas Court granted Defendants' motion to transfer venue to this Court. Order granting Joint Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California, Case No. 2:10-cv-00448-DF, (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2012), ECF No. 277.

EON asserts that Defendants Sprint and U.S. Cellular directly and indirectly infringe the '491 Patent, and that the remaining defendants indirectly infringe. Joint Case Management Statement 2:15-23, ECF No. 650. The '491 Patent is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No. 5,388,101 (" the 101 Patent" ), which is incorporated by reference into the '491 Patent.

On May 10, 2013, the Court held a hearing for the purpose of construing disputed terms in the claims of the '491 Patent.

Page 916

ECF No. 711. At that hearing, the Court requested further briefing on issues regarding the invalidity of two of the claims of the patent. The parties provided that supplemental briefing on May 24, May 31, and, at Defendants' request, on July 3, 2013, at which point the Court took the matter under submission. ECF Nos. 722, 724, 728, & 746.

After consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, and the relevant portions of the record, the Court issued an order construing the terms and determining that claims 1 and 13 were invalid. Order Construing and Determining Validity of Claims of United States Patent No. 5,592,491 (" First Cl. Constr. Order" ), ECF No. 748, 2013 WL 3455631, (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013). In February 2014, the Court granted EON's motion to reconsider the Court's invalidity determination and clarify its construction of the " modem communicatively coupled" term (neither of which form the basis of the instant motion for summary judgment). Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 965, 2014 WL 793323, (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2014). The Court then issued a revised claim construction order in conformance with its order granting the motion for reconsideration. Revised Order Construing and Determining Validity of Claims of United States Patent No. 5,592,491 (" Rev. Cl. Constr. Order" ), ECF No. 979, 2014 WL 938511.

After discovery, Defendants now move for summary judgment of noninfringement.

B. Patent-in-Suit and Asserted Claims

The '491 Patent includes system claims 1, 12, and 13, and method claims 5 and 17. A systems claim includes structural elements; " unlike use of a system as a whole . . . [a] method or process consists of one or more operative steps." NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1157, 126 S.Ct. 1174, 163 L.Ed.2d 1141 (2006).

The system claims read on a communication network. Claim 1 contains, among others, the limitations of a " network hub switching center," '491 Patent 6:17, " subscriber units . . . including switching means," id. 6:19-21, a " local base station repeater cell communicating with . . . subscriber units," id. 6:22-26, and a " modem . . . for transferring [signals] . . . if [] subscriber units are unable to directly communicate with said local base station repeater cell." Id. 6:57-64. Claim 12 contains, among others, limitations similar to the above in claim 1, except for the network hub switching center. Id. 8:11-35. Claim 13 contains, among others, limitations similar to the above in claim 1, but it does not explicitly recite the local base station repeater cell as a claimed element. Id. 8:36-54.

The claimed network functions as follows. When the subscriber units are able to directly communicate with the local base station repeater cell, they use that communication path (" Path A" ). Id. 3:33-48. When the subscriber units cannot communicate through Path A, the switching means within the units transfer to communicate instead with the local base station repeater cell through the modem (" Path B" ). Id. 3:49-48.

This feature is described in method claims 5 and 17. Claim 5 claims a method of communicating between a subscriber unit and a local base station repeater cell. The method includes the first steps of " determining whether a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.