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

Case 1 :04-cv-00858-SLR Document 329 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LML PATENT CORP., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-858 SLR
)
TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., )
ELECTRONIC CLEARING HOUSE, INC., )
XPRESSCHEX, INC., AND )
NOVA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. )
)
Defendants.
LML’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 6:
FOR A RULING THAT CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16 AND 18 OF
THE ‘988 PATENT ARE NOT INVALID FOR IMPROPER
INVENTORSHIP UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)
Plaintiff LML hereby moves the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for an order
granting summary judgment that claims I, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, ll, I4, I6 and 18 ofthe ‘988 patent
are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ I02(f). In support of this motion, LML relies on the
accompanying memorandum. _
DATED: October 28, 2005 I
`chard K. H ann #405
Mary B. Ma erer #2696
MORRIS J ES HITCHENS &
WILLIAM LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 888-6800
mmatterer@morrisj ames.com

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR Document 329 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 2 of 4
Russell E. Levine, P.C.
Jamie H. McDole
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 861-2000
Attorneys for LML Patent Corp.

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR Document 329 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LML PATENT CORP., )
Plaintiff, g
v. g Civil Action No. O4-858 SLR
TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., g
ELECTRONIC CLEARING HOUSE, INC., )
XPRESSCHEX, INC., AND )
NOVA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. )
Defendants. )
ORDER
I The Court having considered LML’s Motion For Summary Judgment No. 6: For
A Ruling That Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, And 18 Of The ‘988 Patent Are Not Invalid
For Improper Inventorship Under § 102(i) and the pa1ties’ arguments in support and opposition
thereof,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this day of , 2005, that
the motion is GRANTED.
f Judge

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR Document 329 Filed 10/28/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 28th day of October, 2005, I electronically filed the
foregoing document, LML’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 6: FOR A
RULING THAT CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, AND 18 OF THE ‘988 PATENT
ARE NOT INVALID FOR IMPROPER INV ENTORSHIP UNDER § 102(F), with the Clerk
of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such tiling to the following:
Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq. William J. Marsden, Jr., Esq.
Francis DiGiovanni, Esq. Timothy Devlin, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Fish & Richardson, P.C.
1007 North Orange Street 919 North Market Street, Suite 1100
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801
Richard D. Kirk, Esq.
The Bayard Firm
222 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Additionally, I hereby certify that on the 28th day of October, 2005, the foregoing
document was served via email and via federal express on the following non-registered
participants:
Robert Jacobs, Esq. Mark C. Scarsi, Esq.
Mark B. Mizrahi, Esq. Vision L. Winter, Esq.
Belasco Jacobs & Townsley, LLP O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Howard Hughes Center 400 South Hope Street
6100 Center Drive, Suite 630 Los eles, CA 90071
Los Angeles, CA 90045
: I I
V I if
Richard K. rrmann (#405)
Mary B. M terer (#2696)
MORRIS, AMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP
222 Delf are Avenue, 10th Floor
Wihnington, Delaware 19801
(302) 888-6800
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LML PATENT CORP.