Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01373-KAJ Document 302 Filed 05/23/2006 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AMPEX CORPORATION, )
)
)
Plaintiff ) C.A. No. 04-1373-KAJ
)
v. )
)
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, ALTEK )
CORPORATION and CHINON INDUSTRIES, )
INC., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Pursuant t0 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Defendants Eastman Kodak Company and Altek
Corporation hereby move for summaryjudgment of non-infringement.
The structure and relevant operation ofthe accused digital cameras is undisputed in
all material respects, and the factual record confirms that the accused digital cameras do not
infringe any ofthe asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 4,821,121 ("the ‘ 121 patent"). Those
asserted claims are claims 7, 8, and 10-15.
First, all of the asserted claims require storage and transfer of digitized "video" image
data. Because there is no material dispute of fact that the accused digital cameras do not
infringe the "video" limitations of each of the asserted claims either literally or under the
doctrine of equivalents, defendants are entitled to summaryjudgment dismissing Ampex’s
complaint.
Second, each of the claims requires a system that receives captured video "data” that
corresponds to a "full size" image, to use that "said data" to generate a "reduced size" version
ofthe full size image, and to store the "said data" for later access. Because there is no
l9660.3\304796v1

Case 1:04-cv—01373-KAJ Document 302 Filed 05/23/2006 Page 2 of 4
material dispute of fact that the accused digital cameras do not infringe the "said data"
limitations of each of the asserted claims either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
defendants are entitled to summaryjudgment dismissing Ampex’s complaint.
Third, claims 7,8, and l0 require image data to be transferred "directly" from more
permanent "bulk storage memory" to "random access memory" without the use of an
"intervening circuit." Because there is no material dispute of fact that the accused digital
cameras do not infringe the "directly" limitations of each of claims 7, 8 and l0 either literally
or under the doctrine of equivalents, defendants are entitled to summaryjudgment dismissing
those claims.
Fourth, claims 8 and 14 require "random access memory having an input port and
an output por·t," such that the RAM has at least two physically separate ports: "an input port"
that receives data and "an output port" that sends data. Because there is no material dispute
of fact that the accused digital cameras do not infringe the "random access memory. . .having
an input port and an output port" limitations of each of claims 8 and 14 either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents, defendants are entitled to summary judgment dismissing
those claims.
Fifth, claim l2 requires the system to receive video image data from an "external
source." Because there is no material dispute of fact that the accused digital cameras do not
infringe the "external source" limitation of claim l2 either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents, defendants are entitled to summaryjudgment dismissing that claim.
Ampex’s failure of proof with respect to these five claim limitations is fatal to its case
as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court should enter summary judgment of non-
infringement with respect to each of the asserted claims.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully move for an order of summary judgment that
Defendants do not and have not infringed the claims ofthe ‘ l2l patent. In support of this
i9660.s\204796vr

Case 1:04-cv—01373-KAJ Document 302 Filed 05/23/2006 Page 3 of 4
motion, Defendants submit Defendants’ Opening Briefin Support of Their Motion for
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, along with the Declaration of James Storer in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, and an
Appendix containing documents and testimony evidencing no material dispute of fact.
PRICETT, JONES & ELLIEET, P.A.,
PAUL M. LUKOFF (I.D. #96)
DAVID E. BRAND (I.D. #201)
1310 King Street
P. O. Box 1328
Wilmington, DE 19899
Tel. 302.888.6500
Fax: 302.888-6331
Date: May 23, 2006 Attorneysfor Defendants
OF COUNSEL:
William F. Lee
Donald R. Steinberg
Michael J. Summersgill
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: (617) 526-6000
S. Calvin Walden
Rebecca McCloskey
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 230-8800
19660.3\204796v1

Case 1:04-cv—01373-KAJ Document 302 Filed 05/23/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 23, 2006, I electronically filed the following document with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such tiling to the
following:
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Jack B. Bltunenfeld, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
1201 N. Market Street
P. O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
I hereby certify that on May 23, 2006, I have forwarded the above-noted document 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
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Ttmnell
1201 N. Market Street
P. O. Box 1347
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]
1966o.3xs04797v1