Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.

Last updated

Fujitsu Limited v. Netgear Inc.
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case name'Fujitsu Limited and L.G Electronics and U.S. Philips Corporation v. Netgear Inc.'
DecidedSeptember 20 2010
Citation(s)620 F.3d 1321; 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1742
Case history
Prior history576 F. Supp. 2d 964 (W.D. Wis. 2008)
Holding
Non-infringement in two patents. Infringement of the third patent in four specific models.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Alan David Lourie, Daniel Mortimer Friedman, Kimberly Ann Moore
Case opinions
Majority Kimberly Ann Moore
Laws applied
35 U.S.C.   § 271, 35 U.S.C.   § 287

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010), [1] was a patent infringement case centered on three patents claimed to be required for full compliance of the IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) standard and the WiFi Alliance Wireless Multimedia Extensions (WMM) Specification. US patents 4,975,952, 6,018,642, and 6,469,993 were owned by Philips Electronics, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics respectively, and placed in the Via Licensing [2] pool. The Via Licensing pool claimed to hold all patents required for a complete WiFi/WMM implementation. Netgear did not enter an agreement with Via Licensing but produced a series of products that conform to the WiFi standard and WMM Specification. Philips Electronics, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics sued Netgear for patent infringement claiming a complete implementation of the WiFi standard implied violating patents held by Via Licensing pool. When tried in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement by Netgear for all three patents [3] thus plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed non-infringement for two of the three patent and found infringement of the third patent in four of Netgear's products. [1]

Contents

Background

Fujitsu, LG Electronics, and Philips Electronics were participating in the Via licensing pool and hold US patents 6,018,642, 6,469,993 and 4.974,952 respectively that were claimed to be required for complete implementation of the IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) standard and the WiFi Alliance Wireless Multi-Media (WMM) Specification. Via licensing Pool sent letters several times from 2005 to 2007 to Netgear noticing that its products that were compliant with the 802.11 standard had infringed patents included in the licensing pool. However, Netgear's request that Via Licensing Pool inform specifically which of its products infringed which portions of those patents was ignored and Netgear didn't accept its suggestion on licensing. In December 17, 2007, Plaintiffs sued Netgear for patent infringement and Netgear did seek summary judgment for noninfringement

Specific issue in this case

Standard patent

Plaintiffs' suit was based upon the theory that "networks conforming with IEEE standard also conformed to the patent in suit". [3] Stated simply, plaintiffs attempted to prove infringement by Netgear's products by showing that those products that practice WiFi standard and WMM Specification necessarily infringe three patents in suit. The district court pointed out that the central issue here is whether mere implementation of WiFi standard by Netgear's products made Netgear automatically liable for infringement of patents placed in the licensing pool related to the 801.11 standard and related Specification.

Grouping

Throughout the trial, plaintiffs adhered to the strategy to group the accused products when providing evidence of infringement. Plaintiffs argued that grouping of products when submitting evidence was proper based on their expert's testimony saying that "different versions of the same product will typically support the same feature set". However, the district court was very careful to accept the evidence based on the grouping strategy, explaining that plaintiffs' argument that three separate patents had been infringed by more than 260 products of Netgear made it not easy to prove which components of which allegedly infringing products actually infringed which portions of the three patents.

Opinion of The district court and The court of appeals

The District Court for Western District of Wisconsin (The district court) denied all of the three motions for summary of judgment filed by plaintiffs and granted motion for summary judgment of non-infringement by Netgear.

Analysis of the Courts on US patent 952

Patent claim analysis (Clarification of the terms used in claim)

US patent 4,975,952 claims a method of transmitting data in a wireless network, specifically fragmenting large messages into smaller messages to avoid resending large amounts of data if network transmission errors occur and, thus, to transfer data more reliably.

Patent infringement analysis by the district court

Phillips urged that Netgear indirectly infringed its patents and was liable for contributory infringement. First, with respect to the indirect infringement, the district court concluded that Netgear could not indirectly infringe plaintiff's patent since there were no evidence that the patent is directly infringed by the third parties. The court acknowledged that end users could enable fragmentation through software control and therefore might infringed the patents at issue. However, because fragmentation is merely an optional component of the IEEE 802.11 specification and Netgear products did not enable fragmentation by default, the court could not find any explicit circumstantial evidences that third parties indeed infringed the 952 patent.

Second, the district court decided that Netgear did not contribute to the infringement. To prove the contributory infringement by Netgear, plaintiff submitted the notice letters sent by Via Licensing pool to Netgear as evidence that Netgear had recognized that it infringed the 952 patent. However, the district court held "the notice letters sent by Philips prior to the instant suit were not sufficient to establish the knowledge and intent elements of contributory and induced infringement". [3] In addition, the district court stated the initial notice of patent infringement was not sufficient to establish Netgear's knowledge of infringtement.

The district court denied the summary of motion for infringement and granted Netgear's summary of motion for non-infringement.

Judgment by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The federal court of appeals referenced 35 U.S.C.   § 271 to determine contributory infringement. Specifically, the patent owner must show: "1) that there is direct infringement, 2) that the accused infringer had knowledge of the patent, 3) that the component has no substantial non-infringing uses, and 4) that the component is a material part of the invention". [1] To determine direct infringement, the court stated "if an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product"; [1] however, the court softend their statement with the following "We acknowledge, however, that in many instances, an industry standard does not provide the level of specificity required to establish that practicing that standard would always result in infringement". [1] However, Netgear's customer service records that had recommended end-users enable fragmentation on four models (WPN111, WG511, WPN824, and WG311T) was accepted as a viable evidence. The appeal court, thus, agreed with the district court that Philips failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding direct infringement for all but the four models with corresponding customer service records. [1]

The court decided Philip's notices of infringement provided Netgear sufficient knowledge of infringement. Likewise, the court could not find substantial non-infringing uses of wireless fragmentation. When considering material part of invention, the district court claimed defragmentation did not infringe US patent 4,975,952 as it only made material claims of fragmentation techniques. Weighing all four elements of direct infringement, the federal court reversed the district court's summary judgment for non-infringement Netgear's models WPN111, WG511, WPN824, and WG311T.

In addition, the federal court overruled the district court's limitation on damages. 35 U.S.C.   § 287 allows limited damages when a patent holder uses their claimed invention without clearly marking the product with the relevant patent number. The federal court held the district court was in error as 35 U.S.C.   § 287 does not apply to any patent directed a method and US patent 4,975,952 explicitly claimed a method for fragmentation.

Analysis of the Courts on US patent 642

Patent claim analysis (Clarification of the terms used in claim)

The second patent under consideration in this case is US patent 6,018,642, [4] owned by Fujitsu. The patent under consideration claimed "a system for reducing power consumption in mobile devices that access wireless networks". [4] In the 642 patent, to save the energy consumption, the mobile station's wireless communication subsystem is configured to only power up in time to receive the beacon signals noticing that there is data to transfer and if no data is available, immediately power off. The idea behind this patent is to keep the wireless radio in a low-power state as much as possible to preserve energy.

Meaning of "Synchronous"

There were especially two terms used in claims in the 642 patents that required clarification. In both the district and circuit court, potential infringement centered on the definition of "synchronous". In Fujitsu's patent, the function of the alert beacon signal is described as "an intermittent power-on type mobile station for shift to a power-on state synchronously with a received timing of a beacon signal, with a fixed period of time after the beacon signal has been received being defined as a data receive-ready period". [4] The district court construed the phrase "shifting to a power on state synchronously with a received timing of a beacon signal" to mean "shifting to a power-on state at the same time a beacon signal is to be received.

Meaning of "Fixed period of time" for Data Receive-Ready (DRR) period

Also, one of the claim in the 642 patent described that data receive-ready(DRR) period is " a fixed period of time during which an intermittent power-on type mobile station is in its power on state and prepared to receive data, with the period beginning immediately after the intermittent power-on type mobile station receives the beacon signal telling it there is data to be transmitted to it". [3] The issue here was what exactly the fixed period of time means. The court held that the DRR period must have a fixed length for the Netgear's devices to infringe the 642 patent.

Patent infringement analysis by the district court

The district court stated that the jury could not find that the device literally infringed the "synchrnously" element of the 642 patent, because it was impossible to know from plaintiffs' oscilloscope graphs (one of the evidence submitted by plaintiff) the precise time between when defendant's accused mobile devices reach their power-on mode and when a beacon signal is to be received.

Also, the district court allowed Fujitsu's expert witness to demonstrate a WiFi system configured to transmit an alert signal every 102 milliseconds. The district court reported that the Netgear system remained on as long as a "more data" flag or the alert beacon was enabled. If the beacon was inactive or the "more data" flag was not set, the system immediately powered down. This proved Netgear's system does not have a fixed data receive-ready period.

Judgment by the court of appeals for the federal circuit

During the appeal, Fujitsu claimed "synchronously" does not mean "at the same time". Instead, Fujitsu stated "synchronously" means: "the shifting to a power-on state has a temporal relationship with the beacon signal so that the beacon signal can be received." In addition, Fujitsu argued that the district court's definition of "synchronous" would require two events to occur at precisely the same time which they stated is a physical impossibility. Netgear argued the district court's interpretation was correct. The circuit court defined synchronous to mean "just before or at the same time" and thereby slightly relax the limitation. Given the evidence from the district court's experiment, however, the circuit court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement without modification.

Analysis of the courts on US patent 993

Patent claim analysis (Clarification of the terms used in claim)

The final patent under consideration is 6,469,993 [5] owned by LG Electronics. This patent described a system for quality of service in a communications network where the base station assigns priority to different clients and traffic types. Specifically, the LG patent grants individual terminals priority levels. Here, the important fact is that the priority to determine which data would be received first is assigned at the terminal level.

Patent infringement analysis by the district court

LG electronics argued that Netgear products that implemented WMM Specification infringed its 993 patents. The WMM Specification is a complement to the 802.11 standard that outlines a set of structures and methods to ensure better quality of service within an 802.11 compliant network. However, the district court held that the accused products did not infringe the patent because the WMM Specification states that priority is assigned to message types, but not to individual terminals as described in the 993 patent.

Judgment by the court of appeals for the federal circuit

The appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement for US patent 6,469,993.

Holding by the court of appeals for the federal circuit

The appeals court decided on September 20, 2010 that Netgear was not liable for infringement of US patents 6,018,642 and 6,469,993. Infringement of US patent 4,975,952 occurred in the four specific models for which Netgear's consumer support records recommended enabling packet fragmentation.

Related Research Articles

IEEE 802.11 Specifications for Wi-Fi wireless networks

IEEE 802.11 is part of the IEEE 802 set of local area network (LAN) technical standards, and specifies the set of media access control (MAC) and physical layer (PHY) protocols for implementing wireless local area network (WLAN) computer communication. The standard and amendments provide the basis for wireless network products using the Wi-Fi brand and are the world's most widely used wireless computer networking standards. IEEE 802.11 is used in most home and office networks to allow laptops, printers, smartphones, and other devices to communicate with each other and access the Internet without connecting wires.

Wi-Fi Wireless local area network

Wi-Fi is a family of wireless network protocols, based on the IEEE 802.11 family of standards, which are commonly used for local area networking of devices and Internet access, allowing nearby digital devices to exchange data by radio waves. These are the most widely used computer networks in the world, used globally in home and small office networks to link desktop and laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones, smart TVs, printers, and smart speakers together and to a wireless router to connect them to the Internet, and in wireless access points in public places like coffee shops, hotels, libraries and airports to provide the public Internet access for mobile devices.

IEEE 802.11e-2005 or 802.11e is an approved amendment to the IEEE 802.11 standard that defines a set of quality of service (QoS) enhancements for wireless LAN applications through modifications to the media access control (MAC) layer. The standard is considered of critical importance for delay-sensitive applications, such as Voice over Wireless LAN and streaming multimedia. The amendment has been incorporated into the published IEEE 802.11-2007 standard.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

Wi-Fi Alliance Organization that supports the Wi-Fi alliance

The Wi-Fi Alliance is a non-profit organization that owns the Wi-Fi trademark. Manufacturers may use the trademark to brand products certified for Wi-Fi interoperability.

Wireless Multimedia Extensions (WME), also known as Wi-Fi Multimedia (WMM), is a Wi-Fi Alliance interoperability certification, based on the IEEE 802.11e standard. It provides basic Quality of service (QoS) features to IEEE 802.11 networks. WMM prioritizes traffic according to four Access Categories (AC): voice (AC_VO), video (AC_VI), best effort (AC_BE), and background (AC_BK). However, it does not provide guaranteed throughput. It is suitable for well-defined applications that require QoS, such as Voice over IP (VoIP) on Wi-Fi phones (VoWLAN).

Wireless USB Wireless radio communication protocol

Wireless USB was a short-range, high-bandwidth wireless radio communication protocol created by the Wireless USB Promoter Group which intended to increase the availability of general USB-based technologies. It is unrelated to Wi-Fi. It was maintained by the WiMedia Alliance which ceased operations in 2009. Wireless USB is sometimes abbreviated as "WUSB", although the USB Implementers Forum discouraged this practice and instead prefers to call the technology Certified Wireless USB to distinguish it from the competing UWB standard.

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

The DG834 series are popular ADSL modem router products from Netgear. The devices can be directly connected to the phone line and establish an ADSL broadband Internet connection to the ISP and share it among several computers via 802.3 Ethernet and 802.11b/g wireless data links.

Rowell v. Lindsay, 113 U.S. 97 (1885), was a bill brought by the appellants, John S. Rowell and Ira Rowell, the plaintiffs in the circuit court. The bill was in equity against Edmund J. Lindsay and William Lindsay, the appellees, to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 2,909, dated March 31, 1868, granted to the plaintiffs for 'a new and improved cultivator.

In the United States, a valid patent provides its proprietor with the right to exclude others from practicing the invention claimed in that patent. A person who practices that invention without the permission of the patent holder infringes that patent.

Ruckus Networks

Ruckus Networks is a brand of wired and wireless networking equipment and software owned by CommScope. Ruckus offers Switches, Wi-Fi access points, CBRS access points, Controllers, Management systems, Cloud management, AAA/BYOD software, AI and ML analytics software, location software and IoT controller software products to mobile carriers, broadband service providers, and corporate enterprises. As a company, Ruckus invented and has patented wireless voice, video, and data technology, such as adaptive antenna arrays that extend signal range, increase data rates, and avoid interference, providing distribution of delay-sensitive content over standard 802.11 Wi-Fi.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

IEEE 802.11ac-2013 or 802.11ac is a wireless networking standard in the 802.11 set of protocols, providing high-throughput wireless local area networks (WLANs) on the 5 GHz band. The standard has been retroactively labelled as Wi-Fi 5 by Wi-Fi Alliance.

Defences and remedies in Canadian patent law

A patent holder in Canada has the exclusive right, privilege and liberty to making, constructing, using and selling the invention for the term of the patent, from the time the patent is granted. Any person who does any of these acts in relation to an invention without permission of the patent owner is liable for patent infringement.

Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc.. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement. In April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the Supreme Court's default analysis using the exhaustion doctrine in Quanta v. LG Electronics. In June 2012, appellate judge Richard Posner dismissed the U.S. case with prejudice and the parties appealed the decision a month later.

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc., 696 F.3d 872 was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case about Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing and foreign anti-suit injunction.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States that deals with civil procedure, and specifically with the question of the burden of proof required in pursuing declaratory judgments.

JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Nero, Inc., 797 F.3d 1039, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14402, is a 2015 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the rights of end users who purchase products subject to fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing under an industry-wide patent pool of standards-essential patents, and of suppliers of software to the end users. The Federal Circuit held that, where the patent holder had authorized sales to end users of optical discs compliant with the standard, which embodied the patents' essential features and were reasonably intended only to be used to practice the patents, the patent owner had no direct infringement claim against the end users without proof that the end-users were using unlicensed discs. The patent holder therefore had no claim for contributory infringement or induced infringement against a software company for selling software to the end users for use with the licensed discs. The decision is said to be an important one for clarifying the rights of downstream users and their suppliers in the context of patent pools and FRAND licensing.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620F.3d1321 ( Fed. Cir. 2010).
  2. ↑ "Via Licensing" . Retrieved September 25, 2011.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 576F. Supp. 2d964 ( W.D. Wis. 2008).
  4. 1 2 3 U.S. Patent 6,018,642 .
  5. ↑ U.S. Patent 6,469,993 .

Further reading

Shapiro, Carl (January 2001). "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research (Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.