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.

MiiCs & Partners America, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

October 24, 2017

MiiCs & PARTNERS AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
TOSHIBA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., Intervenor. MiiCs & PARTNERS AMERICA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
FUNAI ELECTRIC CO., LTD., et al., Defendants. SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD., Intervenor.

          Memorandum Opinion Dennis James Butler, Esq., PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP, Wilmington, DE; John David Simmons, Esq., PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen E. Murray, Esq., PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Keith A. Jones, Esq., PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Aaron Robert Ettelman, Esq., ICE MILLER LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Frederick Tecce, Esq. (argued), ICE MILLER LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Bryon T. Wasserman, Esq., ICE MILLER LLP, Philadelphia, PA. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Robert W. Mallard, Esq., DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, Wilmington, DE; Clinton L. Conner, Esq. (argued), DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, .Minneapolis, MN; David Tseng, Esq., DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, Seattle, WA; Paul T. Meiklejohn (argued), DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, Seattle, WA. Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc.

          Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Esq., ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas D. Mozal, Esq., ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dennies Varughese, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; John C. Rozendaal, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; Michael E. Joffre, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; Jonathan Turminaro, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; Daniel J. Bernard, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; William H. Milliken, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; Stephanie M. Nguyen, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; Zhiwei Zou, Esq., STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C, Washington, DC; Jean Paul Y. Nagashima, Esq., NAGASHIMA & HASHIMOTO, Tokyo, Japan; Takaaki Nagashima, Esq., NAGASHIMA & HASHIMOTO, Tokyo, Japan. Attorneys for Defendants Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Funai Corporation, and P&F USA, Inc.

          Adam Wyatt Poff, Esq., YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; Pilar G. Kraman, Esq., YOUNG, CONAWAY, STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kevin B. Collins, Esq., COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, DC; Jared R. Frisch, Esq., COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, DC; David A. Garr, Esq. (argued), COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, DC; Christopher Higby, Esq., COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, DC; Jeffrey H. Lerner, Esq. (argued), COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Washington, DC; Robert T. Halsam, Esq., COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Chang Sik Kim, Esq., COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Seoul, South Korea; Scott Schrader, Esq., COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Seoul, South Korea. Attorneys for Intervenor.

          ORDER

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the Court are Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment of Non Infringement and Invalidity (D.I. 404) and related briefing (D.I. 407, 458, 509).[1] The Court held oral argument on October 18, 2017. (D.I. 573) ("Tr."). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part Samsung's motion as to no literal infringement and no infringement by the doctrine of equivalents of dependent claim 4 of U.S. Pat. No. 5, 966, 589.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs filed these actions against Defendants Toshiba and Funai on June 24, 2014, alleging infringement of nine patents, including the '190 patent. (D.I. 1). With the Court's permission, Plaintiffs filed First Amended Complaints on March 31, 2015, in which they asserted additional patents. (D.I. 35). On August 11, 2015, this Court stayed these cases pending inter partes review before the PTAB. (D.I. 82). After Plaintiffs agreed to withdraw certain patents on which the PTAB instituted IPRs, the Court lifted the stays on March 23 and 31, 2016, respectively. (D.I. 112; C.A. No. 14-804-RGA, D.I. 117). On June 15, 2016, the Court granted Samsung Display Company's motion to intervene.[2] (D.I. 139). The remaining patents-in-suit generally relate to various liquid crystal display ("LCD") apparatuses and thin film transistors ("TFTs") used therein.

         Dependent claim 4 of the '589 patent depends from claim 1 and is the only asserted claim of the '589 patent. (D.I. 407 at 15). Independent claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A method of fabricating a thin film transistor array comprising a transparent insulating substrate, a plurality of thin film transistors formed on said substrate in a matrix, a gate bus line connected to gate electrodes of said thin film transistors, a drain bus line connected to drain electrodes of said thin film transistors, and a pixel electrode driven by said thin film transistors, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) forming said gate electrodes and said gate bus line on said transparent insulating substrate;
(b) forming a gate insulating film over said substrate;
(c) forming an operative semiconductor on said gate insulating film;
(d) forming source electrodes, said drain electrodes, and said drain bus line of said thin film transistors on said gate insulating ...

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.