Lexington Luminance LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

[6 F.Supp.3d 182]

David S. Godkin, Andrew A. Caffrey, III, Birnbaum & Godkin, LLP, Boston, MA, Robert D. Katz, Katz PLLC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Kurt L. Glitzenstein, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Boston, MA, Robert P. Courtney, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Minneapolis, MN, Indranil Mukerji, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Washington, DC, for Defendants.

Plaintiff Lexington Luminance LLC (“Lexington”) has filed this lawsuit for patent infringement against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (collectively “Amazon”). Amazon has now moved for judgment on the pleadings. D. 49. In addition, the parties have argued their proposed claim constructions before the Court and the Court's claim constructions follow. For the reasons stated below, the Court ALLOWS Amazon's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Claim construction is a question of law for the determination by the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388–89, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). The Court assigns claim terms the ordinary and customary meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art in question would have assigned to the terms at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). “[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term ... in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313.

The patent specification “ ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’ ” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)). In fact, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id. at 1314. Because the purpose of the specification is to “teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide the best mode for doing so,” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323, it is “entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.” Id. at 1317.

The patent's prosecution history “can [also] often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id. (citations omitted). Although courts generally do not accord extrinsic evidence the weight that they accord to intrinsic evidence, the Court may consider extrinsic evidence “if the court deems it helpful in determining the true meaning of language used in the patent claims.” Id. at 1318. Ultimately, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention [in the specification] will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 1316 (citation omitted).

The Patent Act requires that every patent's specification must “conclude

[6 F.Supp.3d 183]

with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). “Because the claims perform the fundamental function of delineating the scope of the invention, the purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure that the claims delineate the scope of the invention using language that adequately notifies the public of the patentee's right to exclude,” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citations omitted), and the boundaries of the patentee's invention, Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M–I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1253 (Fed.Cir.2008). The patentee has satisfied this requirement only when the claims “clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise.” United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236, 63 S.Ct. 165, 87 L.Ed. 232 (1942).

Patents are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282(a). “By finding claims indefinite only if reasonable efforts at claim construction prove futile, [courts] accord respect to the statutory presumption of validity and we protect the inventive contribution of patentees, even when the drafting of their patents has been less than ideal.” Exxon Research & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2001). A party seeking a declaration of invalidity must prove same by clear and convincing evidence. Budde v. Harley–Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed.Cir.2001).

Pursuant to Rule 12(c), a party may move for judgment on the pleadings. “A motion for judgment on the pleadings is treated much like a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Perez–Acevedo v. Rivero–Cubano, 520 F.3d 26, 29 (1st Cir.2008) (citing Curran v. Cousins, 509 F.3d 36, 43–44 (1st Cir.2007)). When considering a motion under Rule 12(c), a court must view the facts in the pleadings and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Perez–Acevedo, 520 F.3d at 29 (citation omitted). In reviewing the motion, the Court may also “consider ‘documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties; ... documents central to plaintiffs' claim; [and] documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint.’ ” Curran, 509 F.3d at 44 (quoting Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993)). To survive a Rule 12(c) motion, “a complaint must contain factual allegations that ‘raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true....’ ” Perez–Acevedo, 520 F.3d at 29 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “[A]n adequate complaint must provide fair notice to the defendants and state a facially plausible legal claim.” Ocasio–Hernandez v. Fortuño–Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.2011).

Lexington is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Massachusetts that is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,851 (“the '851 patent”) entitled “Semiconductor Light–Emitting Device and Method for Manufacturing the Same.” D. 1 ¶ 1, 9. The '851 patent's specification describes the invention as relating to “the fabrication of semiconductor devices such as light-emitting devices in misfit systems.” Col. 1:9–10. ¹ A light-emitting diode (“LED”) is a semiconductor light

[6 F.Supp.3d 184]

source that is used in various pieces of electronic equipment, especially for displaying readings on digital displays. D. 50 at 3; D. 51 at 6; D. 82–1 at 7–22. Part of the process for creating an LED includes applying a semiconductor layer on a substrate. Col. 2:12–26. The atomic structures of these two layers both form a matrix or “lattice” pattern, but do not align perfectly and therefore form what the patent refers to as a “lattice misfit system.” Col. 1:9–10. One of the drawbacks of the “misfit system” is that “the quality of the directly disposed layer is inferior to the penetration of the threading dislocations in this material system.” Col. 1:19–23. Elsewhere in the patent these are referred to as “lattice defects.” Col. 1:11. That is, as Lexington contended at the Markman hearing, because the atoms in these structures do not align perfectly, these defects propagate in the active layer of the LED construct and manifest themselves by decreasing the efficacy and longevity of the device. D. 84 (argument at 11/21/2014 Markman hearing). The patented invention teaches the user to “guide” “the lattice defects” such that they are “contained in designated locations,” which results in “the free propagation of extended defects ... [being] restricted and the overall defect density of the system [being] reduced.” Col. 1:12–15. The invention accomplishes this feat by creating a curved surface or “textured district” atop the substrate. Col. 8:38. Accordingly, the defects do not all rise directly upward into the active layer of the LED device, but instead bounce to the side, as demonstrated in Figure 2A of the patent:

A semi conductor light-emitting device comprising: a substrate; a textured district defined on the surface, of said substrate comprising a plurality of etched trenches having a sloped etching profile with a smooth rotation of microfacets without a prescribed angle of inclination; a first layer disposed on said textured district; comprising a plurality of inclined lower portions so as to guide the extended lattice defects away from propagating into the active layer, said first layer and said substrate form a lattice-mismatched system, said substrate is selected from the group comprising group III–V, group IV, group II–VI elements and alloys, ZnO, spinel and sapphire; and a light-emitting structure containing an active layer disposed on said first layer.

Col. 8:35–52.

Amazon markets e-reader devices and tablet computers, including the “Kindle Fire.” D. 1 ¶ 12. Lexington filed this lawsuit

[6 F.Supp.3d 185]

on November 29, 2012 and alleges that these Amazon products infringe the '851 patent. Id. Amazon filed its answer and counterclaims on February 15, 2013, asserting an invalidity defense, D. 13 at 4 ¶ 16, and a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that that the '851 is invalid. Id. at 7 ¶ 17. Amazon moved for judgment on the pleadings on its invalidity defense to Lexington's claim of...