337:
invention". To determine direct infringement, the court stated "if an accused product operates in accordance with a standard, then comparing the claims to that standard is the same as comparing the claims to the accused product"; however, the court softend their statement with the following "We acknowledge, however, that in many instances, an industry standard does not provide the level of specificity required to establish that practicing that standard would always result in infringement". However, Netgear's
313:
directly infringed by the third parties. The court acknowledged that end users could enable fragmentation through software control and therefore might infringed the patents at issue. However, because fragmentation is merely an optional component of the IEEE 802.11 specification and
Netgear products did not enable fragmentation by default, the court could not find any explicit circumstantial evidences that third parties indeed infringed the 952 patent.
395:". In Fujitsu's patent, the function of the alert beacon signal is described as "an intermittent power-on type mobile station for shift to a power-on state synchronously with a received timing of a beacon signal, with a fixed period of time after the beacon signal has been received being defined as a data receive-ready period". The district court construed the phrase "shifting to a power on state
278:
typically support the same feature set". However, the district court was very careful to accept the evidence based on the grouping strategy, explaining that plaintiffs' argument that three separate patents had been infringed by more than 260 products of
Netgear made it not easy to prove which components of which allegedly infringing products actually infringed which portions of the three patents.
317:
the district court held "the notice letters sent by
Philips prior to the instant suit were not sufficient to establish the knowledge and intent elements of contributory and induced infringement". In addition, the district court stated the initial notice of patent infringement was not sufficient to establish Netgear's knowledge of infringtement.
454:
interpretation was correct. The circuit court defined synchronous to mean "just before or at the same time" and thereby slightly relax the limitation. Given the evidence from the district court's experiment, however, the circuit court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement without modification.
383:
wireless communication subsystem is configured to only power up in time to receive the beacon signals noticing that there is data to transfer and if no data is available, immediately power off. The idea behind this patent is to keep the wireless radio in a low-power state as much as possible to preserve energy.
269:
infringe three patents in suit. The district court pointed out that the central issue here is whether mere implementation of WiFi standard by
Netgear's products made Netgear automatically liable for infringement of patents placed in the licensing pool related to the 801.11 standard and related Specification.
268:
Plaintiffs' suit was based upon the theory that "networks conforming with IEEE standard also conformed to the patent in suit". Stated simply, plaintiffs attempted to prove infringement by
Netgear's products by showing that those products that practice WiFi standard and WMM Specification necessarily
316:
Second, the district court decided that
Netgear did not contribute to the infringement. To prove the contributory infringement by Netgear, plaintiff submitted the notice letters sent by Via Licensing pool to Netgear as evidence that Netgear had recognized that it infringed the 952 patent. However,
277:
Throughout the trial, plaintiffs adhered to the strategy to group the accused products when providing evidence of infringement. Plaintiffs argued that grouping of products when submitting evidence was proper based on their expert's testimony saying that "different versions of the same product will
254:
noticing that its products that were compliant with the 802.11 standard had infringed patents included in the licensing pool. However, Netgear's request that Via
Licensing Pool inform specifically which of its products infringed which portions of those patents was ignored and Netgear didn't accept
480:
LG electronics argued that
Netgear products that implemented WMM Specification infringed its 993 patents. The WMM Specification is a complement to the 802.11 standard that outlines a set of structures and methods to ensure better quality of service within an 802.11 compliant network. However, the
411:
Also, one of the claim in the 642 patent described that data receive-ready(DRR) period is " a fixed period of time during which an intermittent power-on type mobile station is in its power on state and prepared to receive data, with the period beginning immediately after the intermittent power-on
349:
The court decided Philip's notices of infringement provided
Netgear sufficient knowledge of infringement. Likewise, the court could not find substantial non-infringing uses of wireless fragmentation. When considering material part of invention, the district court claimed defragmentation did not
471:
in a communications network where the base station assigns priority to different clients and traffic types. Specifically, the LG patent grants individual terminals priority levels. Here, the important fact is that the priority to determine which data would be received first is assigned at the
432:
Also, the district court allowed
Fujitsu's expert witness to demonstrate a WiFi system configured to transmit an alert signal every 102 milliseconds. The district court reported that the Netgear system remained on as long as a "more data" flag or the alert beacon was enabled. If the beacon was
382:
The second patent under consideration in this case is US patent 6,018,642, owned by Fujitsu. The patent under consideration claimed "a system for reducing power consumption in mobile devices that access wireless networks". In the 642 patent, to save the energy consumption, the mobile station's
312:
Phillips urged that Netgear indirectly infringed its patents and was liable for contributory infringement. First, with respect to the indirect infringement, the district court concluded that Netgear could not indirectly infringe plaintiff's patent since there were no evidence that the patent is
210:
did not enter an agreement with Via Licensing but produced a series of products that conform to the WiFi standard and WMM Specification. Philips Electronics, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics sued Netgear for patent infringement claiming a complete implementation of the WiFi standard implied violating
428:
The district court stated that the jury could not find that the device literally infringed the "synchrnously" element of the 642 patent, because it was impossible to know from plaintiffs' oscilloscope graphs (one of the evidence submitted by plaintiff) the precise time between when defendant's
336:
to determine contributory infringement. Specifically, the patent owner must show: "1) that there is direct infringement, 2) that the accused infringer had knowledge of the patent, 3) that the component has no substantial non-infringing uses, and 4) that the component is a material part of the
497:
The appeals court decided on September 20, 2010, that Netgear was not liable for infringement of US patents 6,018,642 and 6,469,993. Infringement of US patent 4,975,952 occurred in the four specific models for which Netgear's consumer support records recommended enabling packet fragmentation.
453:
with the beacon signal so that the beacon signal can be received." In addition, Fujitsu argued that the district court's definition of "synchronous" would require two events to occur at precisely the same time which they stated is a physical impossibility. Netgear argued the district court's
345:
enable fragmentation on four models (WPN111, WG511, WPN824, and WG311T) was accepted as a viable evidence. The appeal court, thus, agreed with the district court that Philips failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding direct infringement for all but the four models with
350:
infringe US patent 4,975,952 as it only made material claims of fragmentation techniques. Weighing all four elements of direct infringement, the federal court reversed the district court's summary judgment for non-infringement Netgear's models WPN111, WG511, WPN824, and WG311T.
286:
The District Court for Western District of Wisconsin (The district court) denied all of the three motions for summary of judgment filed by plaintiffs and granted motion for summary judgment of non-infringement by Netgear.
481:
district court held that the accused products did not infringe the patent because the WMM Specification states that priority is assigned to message types, but not to individual terminals as described in the 993 patent.
361:
allows limited damages when a patent holder uses their claimed invention without clearly marking the product with the relevant patent number. The federal court held the district court was in error as
704:
391:
There were especially two terms used in claims in the 642 patents that required clarification. In both the district and circuit court, potential infringement centered on the definition of "
212:
242:
were participating in the Via licensing pool and hold US patents 6,018,642, 6,469,993 and 4.974,952 respectively that were claimed to be required for complete implementation of the
433:
inactive or the "more data" flag was not set, the system immediately powered down. This proved Netgear's system does not have a fixed data receive-ready period.
220:
34:
255:
its suggestion on licensing. On December 17, 2007, Plaintiffs sued Netgear for patent infringement and Netgear did seek summary judgment for noninfringement.
206:
respectively, and placed in the Via Licensing pool. The Via Licensing pool claimed to hold all patents required for a complete WiFi/WMM implementation.
304:
into smaller messages to avoid resending large amounts of data if network transmission errors occur and, thus, to transfer data more reliably.
412:
type mobile station receives the beacon signal telling it there is data to be transmitted to it". The issue here was what exactly the
714:
223:
confirmed non-infringement for two of the three patent and found infringement of the third patent in four of Netgear's products.
320:
The district court denied the summary of motion for infringement and granted Netgear's summary of motion for non-infringement.
699:
362:
354:
329:
165:
157:
369:
does not apply to any patent directed a method and US patent 4,975,952 explicitly claimed a method for fragmentation.
467:
The final patent under consideration is 6,469,993 owned by LG Electronics. This patent described a system for
247:
191:
663:
489:
The appeals court affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement for US patent 6,469,993.
672:
126:
406:
548:
429:
accused mobile devices reach their power-on mode and when a beacon signal is to be received.
300:
US patent 4,975,952 claims a method of transmitting data in a wireless network, specifically
109:
Non-infringement in two patents. Infringement of the third patent in four specific models.
8:
301:
239:
195:
183:
468:
145:
130:
462:
377:
353:
In addition, the federal court overruled the district court's limitation on damages.
122:
581:
219:
of non-infringement by Netgear for all three patents thus plaintiffs appealed. The
92:
724:
719:
681:
636:"Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting"
531:
338:
295:
216:
194:(WMM) Specification. US patents 4,975,952, 6,018,642, and 6,469,993 were owned by
68:
399:
with a received timing of a beacon signal" to mean "shifting to a power-on state
366:
358:
333:
186:
case centered on three patents claimed to be required for full compliance of the
169:
161:
46:
Fujitsu Limited and L.G Electronics and U.S. Philips Corporation v. Netgear Inc.
709:
235:
203:
617:
603:
693:
484:
436:
635:
323:
492:
392:
281:
243:
187:
89:
475:
423:
72:
585:
535:
407:
Meaning of "Fixed period of time" for Data Receive-Ready (DRR) period
342:
307:
250:. Via licensing Pool sent letters several times from 2005 to 2007 to
96:
213:
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
251:
231:
207:
199:
463:
Patent claim analysis (Clarification of the terms used in claim)
378:
Patent claim analysis (Clarification of the terms used in claim)
296:
Patent claim analysis (Clarification of the terms used in claim)
705:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases
65:
457:
445:
does not mean "at the same time". Instead, Fujitsu stated
372:
290:
485:
Judgment by the court of appeals for the federal circuit
437:
Judgment by the court of appeals for the federal circuit
324:
Judgment by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
493:
Holding by the court of appeals for the federal circuit
420:
for the Netgear's devices to infringe the 642 patent.
416:
means. The court held that the DRR period must have a
282:
Opinion of The district court and The court of appeals
248:
WiFi Alliance Wireless Multi-Media (WMM) Specification
221:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
35:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
386:
659:, 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) is available from:
476:Patent infringement analysis by the district court
424:Patent infringement analysis by the district court
308:Patent infringement analysis by the district court
211:patents held by Via Licensing pool. When tried in
691:
449:means: "the shifting to a power-on state has a
645:(Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1).
258:
571:
569:
567:
565:
521:
519:
517:
515:
513:
511:
598:
596:
594:
346:corresponding customer service records.
328:The federal court of appeals referenced
182:, 620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010), was a
633:
562:
508:
458:Analysis of the courts on US patent 993
373:Analysis of the Courts on US patent 642
291:Analysis of the Courts on US patent 952
692:
190:(WiFi) standard and the WiFi Alliance
610:
591:
16:2010 U.S. patent infringement lawsuit
643:National Bureau of Economic Research
441:During the appeal, Fujitsu claimed
403:a beacon signal is to be received.
13:
628:
541:
263:
14:
736:
649:
25:Fujitsu Limited v. Netgear Inc.
715:2010 in United States case law
634:Shapiro, Carl (January 2001).
192:Wireless Multimedia Extensions
1:
700:United States patent case law
501:
341:records that had recommended
226:
657:Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.
577:Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.
527:Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.
179:Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.
7:
582:576 F. Supp. 2d 964
272:
259:Specific issue in this case
10:
741:
302:fragmenting large messages
156:
151:
141:
136:
118:
113:
108:
103:
84:
79:
60:
52:
40:
30:
23:
387:Meaning of "Synchronous"
246:(WiFi) standard and the
127:Daniel Mortimer Friedman
618:U.S. patent 6,469,993
604:U.S. patent 6,018,642
532:620 F.3d 1321
451:temporal relationship
414:fixed period of time
215:, the court granted
240:Philips Electronics
196:Philips Electronics
184:patent infringement
469:quality of service
146:Kimberly Ann Moore
131:Kimberly Ann Moore
175:
174:
123:Alan David Lourie
56:September 20 2010
732:
686:
680:
677:
671:
668:
662:
646:
640:
622:
620:
614:
608:
606:
600:
589:
579:
573:
560:
559:
557:
555:
545:
539:
529:
523:
472:terminal level.
401:at the same time
339:customer service
217:summary judgment
114:Court membership
21:
20:
740:
739:
735:
734:
733:
731:
730:
729:
690:
689:
684:
678:
675:
669:
666:
660:
652:
638:
631:
629:Further reading
626:
625:
616:
615:
611:
602:
601:
592:
575:
574:
563:
553:
551:
549:"Via Licensing"
547:
546:
542:
525:
524:
509:
504:
495:
487:
478:
465:
460:
447:"synchronously"
443:"synchronously"
439:
426:
409:
389:
380:
375:
326:
310:
298:
293:
284:
275:
266:
264:Standard patent
261:
229:
17:
12:
11:
5:
738:
728:
727:
722:
717:
712:
707:
702:
688:
687:
673:Google Scholar
651:
650:External links
648:
630:
627:
624:
623:
609:
590:
561:
540:
506:
505:
503:
500:
494:
491:
486:
483:
477:
474:
464:
461:
459:
456:
438:
435:
425:
422:
408:
405:
388:
385:
379:
376:
374:
371:
363:35 U.S.C.
355:35 U.S.C.
330:35 U.S.C.
325:
322:
309:
306:
297:
294:
292:
289:
283:
280:
274:
271:
265:
262:
260:
257:
236:LG Electronics
228:
225:
204:LG Electronics
173:
172:
166:35 U.S.C.
158:35 U.S.C.
154:
153:
149:
148:
143:
139:
138:
134:
133:
120:
119:Judges sitting
116:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
101:
100:
86:
82:
81:
77:
76:
62:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
42:
41:Full case name
38:
37:
32:
28:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
737:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
708:
706:
703:
701:
698:
697:
695:
683:
674:
665:
664:CourtListener
658:
654:
653:
647:
644:
637:
619:
613:
605:
599:
597:
595:
587:
583:
578:
572:
570:
568:
566:
554:September 25,
550:
544:
537:
533:
528:
522:
520:
518:
516:
514:
512:
507:
499:
490:
482:
473:
470:
455:
452:
448:
444:
434:
430:
421:
419:
415:
404:
402:
398:
397:synchronously
394:
384:
370:
368:
364:
360:
356:
351:
347:
344:
340:
335:
331:
321:
318:
314:
305:
303:
288:
279:
270:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
224:
222:
218:
214:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
180:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:Case opinions
135:
132:
128:
124:
121:
117:
112:
107:
102:
98:
94:
91:
87:
85:Prior history
83:
78:
74:
70:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:
45:
43:
39:
36:
33:
29:
26:
22:
19:
656:
642:
632:
612:
576:
552:. Retrieved
543:
526:
496:
488:
479:
466:
450:
446:
442:
440:
431:
427:
418:fixed length
417:
413:
410:
400:
396:
390:
381:
352:
348:
327:
319:
315:
311:
299:
285:
276:
267:
230:
178:
177:
176:
152:Laws applied
80:Case history
47:
44:
24:
18:
588: 2008).
538: 2010).
393:synchronous
244:IEEE 802.11
188:IEEE 802.11
90:F. Supp. 2d
694:Categories
502:References
367:§ 287
359:§ 287
334:§ 271
227:Background
170:§ 287
162:§ 271
73:U.S.P.Q.2d
586:W.D. Wis.
536:Fed. Cir.
343:end-users
97:W.D. Wis.
61:Citations
655:Text of
273:Grouping
142:Majority
725:Netgear
720:Fujitsu
252:Netgear
232:Fujitsu
208:Netgear
202:, and
200:Fujitsu
104:Holding
53:Decided
685:
682:Leagle
679:
676:
670:
667:
661:
584: (
580:,
534: (
530:,
365:
357:
332:
238:, and
168:
160:
710:Wi-Fi
639:(PDF)
99:2008)
71:; 96
31:Court
556:2011
88:576
75:1742
69:1321
66:F.3d
64:620
93:964
696::
641:.
593:^
564:^
510:^
234:,
198:,
164:,
129:,
125:,
621:.
607:.
558:.
95:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.