Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

June 19, 2018

TecSec, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Adobe Systems Inc., et al. Defendants.

          Hon. Theresa Buchanan, Judge

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          HON. LIAM O'GRADY, JUDGE

         This 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The 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.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary 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).

         In a 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.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Claim 14 of the '781 Patent

         TecSec 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.