District Court For the Northern District of 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 implementing Type2Code. ’352 patentbyimporting, making, using,selling,orofferingtosellits touchpadproducts Elantech’s motion forpreliminary injunctionseekstoenjoin Synapticsfrom infringingthe products implementing Type2CodeinfringeClaim 18ofthe’352patentasamatter oflaw. and Elantech’smotion forpreliminary injunction.Elantech arguesthatSynaptics’stouchpad patent”), No.5,543,592(“the’592and No.6,380,931(“the’931patent”). for infringement ofU.S.PatentsNo.5,880,411(“the’411patent”), 5,943,052(“the’052 for infringement ofU.S.PatentNo.5,825,352(“the’352patent”).Synaptics counterclaimed corporation, and AVERATEC,INC.,aCalifornia SYNAPTICS, INC.,aDelawarecorporation; v. Taiwan, R.O.C., corporation existingunderthelawsof ELANTECH DEVICESCORP.,a Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page1of16 Now pendingbeforetheCourtareElantech’s motion forpartialsummary judgment Elantech DevicesCorp.(“Elantech”)filedsuitagainstSynaptics,Inc.(“Synaptics”) Defendants. Plaintiff, FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT / FILED UNDERSEAL MEMORANDUM ANDORDER No. C06-01839CRB United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the parties,includingfourterms from Elantech’s’352patent.Seegenerally BACKGROUND I. maxima inasignalcorresponding toasecondfingerfollowingsaidminima” and a“means to afirstfinger,(b)identify aminima followingthefirstmaxima, and©identifya second “means forscanningthetouchsensor to(a)identifyafirstmaxima inasignalcorresponding for detectingtheoperativecouplingofmultiple fingers.”Theclaim recitestwoelements, a various mouse functions.Claim 18isanindependentclaim whichdiscloses“atouch sensor apparatus for Mouse ButtonsandOperationonaTouch SensorPad,”disclosesmethods and Accused Touchpadsimplementing Type2Code. 15: 21-24.Elantechaccordinglyhasnowmoved forsummary judgment ofinfringement for motion seeksjudgment onallAccusedTouchpadswithoutdistinction.”October26Orderat counting functionality,butElantechdidnotmove forpartialsummary judgment; instead,its infringement forAccusedTouchpadsimplementing Type2Codeandhavingenabledfinger ’352 patent.TheCourtexplained:“Thewouldgrantsummary judgment of ground thatAccusedTouchpadsimplement Type1Codedonotinfringeclaim 18ofthe Elantech’s motion forsummary judgment ofinfringement forallAccusedTouchpadsonthe Synaptics’s motion astodevicesimplementing Type2Code.TheCourtalsodenied judgment ofnoninfringement forthosedevicesimplementing Type1Code,butdenied Motions (“October26Order”),theCourtgrantedSynaptics’smotion forpartialsummary infringement. InitsOctober26,2007Memorandum andOrderRe:Summary Judgment of noninfringement ofthe’352patent.Elantechcross-moved forsummary judgment of Construction Order,April6,2007. Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page2of16 The Courtpreviouslyconstruedeightterms ProceduralHistory from theassertedpatentsasselectedby A. .The’352Patent The ’352patent,entitled“MultipleFingersContact SensingMethodforEmulating B. After theClaim ConstructionOrderissued,Synapticsmoved forsummary judgment recognizing thepresenceofmultiple fingersonatouchpadandemulating 2 Claim United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 nonmovant.” CrownOperationsInternational,Ltd.v.SolutiaInc. light most favorabletothepartyopposingmotion, withdoubtsresolvedinfavorofthe nonmoving party.”Andersonv.LibertyLobby,Inc. improper “iftheevidenceissuchthatareasonablejurycouldreturnverdictfor fact andthemoving partyisentitledtojudgment asamatter oflaw.Summary judgment is enabled infringeclaim 18ofits’352patent. confirming thatSynaptics’stouchpadsusingType2Codewithmultiple finger detection MOTIONFORPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTOFINFRINGEMENT II. identification ofsaidfirstandsecondmaxima.” for providinganindicationofthesimultaneous presenceoftwofingersinresponseto Corp. v.AT&T of thecase.See sales made outsidetheUnited Statesdonotconstitutepatentinfringement. See patented inventionduringtheterm ofthepatent therefor,infringesthepatent.”Ingeneral, or sellsanypatentedinvention,withintheUnitedStatesimports intotheUnitedStatesany (Fed. Cir.2002)(citationsomitted). non-moving party.See “genuine” onlyifthereissufficientevidenceforareasonablefactfindertofindthe Teng-Yen WuinSupport ofElantech’sMotionforSummary Judgment ofInfringement, ¶3. Synaptics’s in theUnitedStates.October26Orderat10:19-22; Declarationof Synaptics’s touchpads could infringe,Elantechengineerspurchased computers with product intheUnitedStates.TheCourtisnot persuaded.Inordertodemonstrate that Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page3of16 Summary LegalStandardforSummaryJudgment judgment isappropriate A. In itsmotion forpartialsummary judgment, Elantechasksthatjudgment beentered .ActofInfringementintheUnitedStates 35 U.S.C.§271(a)statesthat“whoeverwithoutauthoritymakes, uses, offerstosell, B. Synaptics arguesthatElantechhaspresented noevidenceofsalesinfringing id. at248.“Onsummary judgment, theevidencemust beviewedinthe , 127S.Ct.1746,1750(2007). id. at248-49.Afactis“material” ifthefactmay affecttheoutcome when thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterial 3 , 477U.S.242,248(1986).Anissueis , 289F.3d1367,1375 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 distinctly claim theinvention.”In reDonaldsonCo.,Inc. in theclaim, theclaim willbefound invalidforfailure“toparticularlypointout and description ofthepatent failstodisclosethe“correspondingstructure” forthemeans recited described inthespecificationandequivalents thereof.”35U.S.C.§112,¶6.Ifthewritten “such claim shallbeconstruedtocoverthecorresponding structure,material, oracts unlimited number ofstructures,theclaim must beinterpretedinaccordancewiththestatute: how the“means” may beinterpreted.Inordertopreventtheclaim from readingonan function ratherthanbeexpressedasaspecific structure.However,thestatutealsolimits a claim withacombination ofelements tobeexpressedasa“means” thatperforms arecited claims and2)determining whetherinfringement occurred.Markman v.Westview must befoundintheaccusedsubjectmatter. Warner-JenkinsonCo.v.HiltonDavis (Fed. Cir.1995).Toestablishliteralinfringement, everyclaim limitation, orclaim element, The patenteemust proveinfringement byapreponderanceoftheevidence.BayerAGv. infringing method ordevice.Markman v.WestviewInstruments, Inc. United States. evidence, Elantechhasmet itsburdenofestablishinganactinfringement withinthe Synaptics doesnotofferanyevidencetodisputethatinference.Inlightofthisundisputed Such evidencesupportsaninferenceofsalestheinfringingproductinUnitedStates. Instruments, Inc. Elan Pharm. ResearchCorp. Chemical Co. device doesnotsatisfyoneclaim limitation wouldsupportafindingofnoninfringement. Id. Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page4of16 35 U.S.C.§112,¶6permits “means-plus-function” claims, whichallowanelement in Determining infringement isatwo-stepprocessinvolving:1)construingthepatent To determine infringement, theassertedclaim must becompared totheallegedly SynapticsProductsImplementingType2CodeLiterallyInfringeClaim18 C. , 520U.S.17,29,40(1997).Thus,establishingthattheaccusedmethod or .Means-Plus-FunctionClaimsRequireComparisonofStructures 2. .LegalStandardforLiteralInfringement 1. , 517U.S.370,384(1996). , 212F.3d1241,1247(Fed.Cir.2000). 4 , 16F.3d1189,1195(Fed. Cir. , 52F.3d967,976

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Odetics, Inc.v.StorageTech.Corp. coupling ofmultiple fingers” withtwomeans-plus-function elements. Thefirstelement, argument. both means-plus-function elements ofclaim 18,defeatingSynaptics’sindefiniteness in boththewrittendescriptionof’352patent andintheaccuseddevicethatcorrespondto October 26Orderat11:12-15.Therefore,Elantech hassatisfactorilyidentifiedthestructures execution ofthe[REDACTED] “satisfiesthe‘providinganindication’claim limitation.” serves asa“means forprovidinganindication.”AstheCourtpreviouslyconcluded, patent at5:32-25. patent disclosesthemicrocontroller 60whichgovernstheoperationoftouchpad. ’352 performs thefunctionof“providinganindication.”Thewrittendescription’352 accused device. indication” havenotbeenidentifiedineitherthewrittendescriptionofpatentor in responsetoidentificationofsaidfirstandsecondmaxima.” (Emphasis added). form. Thefirstelement isa“means forscanning v. InteractAccessories,Inc. must beidenticalorequivalenttoanidentifiedstructureintheaccuseddevice.JVWEnters. 1994). achieve substantiallythesame resultasthestructureinwrittendescription.”Id. the accuseddevicemust perform theclaimed functioninsubstantiallythesame wayto element isa“means forprovidinganindication Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page5of16 Claim 18ofthe’352patent claims “atouchsensorfordetecting theoperative Elantech hasalsosatisfactorilyidentifiedastructureintheaccuseddevicewhich Elantech hassatisfactorilyidentifiedastructureinthewrittendescriptionthat Synaptics arguesthatstructurescorrespondingtothe“means forprovidingan Claim 18of the’352patentinvolvestwoelements writteninmeans-plus-function In ordertofindliteralinfringement, thestructuredisclosedinwrittendescription .ClaimConstruction 3. , 424F.3d1324,1333(Fed.Cir.2005).Restated,a“structurein , 185F.3d1259,1267(Fed.Cir.1999)). 5 ofthesimultaneous presenceoftwofingers thetouchsensor.,”whilesecond (quoting United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 “Means forScanning” element. requiring identificationofmaxima andminima, andthe“means forprovidinganindication” limitations atissuearethe“means forscanning”element, includingitssublimitations ’352 patentonlyiftheaccuseddevicesincludeeachlimitation oftheclaim. Theclaim identifies thepresenceofaminimum.” Id. [REDACTED] inthisvector identifiesthepresenceofamaximum and a[REDACTED] algorithm usedinthe[REDACTED]. October26Orderat14:5-15:14.Specifically,“a “means forscanning”element isfoundwithinthe[REDACTED] or[REDACTED] noninfringement fortouchpadsthatimplement Type2Codebecauseeachlimitation ofthe of twofingersbereturnedtothehost.”Id. step toprovideanindicationofmultiple fingers,”but“doesnotrequirethatthe‘indication’ October 26Orderat6:18-7:28.TheCourtdetermined thattheclaim requiresan“affirmative of twofingers,”wasnotconstruedintheClaim ConstructionOrderbutwasdefinedinthe at 15:1-7. finger profile,identifyasecondpeakvalueintheprofile.”Claim ConstructionOrder before anotherpeakvalueisidentified,”and©“afteridentifyingthelowestin “identify thelowestvalueinfingerprofilethatoccursafterfirstpeakvalue,and “identify afirstpeakvalueinfingerprofileobtainedfrom scanningthetouchsensor,”(b) “means for scanning” hasthreesublimitations (a)-©,whichwereconstruedtomean (a) the Court.Id. bit arraytoidentifythe presenceofaminima haspreviouslybeenconsideredand refutedby ‘indication’ oftheminima orlowest value;theclaims onlyrequirethattheminima orlowest Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page6of16 Synaptics’s touchpadsimplementing Type2Codeinfringeclaim 18ofElantech’s The CourtpreviouslydeniedSynaptics’smotion forsummary judgment of The secondelement, “means forprovidinganindicationofthesimultaneous presence Synaptics’s assertionthatType2Codedoes not perform anecessary“analysis”ofthe .ComparisonofStructuresforInfringement 4.

at 14:22-25(holdingthat the“assertedclaims donotrequirean‘analysis’or at7:26-28.

at 14:12-13. 6 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 of thelawsuit.”7-20DonaldS.Chisum, Chisum onPatents making, using,selling,orofferingtosellitstouchpads implementing Type2Code. MOTIONFORPRELIMINARYINJUNCTION III. equitable factorsthatapply inotherareasofthelaw.AbbottLabs. v. Andrx deciding whethertogrant apreliminary injunction,districtcourtsshouldconsider thesame Pharmaceuticals, Inc. .com, Inc.v.Barnesandnoble.com have discretionunder35U.S.C.§283togrant ordenypreliminary injunctions. motion forpartialsummary judgment ofinfringement forthesedevicesisgranted. the ’352patentisfoundwithinSynaptics’stouchpadsimplementing Type2Code,Elantech’s in theaccuseddeviceforthismeans-plus-function element. has satisfieditsburdenofidentifyingcorrespondingstructuresinthewrittendescriptionand “Means forProvidinganIndication” “means for scanning” element aremet bySynaptics’stouchpadsimplementing Type2Code. Construction Orderat14:1-23.Thisargument must againberejected. declined toreadintotheterm “minima” anyadditionalpositioninformation. Claim additional claim limitations thattheCourtpreviouslyconsideredandrejected.The nor identifyspecificminima andthereforecannotinfringe.Thisargument isbasedon [REDACTED]. value is‘identified,’andType2Codeidentifiesaminimum orlowestvalueatthe fingers bereturnedtothehost.”October26Orderat7:26-28. provide anindicationofmultiple fingers,”but“doesnotrequirethatthe‘indication’oftwo Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page7of16 Preliminary injunctionsare“issuedtoprotectthepatentowner’s rightsduringthetime Elantech seekstoenjoinSynapticsfrom infringingthe’352patentbyimporting, As thereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterial factthateachelement ofclaim 18of The “means forprovidinganindication”element In summary, Elantechhasestablishedasamatter oflawthatthesublimitations ofthe Synaptics alsoarguesthatType2Codedoesnotidentifythelocationofminima , 452F.3d1331,1334 (Fed. Cir.2006).Themoving partymust , 239F.3d1343,1350(Fed.Cir.2001).In 7 requires an“affirmative stepto §20.04(2007).Districtcourts Asdiscussedsupra , Elantech United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 to thepreviousissueinvolving infringement of means-plus-function claims. AstheCourt 18 ofthe’352patenton thegroundsofindefiniteness.Thisargument isessentially identical and obviousness. necessary toestablishinvalidityitself.”Id. question astoinvalidity.requireslessproofthantheclearandconvincingshowing show thattheproffereddefense“lackssubstantialmerit.” Id. 452 F.3dat1335n.2.However,no“substantialquestion”israisedifthepatentholdercan success onthemerits andirreparableharm. district courtthatthemovant carrieditsburdeninestablishingareasonablelikelihoodof most important; amovant cannotbegrantedapreliminary injunctionwithoutfindingsbythe “substantial question”concerningvalidity,enforceability,orinfringement. AbbottLabs. infringer may successfullychallengeamotion forpreliminary injunctionbyraisinga validity ofthepatentinsuit.”Id. the validityofapatentbeyondquestion”but must “presentaclearcasesupportingthe validity andinfringement. Id. Hybritech, Inc.v.AbbottLabs. Baker, Inc. public interest.”Amazon.com balance ofhardshipstippinginitsfavor;and(4)theinjunction’sfavorableimpact onthe likelihood ofsuccessonthemerits; (2)irreparableharm iftheinjunctionisnotgranted;(3)a establish itsrighttoapreliminary injunctioninlightofthesefourfactors:“(1)areasonable Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page8of16 Synaptics’s firstattempt toraisea“substantialquestion”ofvalidity challengesclaim Synaptics challengesthevalidityof’352 patent onthegroundsofindefiniteness In thecontextofapreliminary injunctionmotion, “[t]he showingofasubstantial .LikelihoodThe firstequitablefactor,areasonablelikelihoodofsuccess,requiresshowing ofSuccess A. , 32F.3d1552,1555(Fed.Cir.1994) .Validity 1. .Indefiniteness a. at1555 , 239F.3dat1350(citing , 849F.2d1446,1451,1456(Fed.Cir.1988)).

( citing Ontheotherhand,“apatenteeneednotestablish Reebok International Hybritech 8 ). Ofthesefourfactors,thefirsttwoare , 849F.2dat1451).Anaccused

Reebok InternationalLtd.v.J. , 32F.3dat1556( citing , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 presumed valid.”KSRInternationalCo.v.TeleflexInc. Court beginsitsanalysiswith35U.S.C.§282,whichstatesthat“anissuedpatentis which saidsubjectmatter pertains.”Inaninvaliditychallengeagainst anissuedpatent,the obvious atthetime theinventionwasmade toapersonhavingordinaryskillintheart be patentedandthepriorartaresuchthatsubjectmatter asawholewouldhavebeen forbids theissuanceofapatentwhen“thedifferencesbetweensubjectmatter soughtto obviousness. TheCourt’sanalysisofobviousnessbeginswith35U.S.C.§103(a),which objective reachoftheclaim. Iftheclaim extendstowhatisobvious,itinvalid under particular motivation nor theavowedpurposeofpatenteecontrols. Whatmatters isthe holding: “[i]n determining whetherthesubject matter ofapatentclaim isobvious, neitherthe (teaching-suggestion-motivation) testinfavor of“anexpansiveandflexibleapproach,” was, independently,knowninthepriorart.” Id. several elements isnotprovedobviousmerely bydemonstrating thateachofitselements KSR International determine “whetherapatentclaiming thecombination ofelements ofpriorartisobvious.” of skillinthepertinentart.Id. the priorart,(2)differencesbetweenartandclaims atissue,and(3)thelevel device. See sufficient structureshavebeenidentifiedinboththewrittendescriptionandaccused discussed, neithermeans-plus-function element oftheclaim isfatallyindefinitebecause described inJohnDeere However, evenissuedpatentsmay bechallengedforobviousnessusing theframework 383 U.S.1,17-18(1966)). than yieldpredictableresults.”Id. familiar elements accordingtoknownmethods islikelytobeobviouswhenitdoesnomore Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page9of16 Next, Synapticsseekstoraisea“substantialquestion”ofvalidityonthegrounds In KSRInternational supra ¶.4-5. , 127S.Ct.at1740.TheCourtrecognizedthat“apatentcomposed of .Obviousness b. , whichdescribestherelevantfactorsof:(1)scopeandcontentof , theSupreme Courtfurtherelucidatedtheanalysisnecessaryto at1729-30(citingGraham v.JohnDeereCo.ofKansasCity at1739.TheCourtrejectedtheFederalCircuit’s TSM 9 at1741.Nonetheless,a“combination of , 127S.Ct.1727,1737(2007). , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 elements in the fashionclaimed bythepatentatissue.”Id. the art,allinordertodetermine whethertherewasanapparentreasontocombine theknown marketplace andthebackgroundknowledgepossessedbyapersonhavingordinaryskillin multiple patents;theeffectsofdemands knowntothedesigncommunity orpresentinthe § 103.”Id. some rationalunderpinning.”Id. the legalconclusionofobviousness,instead“theremust besome articulatedreasoningwith analysis shouldbemade explicit;”“mere conclusorystatements” areinsufficienttosupport cannot beconsideredprior artagainstthe’352patent.Alternatively, theclaims ofthe’978 the disclosureof’591 patent,theywouldnotbeentitledtotheearlier filingdateand (Fed. Cir.1997).Therefore, totheextentthatclaims of’978patentarenot supportedby the filingdateofparent.See must befullysupportedbythedisclosureof parentapplicationinordertobeentitled at 1:5-22.However,claims inacontinuingapplicationorseriesofapplications applications datingbacktoU.S.PatentNo.5,543,591, filedonOctober7,1994.’978patent 35 U.S.C.§120becauseitispartofaseries of continuationandcontinuation-in-part patent, thoughfiledonMarch26,2004,obtainsthebenefitofanearlierprioritydateunder ’352 patentdatesbacktoitsFebruary28,1996filingdate.Synapticsassertsthatthe’978 can beconsideredpriorart,andwhethertheywerebytheExaminer. Elantech’s independent grounds.First,thisCourtmust determine whetherSynaptics’sproferredpatents assigned toIBM(“the’332patent”). 7,109,978 B2,assignedtoSynaptics(“the’978patent”)andU.S.PatentNo.4,686,332, presence oftwofingers.”Synapticsreliesonpatentsaspriorart:U.S.PatentNo. maxima values,”“identifyingaminima,” and“providinganindicationofthesimultaneous each element oftheclaim, specifically“touchsensorsdetectingmultiple fingers,”“useof 2006)). Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page10of16 Synaptics’s obviousnesschallengedoesnotraisea“substantialquestion”onseveral Synaptics arguesthatclaim 18ofthe’352patentisobviousbecausepriorartdiscloses at1739,1741-42.Therefore,acourtshouldlookthe“interrelatedteachingsof Lockwoodv.American Airlines,Inc. at1741(citing 10 InreKahn at1740-41.However,“this , 441F.3d977,988(Fed.Cir. , 107F.3d1565,1572 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 combine eachofthese elements in asingleinvention.Instead,Synapticsmerely pointsto some rationalunderpinning”from whichtheCourtcould determine that itwasobviousto disclosed (separately)by priorart,Synapticsalsofailstoprovide“articulated reasoningwith and thevalueofaminima followingthefirstmaxima tobe determined.” instead, Synapticsmerely concludesthat“thisdataissufficienttoenableboththelocation Synaptics failstospecificallyidentifywhere in thesepatentstheminima isidentified; from whichitispossibletodetermine boththelocationandvalueof aminima. However, Synaptics statesthatboththe’978patentand’332disclosedevicesgeneratedata Elantech’s preliminary injunctionmotion. previously consideredpriorartdoesnothavethe“substantialmerit” necessarytodefeat Examiner erredinissuingthepatent.Thus,Synaptics’sobviousnesschallengerelianceof deference duetotheExaminer; Synapticsdoesnotsufficientlyexplainexactlyhowthe Court concludesthatSynapticshasnotovercome theheavyburdenofovercoming the overcome rejectionsduringprosecution.”AfterconsideringSynaptics’sarguments, this disclosures” ofthe’591patentandthatpriorartwas“mischaracterized .inanattempt to argues boththattheExaminer “may nothavefullyrealizedthesignificanceof Co. v.Sowa&Sons,Inc. Eastman KodakCo. a qualifiedgovernment agencypresumed tohavedoneitsjob..”PolaroidCorp.v. relied onbytheattacker,hehasaddedburdenofovercoming thedeferencethatisdue to patents: “[w]hen nopriorartotherthanthatwhichwasconsidered bythePTOexaminer is ’352 patentat[56]. Synapticsfacesaheavierburdeninestablishinginvalidityusingthese are referencedaspriorartinthe’352patentandhavebeenconsideredbyExaminer. earlier filingdatereceivethesame analysisasthe’332patent:both’591andpatents patent thataresupportedbythedisclosureof’591andobtainbenefit Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page11of16 In itsattempt toovercome theExaminer’s determination ofnonobviousness,Synaptics Lastly, evenif“identifyingaminima” andeveryotherelement oftheclaim was Second, Synapticsfailstocitepriorartthatinvolves“identifyingaminima.” , 789F.2d1556,1560(Fed.Cir.1986)(citingAmerican Hoist&Derrick , 725F.2d1350,1359(Fed.Cir.1984)). 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the preliminary injunctiondoesnot issue.Id. disprove irreparableharm byproducingevidencethatthepatenteewould notbeharmed if International that monetary damages willalwayssufficetomake thepatenteewhole.”Reebok statutory righttoexclude,”therefore,“thenature ofthepatentgrantweighsagainstholding presumption inpatentinfringement suitsarisesbecause“theprincipalvalueofapatentisits International combine theelements thatareallegedlypresentinthepriorarttoform claim 18.See failing topresentanadequaterationalebywhichapersonofordinaryskillintheartwould light ofpriorart.ThusSynaptics’sprofferedobviousnessdefenselackssubstantialmerit by each individualelement oftheclaim andarguesthateachelement isindividuallyobviousin patentee.” ReebokInternational coupled withcontinuinginfringement raisesapresumption ofirreparableharm tothe factor inpatentinfringement suits:“astrongshowingoflikelihood successonthemerits irreparable harm iftheinjunctiondoesnotissue.Thisfactoriscloselyrelatedtofirst motion. patent, Elantechhassufficientlyshownalikelihoodofsuccessforitspreliminary injunction Elantech’s motion forpartialsummary judgment ofinfringement ofclaim 18ofthe’352 question astowhetherSynapticshasinfringedclaim 18.BecausetheCourtgrants patent. invalidity. Elantechhaspresentedaclearcasesupportingthevalidityofclaim 18ofthe’352 seeking apreliminary injunctionin apatentinfringement suit “may be sosignificant,inthe Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page12of16 However, thepresumption ofirreparableharm isrebuttable:anallegedinfringermay .IrreparableHarm The secondequitablefactorinamotion forpreliminary injunctionisashowingof B. In additiontovalidity,Elantechalsomust demonstrate thatthereisnosubstantial In summary, Synaptics’sobviousnessdefensefailstoraiseasubstantialquestionof , 32F.3dat1557(citing , 127S.Ct.at1741. .Infringement 3. , 32F.3dat1556;see Hybritech Incertaincases,aperiod ofdelaypriorto 12 , 849F.2dat1457). AbbottLabs. , 452F.3dat1347.This KSR United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 F.2d 384,390(Fed.Cir.1987),overruledonothergroundsby a patentisitsstatutoryrighttoexclude.”H.H.RobertsonCo.v.UnitedSteelDeck,Inc. monetary damages willalwayssufficetomake thepatenteewhole,forprincipalvalueof patent infringement cases,“thenatureofthepatentgrant.weighs againstholdingthat damages areanadequateremedy ifapreliminary injunction isnotgranted.Inthecontextof 1995). years ofpatentlife.Id. and reasonedanalysisforthatinadequacyshould beproffered,”suchasthefewremaining notoriously lengthycourseofpatentlitigation.”Id. warranted todenypotentialinfringersthe“opportunitypracticeaninventionduring Instruments, Inc. Tech MedicalInstrumentation, Inc.v.NewImage Indus.,Inc. district court’sdiscretion,astoprecludeadetermination ofirreparableharm.” Hybritech demonstrating thatthereisnoapparenturgencytotherequestforinjunctiverelief.”High substantial periodofdelaythatmilitates againsttheissuanceofapreliminary injunctionby Federal Circuithasalsostatedthat“[a]bsent agoodexplanation,.17months isa the districtcourtmust considerinthecontextoftotalitycircumstances.” Id. determination ofirreparableharm,” instead“aperiodofdelayisbutonecircumstance that 849 F.2dat1457.But“ashowingofdelaydoesnotpreclude,asamatter oflaw,a “exercised consistentwith traditionalprinciplesofequity.”eBayInc. v.MercExchange, deny injunctionreliefrests withintheequitablediscretionofdistrict courts,”tobe automatically requiredtograntinjunctionrelief; instead“thedecisionwhethertograntor the passageoftime canworkirremediable harm.” Id. the finiteterm ofthepatentgrant,forexpirationisnotsuspendedduringlitigation,and lite.” Nutrition21v.U.S. money damages willbeinadequate inconnectionwithamotion foraninjunctionpendente Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page13of16 The presumption ofirreparableharm may alsoberebuttedbyshowingthatmoney Lastly, evenifafindingofirreparableharm isnotrebutted, districtcourtsarenot , 52F.3d967,977(Fed.Cir.1995).“Thispresumption derivesinpartfrom (citing , 930F.2d867,872(Fed.Cir.1991).Instead, “[s]ome evidence H.H.Robertson 13 , 820F.2dat390). However,“thereisnopresumption Preliminary injunctionsarethus , 49F.3d1551,1557(Fed.Cir. Markman v.Westview The that , 820 , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 court initsanalysisofirreparableharm.” Nutrition21 circumstances ofthiscase,neitherargument rebutsthepresumption. motion, andthatmoney damages wouldbeadequate.TheCourtfindsthatinthe two grounds:thatElantechhasunreasonablydelayedinfilingitspreliminary injunction against thepartychallengingpreliminary injunctive relief. in whichapreliminary injunctionhasbeendenied that itwouldceasetheinfringingconduct.”).Moreover,Synapticsisunabletociteanycase attempting tonegotiateasettlement, [or] wherethedefendanthasledplaintifftobelieve *2 (E.D.N.Y.1989)(“Incertaininstances,courtshaveexcuseddelayswherethepartieswere a preliminary injunction.See Settlement discussionshavebeenrecognizedasa“goodexplanation” forthedelayinseeking have periodicallyengagedinsettlement discussionsoverthepasttwo years.”Syn.Opp.at2. Elantech hasnotbeenirreparablyharmed. However,accordingtoSynaptics,“theparties a 21-month delaysincethelawsuitwasfiledonMarch10,2006inordertoprovethat had notbeenmade. Nutrition21 case theappellatecourt overturnedtheinjunctionbecause“anadequate supportingrecord” inadequacy .[is] proffered,”adistrictcourtmay grantapreliminary injunction,butinthat explained thatnormally aslong“[s]ome evidenceandreasonedanalysisforthat years from itsfilingdate.The’352 patentgranthaslessthanhalfofitsterm remaining. This validity. See infringement asamatter oflawandSynapticshasfailedtoraiseasubstantialquestion showing oflikelihoodsuccess:indeed,theCourtconcludesthatElantechhasproven Russell William, Ltd.v. ABCDisplayandSupply,Inc. L.L.C. presumption thatmoney damages willbeinadequate. InNutrition21 Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page14of16 , 126S.Ct.1837,1841(2006). First, Synapticscorrectlyassertsthatdelayis“onefactortobeconsideredbyadistrict Synaptics alsooveremphasizes thestatement inNutrition21 Elantechisentitledtoapresumption ofirreparableharm becauseithasmade astrong Reebok , 32F.3dat1556-57.Synapticsattempts torebutthispresumption on HighTechMedicalInstrumention , 930F.2dat871.Elantech’s patentwillexpirein2016,20 14 after , 930F.2dat871.Synapticspointsto , No.88-CV-265,1989WL23947,at summary judgment hasentered , 49F.3dat1557;seealso thatthereisno , theFederalCircuit United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ’352 patentbySynaptics’s touchpadsimplementing Type2Code. Elantech’s motion forpreliminary injunction enjoiningthecontinuinginfringement ofits success andirreparable harm. Therefore theCourtactswithinitsdiscretionand grants Court findsthatonbalancethefactorsfavorElantech, especiallyinitsproofoflikelihood Synaptics presentsnoargument onitsbehalfastothisfactor. success onthemerits of validityandinfringement, thisfactortipsinElantech’sfavor. favors Elantech. patent couldloseitsvalueoverthecourseoflitigation.Thereforebalancehardships preliminary injunctionisgranted.Butifthepreliminary injunctionisnotgrantedElantech’s products, wouldnotbeforcedoutofbusinessoreventhetouchpadmarket ifthe not evenaddressthisfactor.Synaptics,asthelargercompany withmultiple irreparable harm ifthepreliminary injunctiondoesnotissue. support Synpatics’sstatement. no needforaninjunction.Theshortansweristhatthereevidenceintherecordto Synaptics claimed thatitisnolongermanufacturing touchpadswithType2Codesothereis may bedifficulttocalculateandcompensate withmoney damages. Finally,atoralargument, addition, becauseElantechandSynapticsbothselltouchpads,Elantech’slostmarket share would irreparablyharm Elantechbydeprivingofpartitspatentgrant.In counterclaims againstElantech.Delayinganinjunctionuntilthelitigationisconcluded permanent injunctive relief,cannotbeentereduntiltheCourtresolvesSynaptics’s Court alsoanticipatescontinuingandprotractedlitigation;finaljudgment, andthus likely validandinfringed.”AbbottLabs. Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page15of16 In summary, consideringeachofthe equitablefactorsforapreliminary injunction,the .PublicInterest As statedinAbbottLabs. E. The CourtfindsthatthebalanceofhardshipsfavorsElantech;indeedSynapticsdoes BalanceofHardships D. Considering thetotalityofcircumstances, theCourtfindsthatElantechwillsuffer , the“publicisbestservedbyenforcingpatentsthatare , 452F.3dat1348.GivenElantech’slikelihood of 15 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae:Mrh1,20 Dated: March13,2008 Type 2CodeisalsoGRANTED. importing, making, using,selling,orofferingtosellitstouchpadproductsimplementing motion forpreliminary injunctionto ’352 patentbySynaptic’stouchpadsimplementing Type2CodeisGRANTED.Elantech’s CONCLUSION VI. Case 5:06-cv-01839-PVTDocument301Filed04/14/08Page16of IT ISSOORDERED. Elantech’s motion forpartialsummary judgment ofinfringement ofclaim 18ofthe enjoin Synapticsfrom infringingthe’352patentby 16 UNITED STATESDISTRICTJUDGE CHARLES R.BREYER