Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-ov-01373;KAJ Document 332 Filed 05/31 /2006 . Page 1.0103 0 0 . 0 1 ‘
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AMPEX CORPORATION, )
)
) 0
Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 04-1373-KAJ 0
) p 0
v. ) _
> 0
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ALTEK )
CORPORATION and CHINON INDUSTRIES, ) 0
INC., )
)
Defendants. ) REDACTED - Q
)
) - 0
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INEQ QUITABLE CONDUCT
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Defendants Eastman Kodak Company and Altek .
Corporation hereby move for summaryjudgment of inequitable conduct.
During prosecution ofthe asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,821,121 ("the ‘ 121
patent"), Plaintiff Ampex Corporation ("Ampex") represented tothe United States Patent and _
Trademark Office ("PTO") that its invention was patentable because of a feature that allowed .
the "direct transfer" of video images. Specifically, Ampex represented that the prior art Yails `·
to teach" such direct transfers. Undisputed facts demonstrate, however, that Ampex knew _'
that such direct transfers were well known in the prior art: Ampex’s own undisclosed prior l V
art system, the "AVA" system, included direct transfer capability; an earlier Ampex patent, `
prosecuted by some ofthe same attomeys who prosecuted the ‘121 patent, disclosed direct
transfer capability; and the sole named inventor ofthe ‘ 121 patent admits thatdirect transfers I
were well known in the art before the application leading to the ‘ 121 patent was filed.
19660.2\304743v1 j

I . Case 1 :04eov-01373-KAJ Document 332 Filed 05/31 /2006 Page 2 of 3. . .. .
Ampex’s failure to disclose theprior art capability to perform direct transfers, `
A coupled with its representation to the PTO that direct transfer made its invention unique,
constituted inequitable conduct that renders the claims of the ‘121 patent unenforceable.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully move for an order of summary judgment that V
1 the claims ofthe ‘121 patent are unenforceable by reason ofthe applicant’s inequitable 1 l
conduct. In support of this motion, Defendants submit Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support `
of Their Motion for Summary Judgment of Inequitable Conduct and related appendices. r
QICKEQ & QLIOTT, P.A., -
PAUL M. LUKOFF (I.D. #96)
DAVID E. BRAND (1.D. #201)
1310 King Street 1
P. o. Box 1328 1
. Wilmington, DE 19899
Tel. 302.888.65OO ' .
Fax: 302.888-6331
Date: lVl3y 31 , 2006 Attorneys for Defendants A
OF COUNSEL:
William F. Lee
Donald R. Steinberg
Michael J. Summersgill
Jordan L. Hirsch
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: (617) 526-6000
S. Calvin Walden
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 230-8800
l9660.3\304743vl

Case 1:04-cv—01373-KAJ Document 332 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 31, 2006, I electronically filed the following document with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECE which will send notification of such tiling to the
following:
DEFENDANTS' REDACTED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Jack B. Bltunenfeld, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Ttmnell
1201 N. Market Street
P. O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
I hereby certify that on May 31, 2006, I have forwarded the above-noted dociunent to the
following as noted below:
VIA E-MAIL VIA E-MAIL & FEDERAL EXPRESS
Jesse J. Jenner, Esquire Norman H. Beamer, Esquire
Ropes & Gray LLP Ropes & Gray LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas 525 University Avenue
New York, NY 10020 Palo Alto, CA 94301
VIA E-MAIL VIA E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY
Jack B. Bltunenfeld, Esquire Julia Heaney, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel] Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Turmell
1201 N. Market Street 1201 N. Market Street
P. O. Box 1347 P. O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899 Wilmington, DE 19899
PAUL M. LUKOFF (Bar I.D. #96)
DAVID E. BRAND (Bar I.D. #201)
Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.
1310 King Street
P.O. Box 1328
Wilmington, DE 19899-1328
TEL: 302-888-6500
E-MAIL: [email protected]
[email protected]
i966o.3uos307v1