Narrative Opinion Summary
In a patent infringement litigation initiated by Intermec Technologies Corporation against Palm, Inc., both parties accused each other of infringing on their respective patents, with Intermec focusing on five U.S. patents and Palm on its patents numbered 6,665,803 and 7,096,049. Following early motions, mediation, and a stay, the court addressed motions for summary judgment, partially granting and denying each party's claims concerning specific patent claims. Intermec raised issues of indefiniteness, enablement, and written description for the '049 patent, which the court dismissed. Motions for reconsideration require showing new evidence or clear error, which Intermec failed to demonstrate, leading to denial of its motion. The court addressed anticipation claims regarding the '049 patent, emphasizing the need for clear and convincing evidence, which Intermec did not provide. Additionally, the court ruled that the language of the '049 patent's low level limitation did not require specific construction, focusing instead on operational conditions. Ultimately, the court denied Intermec's motions and maintained jurisdiction over the unresolved issues, with a trial date yet to be set.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction under Patent Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court maintained jurisdiction over the patent infringement lawsuit involving Intermec and Palm under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.
Reasoning: The court maintains jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1338(a) and 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq.
Legal Standards for Patent Claim Constructionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The claim language regarding the low level limitation of the '049 patent was deemed to require no specific construction, focusing on operational conditions rather than specific measurements.
Reasoning: The court ruled that the claim language regarding the low level limitation of the '049 patent requires no specific construction.
Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Intermec's motion for reconsideration was evaluated under the standard for altering or amending judgments, requiring demonstration of new evidence, clear error, or changes in controlling law.
Reasoning: Motions for reconsideration are treated as equivalent to motions to alter or amend judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Standard of Anticipation in Patent Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Intermec's failure to provide a claim-by-claim analysis led to the court's conclusion that the evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard for anticipation.
Reasoning: The court determined that the evidence did not meet the clear and convincing standard for anticipation.
Summary Judgment in Patent Litigationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court partially granted and denied summary judgment motions by Palm and Intermec, focusing on specific claims of the '803 and '049 patents.
Reasoning: On September 15, 2011, the court issued a decision partially granting and partially denying Palm’s motion for summary judgment concerning the '803 and '049 patents, as well as Intermec’s cross-motion for summary judgment.