Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Voter Verified v Diebold - Flmd - 9.15.10

Voter Verified v Diebold - Flmd - 9.15.10

Ratings: (0)|Views: 56|Likes:
Published by woodypollack

More info:

Published by: woodypollack on Sep 26, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





VOTER VERIFIED, INC.,Plaintiff,-vs-Case No. 6:09-cv-1968-Orl-19KRSPREMIER ELECTION SOLUTIONS, INC.,DIEBOLD INCORPORATED,Defendants.______________________________________
This case comes before the Court on the following:1.Second Motion for Summary Judgment by Voter Verified, Inc. (Doc. No. 106, filed Apr. 28,2010);2.Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment and CrossMotion and Memorandum in Support for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and PatentInvalidity by Premier Election Solutions, Inc. and Diebold, Inc. (Doc. No. 124, filed May 28,2010);3.Response to Premier Election Solutions, Inc. and Diebold, Inc.’s Cross Motion for SummaryJudgment and Memorandum by Voter Verified, Inc. (Doc. No. 141, filed June 28, 2010); and4.Reply in Support of their Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by Premier Election Solutions, Inc.and Diebold, Inc. (Doc. No. 148, filed July 12, 2010).
Case 6:09-cv-01968-PCF-KRS Document 155 Filed 09/15/10 Page 1 of 36
BackgroundI. Procedural History
On November 19, 2009, Voter Verified, Inc. (“VVI”) filed the present action against PremierElection Solutions, Inc. (“Premier”) and Diebold, Inc. (“Diebold”). (Doc. No. 1.) The Complaint, seekingboth damages and injunctive relief, alleges that Premier and Diebold (collectively “Defendants”) willfullyinfringed United States Patents Nos. 6,769,613 (“the ‘613 patent”) and RE40,449 (“the ‘449 patent”). (
at 11-12.) Defendants deny VVI’s allegations of infringement and seek a declaratory judgment that: (1)the ‘613 and the ‘449 patents are invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112; (2) the ‘613patent is invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 251; and (3) Defendants are not infringing and have neverinfringed the ‘613 and ‘449 patents. (Doc. No. 34, filed Jan. 13, 2010; Doc. No. 103, filed Apr. 28, 2010.)On April 28, 2010, VVI filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 106.) VVIargues that there are no genuine issues of material fact relating to the direct infringement of claim 49 of the ‘613 and ‘449 patents by Premier’s AccuView Printer Module used in combination with Premier’sAccuVote-TSX terminal (collectively, the “Accused System”). (
. at 2.) VVI also moves for summary judgment concerning the validity of the asserted patents and the issue of intervening rights. (
.) On May28, 2010, Defendants responded in opposition to VVI’s summary judgment motion and filed a CrossMotion for Summary Judgment, contending that: (1) the ‘613 patent cannot be infringed because it wassurrendered; (2) the Accused System does not infringe claims 49, 56, 85, 93, and 94 of the ‘449 patent;and (3) claims 49, 56, 85, 93, and 94 of the ‘449 patent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.(Doc. No. 124.)
II. The Accused System
The Accused System is a voting terminal that prompts voters to review a printed version of their
Case 6:09-cv-01968-PCF-KRS Document 155 Filed 09/15/10 Page 2 of 36
3ballot for accuracy before casting their final vote. (Doc. No. 142-2.) The Accused System consists of theAccuVote-TSX terminal and the AccuView Printer Module (“AVPM”). (Doc. No. 106.) The AccuVote-TSX terminal allows a voter to vote by touching graphics displayed on a touch screen interface. (Doc. No.142-2 at 2.) When the AVPM is used in conjunction with the AccuVote-TSX terminal, voters areprompted to print their ballots by touching the Print Ballot graphic. (
.) The AVPM then prints a paperballot containing the names of each candidate selected by the voter, and the touch screen interface displaysa summary of the voter’s selections. (
.) The voter is then directed to review the printed ballot foraccuracy and is given the option to cast or reject the ballot. (
.) Once the ballot has been cast, an imageof the ballot is stored on an internal memory card located in the AccuVote-TSX terminal. (
.) The paperreel on the ballot printer of the AVPM advances each time a voter votes, and the printed ballots are takeninto a locked “tape-up real.” (
at 2-3.) At the end of the day, the electronic votes stored in theAccuVote-TSX terminal are transferred to the election headquarters. (
. at 3.) Only the electronic votesare tallied. (
.) The canisters holding the “take-up reals” are collected and saved for audit purposes. (
III. The Asserted Patents
The patents at issue in the present case include the ‘613 and ‘449 patents (collectively, the“Asserted Patents”). The ‘613 patent issued on August 3, 2004. (Doc. No. 60 at 2.) On February 14,2005, co-inventor Anthony Provitola filed a reissue application for the ‘613 patent. (
.) On August 5,2008, the ‘613 patent was surrendered to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) andreissued as the ‘449 patent. (
. at 3.) VVI is the owner by assignment of both the ‘613 and ‘449 patents.(
at 4.)The Asserted Patents involve a computer voting system that displays a ballot for voting andinstructs voters to input their selections. A paper ballot is then printed, and the voter is prompted to review
Case 6:09-cv-01968-PCF-KRS Document 155 Filed 09/15/10 Page 3 of 36

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->