- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
http://www.law360.com/articles/710489/canon-can-t-get-ptab-to-nix-intellectual-ventures-patent
Canon Can't Get PTAB To Nix Intellectual Ventures Patent
By Daniel Langhorne
Law360, Los Angeles (October 2, 2015, 9:57 PM ET) — Canon lost its bid on Friday to have the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declare Intellectual Ventures’ patent, which deals with scanners that reduce distortion during high-speed image signal transmission, as unpatentable.
In its petition asking the board to declare Intellectual Ventures Management LLC's patent, Canon Inc. relied on several references to claims that challenged an image-reading device that uses a charge-coupled device to collect image data, as well as one against a device that uses an image sensor to read a document. But the board held that these references were unsuitable to back up Canon’s argument for declaring Intellectual Ventures LLC’s invention as unpatentable.
“Based on the evidence before us, we find that petitioner has not demonstrated that [past references] discloses ‘wherein the received scan control signals do not compromise any timing control,’ as recited in each independent claim,” the panel said.
Canon proposed that “scan control signals” be construed as signals for scan control and that “timing control signals” be construed as signals for timing control, but the board refused to adopt this claim construction.
“We agree with patent owners that petitioner’s proposed construction for ‘scan control signals’ improperly introduces extraneous terms,” the order said.
This is the latest development in the ongoing battle between Canon and Intellectual Ventures over various patents.
A federal judge in May ordered a new trial for two camera-related patent infringement claims after finding that Canon overstepped the bounds of how an expert witness's testimony could be used regarding the issues of infringement and intent to infringe.
Despite repeated assurances during the May 2014 trial that the testimony by witness Shinji Sakai was simply for the purpose of explaining how the cameras work, Canon used Sakai's testimony as the bedrock for its closing argument to the jury that the devices do not meet the "digital image magnification" limitation of the claims by patent holder Intellectual Ventures, U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson wrote.
At Canon's urging, the scope of Intellectual Ventures' trial presentation for U.S. Patent Numbers 5,754,348 — a digital imaging patent — and 6,121,960 — a patent for touch-screen technology — had also been limited by the court's precluding testimony concerning Canon's prelitigation response to infringement allegations regarding nonsuit patents.
Judge Robinson noted that the Federal Circuit has held that unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.
The judge also denied two motions by Canon for a new trial for U.S. Patent Numbers 6,023,081 and 6,221,686, which cover methods for making and configurating of semiconductor image sensors. In a related case, a jury had found both patents to be valid and that Canon had infringed on ‘081.
Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond Friday to requests for comment.
The patent-at-issue is U.S. Registration No. 8,300,285.
Canon is represented by Justin J. Oliver, Daniel S. Blueck and Sean Walsh of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto.
Intellectual Ventures is represented by Brenton R. Babcock and Ted M. Cannon of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP.
–Additional reporting by Bill Donahue and Kevin Penton. Editing by Christine Chun.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.