United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division
Theresa Buchanan, Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LIAM O'GRADY, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff TecSec's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement by Defendant
Adobe and on Defendant's Affirmative Defenses of
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting, Laches, § 1498, and
Affirmative Defense/Counterclaim of Standards- Setting
Misconduct (Dkt. 1006). For the reasons that follow and for
good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. The Court DENIES
summary judgment on TecSec's claim that Adobe Systems,
Inc. (Adobe) directly infringes Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No.
5, 898, 781 and GRANTS summary judgment on
Adobe's affirmative defenses of obviousness-type double
patenting, laches, government sales defense under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1498, and standards-setting misconduct.
history of this case is well known to the parties and
thoroughly articulated in the prior decisions of this Court
and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. See, e.g.,
TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 658 Fed.Appx. 570,
572-75 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("TecSec II"). In the
present motion, TecSec has moved for summary judgment on its
claim that Adobe directly infringes Claim 14 of U.S. Patent
No. 5, 898, 781 (the '781 Patent) and on Adobe's
affirmative defenses of obviousness-type double patenting,
laches, government sales defense under 28 U.S.C. § 1498,
and standards-setting misconduct.
judgment will be granted where, viewing the facts in a light
most favorable to the non-moving party, there remains no
genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(c);
Marlow v. Chesterfield Cty. Sch. Bd., 749 F.Supp.2d
417, 426 (E.D. Va. 2010). A party opposing a motion for
summary judgment must respond with specific facts, supported
by proper documentary evidence, showing that a genuine
dispute of material fact exists and that summary judgment
should not be granted in favor of the moving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250
(1986). Conclusory assertions of state of mind or motivation
are insufficient. Goldberg v. B. Green & Co.,
836 F.2d 845, 848 (4th Cir. 1988). As the Supreme Court has
held, "the mere existence of some alleged
factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of
material fact." Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens
Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 519 (4th Cir. 2003)
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 447 U.S.
242, 247-248 (1986)) (emphasis in original).
patent case, in order for a court to grant summary judgment
to a patent holder, the court must find that every limitation
of the patent claim is found in the accused device or
technology. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mack Sys.,
Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Affirmative
defenses may be struck at the summary judgment phase where
the defense has no factual basis. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Adobe has the burden
to put forth a factual basis supporting its affirmative
defenses to survive summary judgment. Id. at 322.
14 of the '781 Patent
contends that Adobe directly infringes Claim 14 of the
'781 patent when a copy of Adobe's product Acrobat is
installed on a computer, meeting every limitation Claim 14.
Dkt. 1008, p. 15. Claim 14 reads:
A system for providing multi-level multimedia security in a
data network, comprising:
1) a system memory for storing data;
2) an encryption algorithm module, comprising logic for
converting unencrypted objects into encrypted objects, the
encryption algorithm module being disposed to ...