Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Cree, Inc. v. SemiLEDS Corporation, C.A. No. 10-866-RGA

Cree, Inc. v. SemiLEDS Corporation, C.A. No. 10-866-RGA

Ratings: (0)|Views: 182|Likes:
Published by YCSTBlog

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: YCSTBlog on Apr 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

04/02/2012

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTFOR
THE DISTRICT OF
DELAWARE
CREE, INC.,Plaintiff,v.Civil Action No. 10-866-RGASEMILEDS CORPORATION,Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Frederick
L.
Cottrell III, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware; William F. Lee, Esq. (argued), Boston,Massachusetts; Cynthia D. Vreeland, Esq. (argued), Boston, Massachusetts; Peter M. Dichiara,Esq., Boston, Massachusetts; Attorneys for Plaintiff Cree, Inc.Rodger D. Smith II, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware; G. Hopkins
Guy
III, Esq. (argued), Palo Alto,California; Sten Jensen, Esq. (argued), Washington, D.C.; Michael F. Heafey, Esq., Palo Alto,California; Attorneys for Defendant SemiLEDs CorporationMarch
1l,
012Wilmington, Delaware
1
 
Plaintiff Cree, Inc. filed this action against Defendant SemiLEDs Corporation alleginginfringement
of
United States Patent Numbers 7,737,459
('"459"),
7,211,833 ("'833"), 7,611,915("'915"), 6,657,236 ('"236"), 7,795,623
("'623"),
and 7,557,380 ('"380"). All
of
the patents in this caseinvolve semiconductor light emitting diode ("LED") technology used for general lighting purposes. Theparties briefed their respective positions
on
claim construction, and the Court conducted a
Markman
hearing on the disputed terms. This Memorandum Opinion provides construction
of
the agreed upon anddisputed terms.
I.
The Legal Principles
of
Claim Construction
Claim construction is a question
oflaw.
Markman
v.
Westview Instruments, Inc.,
52 F.3d 967,977-78 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
a.ffd,
517 U.S. 370,
388-90
(1996).
When
construing the claims
of
a patent, acourt considers the literal language
of
the claim, the patent specification and the prosecution history.
Markman,
52 F.3d at 979.
Of
these sources, the specification is "always highly relevant to the claimconstruction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning
of
a disputedterm."
Phillips
v.
AWH
Corporation,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing
Vitronics Corp.
v.
Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). However, "[e]ven when the specificationdescribes only a single embodiment, the claims
of
the patent will not be read restrictively unless thepatentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using 'words
or
expressions
of
manifest exclusion
or restriction.'"
Liebel-Flarsheim
Co.
v.
Medrad,
Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir.2004)
(quoting Telejlex, Inc.
v.
Ficosa
N.
Am. Corp.,
299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).A court may consider extrinsic evidence, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries,and learned treatises, in order to assist it in understanding the underlying technology, the meaning
of
terms to one skilled in the art and how the invention works.
Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1318-19;
Markman,
52F.3d at 979-80. However, extrinsic evidence is considered less reliable and less useful in claim2
 
construction than the patent and its prosecution history.
Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1318-19 (discussing "flaws"inherent in extrinsic evidence and noting that extrinsic evidence "is unlikely to result in a reliableinterpretation
of
a patent claim scope unless considered in the context
of
intrinsic evidence").
In
addition to these fundamental claim construction principles, a court should also interpret thelanguage in a claim
by
applying the ordinary and accustomed meaning
of
the words in the claim.
Envirotech Corp.
v.
AI
George, Inc.,
730 F.2d 753, 759 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
If
the patent inventor clearlysupplies a different meaning, however, then the claim should be interpreted according to the meaningsupplied
by
the inventor.
Markman,
52 F.3d at 980 (noting that patentee is free to be his ownlexicographer, but emphasizing that any special definitions given to words must be clearly set forth inpatent).
If
possible, claims should be construed to uphold validity.
In re Yamamoto,
740 F.2d 1569, 1571(Fed. Cir. 1984).
II. Claim Constructions
A. U.S.
Patent '459: High Output Group
ill
Nitride Light Emitting Diodes
The parties agreed upon the constructions
of
various terms used
in
Patent
'459
and the Courtaccepts them as detailed below for the purposes
ofthis
litigation. Because the terms
of
the
'459
patent arenot in dispute, there is no need to provide a technical background
of
the patent.
Claim Term or Phrase:
"Dominant wavelength"
Agreed upon Construction:
The color
of
an LED, typically expressed in nanometers. Thedominant wavelength describes a measure
of
the hue sensationproduced in the human eye
by
a light emitting diode.
Claim Term or Phrase:
"Area"
Agreed Upon Construction:
For
a chip
or
die with different portions having different dimensions,the term "area" means the largest area
of
semiconductor
or
substratematerial within the die
or
chip. Expressed in alternative fashion, butwith the same meaning, the area is the larger
of
either (i) the largestsemiconductor area in the diode
or
(ii) the substrate area
of
the diode
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

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