In the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit david h. Sitrick, P
Download 162.09 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF Jeffrey M. Olson Robert A. Holland Samuel N. Tiu SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
- FENWICK WEST LLP
- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
- Statutes
| No. 2007-1174
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DAVID H. SITRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DREAMWORKS, LLC, NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., NEW LINE HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., WARNER MUSIC GROUP, INC., WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., WARNER-ELEKTRA-ATLANTIC CORPORATION, WARNER HOME VIDEO (doing business as Warner Reprise Video), WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, and WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Case No. 03-CV-4265, Judge Stephen V. Wilson DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’ BRIEF Jeffrey M. Olson Robert A. Holland Samuel N. Tiu SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 896-6000 (213) 896-6600 (fax) jolson@sidley.com rholland@sidley.com
Counsel for Defendants-Appellees August 10, 2007
SITRICK v. DREAMWORKS, No. 2007-1174 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTCounsel for the Defendants-Appellees certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: DreamWorks L.L.C., New Line Productions Inc., New Line Home Entertainment, Inc., Warner Music Inc. (formerly known as Warner Music Group Inc.), Warner Bros. Records Inc., Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation, Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. (formerly known as Warner Home Video Inc.), Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., and Warner Bros. Pictures (a division of WB Studio Enterprises Inc.). 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me is: Not applicable. 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own ten (10) percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: a. DreamWorks L.L.C.’s ultimate parent corporation is Viacom Inc. Viacom Inc. is a publicly held company. The assets of “Shrek” and “Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron” are owned by DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., a publicly traded company. b. The parent corporations of New Line Productions, Inc. and New Line Home Entertainment, Inc. are New Line Cinema Corporation, Warner Communications Inc., American Television and Communications Corporation, Time Warner Companies, Inc., Historic TW Inc., and Time Warner Inc. Time Warner Inc. is a publicly held company. c. The parent corporations of Warner Music Inc. (formerly known as Warner Music Group Inc.) are WMG Acquisition Corp. and Warner Music Group Corp. Warner Music Group Corp. is a publicly held company. d. The parent corporations of Warner Bros. Records Inc. are WMG Acquisition Corp. and Warner Music Group Corp. Warner Music Group Corp. is a publicly held company. e. The parent corporations of Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation are WMG Acquisition Corp. and Warner Music Group Corp. Warner Music Group Corp. is a publicly held company. f. The parent corporations of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. (formerly knows as Warner Home Video Inc. and formerly a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.) are Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Warner Communications Inc., American Television and Communications Corporation, Time Warner Companies, Inc., Historic TW Inc., and Time Warner Inc. Time Warner Inc. is a publicly held company. g. Warner Bros. Pictures is a division of WB Studio Enterprises Inc. The parent corporations of WB Studio Enterprises Inc. are Warner Bros. Enterprises LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Warner Communications Inc., American Television and Communications Corporation, Time Warner Companies, Inc., Historic TW Inc., and Time Warner Inc. Time Warner Inc. is a publicly held company. h. The parent corporations of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. are Warner Communications Inc., American Television and Communications Corporation, Time Warner Companies, Inc., Historic TW Inc., and Time Warner Inc. Time Warner Inc. is a publicly held company. 4. □ There is no such corporation as listed in paragraph 3. 5. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates who appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are: Jeffrey Brill Sean Paul Debruine Claude M. Stern
801 California Street Mountain View, California 94041 (650) 988-8500 Richard J. Gray Preston L. Pugh JENNER & BLOCK LLC One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 (312) 923-2939 Richard F. O’Malley, Jr. David L. Ter Molen SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 853-7000 (312) 853-7036 (fax)
Robert A. Holland Sandra S. Fujiyama Samuel N. Tiu Sean A. Commons Matthew S. Jorgenson SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 896-6000 (213) 896-6600 (fax) Respectfully submitted, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Jeffrey M. Olson Robert A. Holland Samuel N. Tiu Dated: August 10, 2007 By: Jeffrey M. Olson Counsel for Defendants-Appellees TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST 1 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES 1 statement with respect to oral argument 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 .I THE TWO PATENTS AND ALLEGED INVENTIONS AT ISSUE 4 .II PLAINTIFF’S INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS 8 .III DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS 10 .IV THE DISTRICT COURT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THREE INDEPENDENT GROUNDS 11 .A Claim 56 Of The ‘864 Patent And All Claims Asserted Under The ‘825 Patent Were Held Invalid For Lack Of Enablement 12 .B Claim Limitations In The ‘825 Patent Were Held Insolubly Ambiguous 15 .1 The District Court held “plurality of background images” indefinite 15 .2 The District Court also held “video” indefinite 18 .C Claim 54 Of The ‘864 Patent Was Held Not Infringed And Not Enabled 21 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 23 Standard of review 25 ARGUMENT 26 .I CLAIM 56 OF THE ‘864 PATENT AND ALL OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ‘825 PATENT ARE INVALID FOR FAILURE TO ENABLE THE FULL SCOPE OF THE CLAIMS, WHICH PURPORT TO ENCOMPASS MOTION PICTURES 26 .A The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standard For Enablement 27 .B Claim 56 Of The ‘864 Patent And All Of The Asserted Claims Under The ‘825 Patent Lack Enabling Disclosures For Motion Pictures, Including Both Visual And Audio Substitutions In Motion Pictures 31 .1 The asserted device claims based on the “IAIS” structure lack an enabling disclosure for motion pictures 31 .2 The asserted method claims lack an enabling disclosure for motion pictures 37 .II CLAIM 56 OF THE ‘864 PATENT AND THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ‘825 PATENT ARE INVALID FOR INDEFINITENESS 39 .A A Claim Is Indefinite When It Contains Terms That Are Subject To Multiple Constructions 40 .B The Phrase “Plurality Of Background Images” Cannot Be Given A Single, Meaningful Construction 41 .C The Word “Video” Is Not Subject To A Single Construction 45 .III THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT INFRINGE CLAIM 54 OF THE ‘864 PATENT 48 .A The District Court Correctly Construed Claim 54 To Require A Voice Synthesizer That Models Voices 48 .B ReVoice Studio Does Not Contain A Voice Synthesizer That Models Voices 50 .C The District Court Correctly Held That Claim 54 Of The ‘864 Patent Is Not Enabled 53 .IV THIS LITIGATION WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED 55 .A Plaintiff Waived Any Objection To The Order Transferring Venue And Consented To Litigation In California 55 .B The Illinois District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Transferring The Case To California 56 Conclusion 58 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 certificate of compliance 2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s)
344 F.3d 1234 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 28, 30 Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Industries, Inc. 299 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 41, 48 Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. 922 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 48, 52 Clausen v. M/V New Carissa 339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003) 26 Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc. 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 41 Durel Corp. v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. 256 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 30 Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Phillips Corp. 363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 36, 51 EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. 268 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 28 Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co. 946 F.2d 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 28 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp. 93 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) 45 Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc. 289 F.3d 761 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 25, 26, 36, 52 Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S 108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 35 Hoffmann v. United States 17 Fed. Appx. 980 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 56 Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n 341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 41 Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc. 436 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1971) 56 IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 25, 41 Lacks Indus. v. McKechnie Vehicle Components USA 322 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 25 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc. 481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) passim LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. 424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 27, 28, 30 Nat’l Recovery Techs., Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc. 166 F.3d 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 28, 30, 38 Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp. 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 40, 41 Oak Techn., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n 248 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 49 Posnanski v. Gibney 421 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) 26, 56 Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R. A. Jones & Co. 324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 55 Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus. 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 37 Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc. 827 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1987) 34, 35 Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co. 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) 41 Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. 329 F.3d 823 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 26, 57 TechSearch L.L.C. v. Intel Corp. 286 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 48 Transcapital Leasing Assocs., 1990-II, L.P. v. United States 398 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 55 Union Pacific Resources, Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. 236 F.3d 684 (Fed. Cir. 2001) 41 United States v. Benavidez-Benavidez 217 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2000) 26 Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co. 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 27, 30 Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp. 259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) 26 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1404 26 35 U.S.C. § 102 10 35 U.S.C. § 112 passim Other Authorities 17 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 1164 (3d ed. 1999) 56
Directory: documents documents -> Concept stage documents -> Concept stage documents -> The great global switch-off documents -> Nonprofit grant application documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan documents -> Chaos equipment included Download 162.09 Kb. Share with your friends:
|