Reply Brief in Support of KSR's Motion for Summary ... - Fried Frank

More documents

Recommendations

Info

On August 8, 2003, plaintiffTeleflex Inc. ("Teleflex") and non-pary TechnologyHolding Company ("THC") stipulated to the dismissal, with prejudice, ofTeleflex'sclaims in this action alleging infngement ofU.S. Patent No. 6,305,239 B 1 (the "'239Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 6,374;695 Bl (the "'695 Patent"), in view ofpublishedFrench Patent Application No. 2,739,947 to Urset (see Exhibit 1 hereto, at 2).1This Cour on August ii, 2003, ordered the dismissal, with prejudice, ofthesecond and third claims for relief asserted in Teleflex's Second Amended Complaint fiedNovember 18,2002 (i.) Ths Cour fuher "ORDERED that the '239 Patent and the'695 Patent be and are dedicated to the public under 35 U.S.C. § 253" (id. at 3). In viewof these developments, the Cour need not take any fuher action on KSR's pendingMotion for Summary Judgment ofInvalidity filed July 7,2003, insofar as the '239 and'695 Patents are concemed.2With regard to plaintiffs lone suriving claim for alleged infngement of Claim 4ofU.S. Patent No. 6,237,565 Bl (the "'565 Patent"), Teleflex's Response to KSR'sMotion for Sumar Judgment ofInvalidity ("Pltf. Opp. Br.") does not address orcontrovert a single one ofthe facts presented by KSR in support of its defense of1 The Urset reference clearly invalidated the '239 and '695 Patents under 35 U.S.C. §102(a), as demonstrated in Exhibits 6 and 7 of the Declaration of Larr Wilemsen filedJuly 7, 2003 (hereinafter, "Wilemsen Decl. ") and in the computer aniation fies named"Urset" in Exhbit 1 to the Declaration of Danel H. Krger fied July 7,2003(hereinafter, "Krger Decl."). Seealso KSR's Briefin Support ofDefendants Motionfor Sumar Judgment of Invalidity filed July 7,2003 ("KSR Main Br.") at 4-5, 16-19,and Exhbit 1.2 It is a measure ofthis lawsuit's unusual character that Teleflex and THC totallyabandoned the '239 and '695 Patents scarcely a month after Teleflex fied a Motion forSumary Judgment of Infrngement of those same patents on July 7,2003.1
invalidity under 35 U.S.C: § 103 (a) (Wilemsen DecL. irir 1-22, 32-44 & Exs. 1-2,8-12;Krger DecL. irir 4-6,25-30 & Ex. 1; see KSR Main Br. at 1-11, 19-35 & Exs. 1,5-12).Thus, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and (e), this Cour can and should determinethat there is no genuine issue to be tred as to any of the following facts:Backeround-- As of Januar 26, 1998, the design of accelerator pedals installed in cars andlight trucks sold in the United States was substantially determined by the tye of engineand fuel system that an automaker specified was going to be installed in a vehicle(Willemsen Decl. irir 11,22).-- As of Januar 26, 1998, an increasing number of vehicles sold in the UnitedStates came equipped with electronic throttle control systems ("ETC's"), because suchsystems offered varous operational advantages over cable-actuated throttle controlsystems such as reduced emissions, improved fuel economy, simplified cruise controls,and improved slip reduction (Wilemsen Dee!. irir 9, 34; see KSR Main Br. at 23-24 &Exs. 7-8).-- As of January 26, 1988, vehicles equipped with electronic throttle controls, bytheir very natue~ required the use of electronic sensors capable of sensing an acceleratorpedal's position and emitting electrical signals corresponding to the pedal's position(Wilemsen Decl. ir 11,22).-- As of Januar 26, 1998, whether a vehicle pedal assembly actuated a cable, oran electronic position sensor, was dependent on the type of fuel system the pedal was ,being designed to actuate (Wilemsen Decl. ir 22).2
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPaee(s)Altoona
Page 5: United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith
Page 10 and 11: -- In an Offce Action dated Novembe
Page 12 and 13: just in case there could be an argu
Page 14 and 15: -- Conventional, off-the-shelf peda
Page 16 and 17: Here there is no dispute as to any
Page 18 and 19: n. "OBVIOUSNESS" MUST BE DETERMIND
Page 20 and 21: Teleflex's argument is erroneous at
Page 22 and 23: Exs. 8-10; KSR Main Br. at 23-27).
Page 24 and 25: elements with no change in their re
Page 26 and 27: mx::0';:¡:-i
Page 28: ,e ePlaintiffTeleflex Incorporated
Page 31 and 32: .. ,). ../ IN THE UNTED STATES PATE
Page 33 and 34: REMAClais 20-23 remai in ths applic
Page 35 and 36: Offce Action Summaryo Responsive to
Page 37 and 38: Serial Number: 09/643,422Page 3Ar.U
Page 39 and 40: mx:J0-;: .t
Page 41 and 42: 'u.s. Patent . Oct. 24, 1995 Sheet
Page 43 and 44: u.s. Patent Oct. 24, 1995 Sheet 3 o
Page 45 and 46: , ,U .8. Patent Oct. 24, 1995 Sheet
Page 47 and 48: "/ )1ADJUSTABLE CONTROL PEDALAPPART
Page 49 and 50: 5adjuster member utizig the guide b
Page 51 and 52: 5,460,0619porton inboard of the slo
Page 53 and 54: PATENT NO. :DATEDJNVENTOA(S) : ,UNI
Page 55 and 56: United States Patent (19)Smith et a
Page 57 and 58:
. u.s. Patent Nov. 12, 1991 Sheet 2
Page 59 and 60:
, u.s. Patent Nov. 12, 1991 Sheet 4
Page 61 and 62:
1ACCELERATOR PEDAL ASSEMBLYTECHNICA
Page 63 and 64:
565,063,811FIG. 1 to the wide-open-
Page 65 and 66:
5,063,811910'above, the uppermeans-
Page 67 and 68:
"..._.. .~ --"N~Applicant:EngelgauS
Page 69 and 70:
, .Applicant: EngelgauSN: 09/643,42
Page 71 and 72:
-,.J.."(". ,to . ) , PTO/SS/26 (10-
Page 73 and 74:
5The subject inventionADJUSTABLE PE
Page 75 and 76:
S 3 'as set fort in clai l wherein
Page 77 and 78:
mx::0';:Q)
Page 79 and 80:
--,.ApplicationOfficë Action Summa
Page 81 and 82:
Serial Number: 09/236,975Page 3Ar U
Page 83 and 84:
mx::0-;:co
Page 85 and 86:
",U.S.S.N 09/236,975 2..,. .~-,!.,0
Page 87 and 88:
US.S.N 09/236,975 4aft directions t
Page 89 and 90:
mx::0';:-io
Page 91 and 92:
Form PTO-1449 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AT
Page 93 and 94:
L-Sheet -i of -i ==.5FORM l'O.1449
Page 95 and 96:
Sheet -- of -l.. b ~~ C'~ §g.' l:
Page 97:
DECLARATION OF JAMES w: DABNEY and
show all

Reply Brief in Support of KSR's Motion for Summary ... - Fried Frank

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?