XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corp.

657 F.Supp.3d 591

XMTT, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORP., Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-1810-MFK

United States District Court, D. Delaware

Signed February 22, 2023

Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE, Anthony Rowles, Pro Hac Vice, Benjamin W. Hattenbach, Pro Hac Vice, Conor Tucker, Pro Hac Vice, Jordan Nafekh, Pro Hac Vice, Los Angeles, CA, Michael H. Strub, Pro Hac Vice, Costa Mesa, CA, Philip Warrick, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Brian D. Matty, Pro Hac Vice, Jamie L. Kringstein, Pro Hac Vice, Jeffrey S. Seddon, II, Pro Hac Vice, Michael Wueste, Pro Hac Vice, Paul A. Bondor, Pro Hac Vice, Raymond N. Habbaz, Pro Hac Vice, New York, NY, Lindsey E. Miller, Pro Hac Vice, Baltimore, MD, Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, Ryan G. Thorne, Pro Hac Vice, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, United States District Judge

XMTT has sued Intel for infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,707,388 (the '388 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,145,879 (the '879 patent). The patents are directed to a "computer memory architecture for hybrid serial and parallel computing systems." XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 18-CV-1810-RGA, 2020 WL 2404825 (D. Del. May 12, 2020) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) ("XMTT I"). XMTT contends that Intel has willfully infringed numerous claims of the asserted patents both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.¹

Intel has moved for summary judgment on all of XMTT's claims and also seeks the exclusion of certain testimony by two of XMTT's expert witnesses. XMTT has moved for partial summary judgment on certain issues and to preclude Intel's experts from testifying on various topics. In this opinion, the Court sets forth its construction of certain disputed claim terms. The Court also grants Intel's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on all claims for the reasons stated below.

Background

The Court takes the following facts from its prior orders and the parties' briefing. A more detailed recounting of the allegations can be found in the Court's July 22, 2022 decision on Intel's motion for supplemental claim construction. See XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 18-CV-1810-MFK, 2022 WL 2904308 (D. Del. July 22, 2022) ("XMTT II").

A. The asserted patents and accused products

The two patents relate to computing and computer processing systems. Computing can occur in a "serial processing mode" or a "parallel processing mode," and "transitioning among processing modes is non-trivial and requires time and resources, as well as overall system organization." '388 patent at 1:52-54; '879 patent at 1:59-61. Both patents claim "[a] method of transitioning from a serial processing mode to a parallel processing mode in a computing system." '388 patent at 16:36-36; '879 patent at 16:20-21. The two patents also claim multiple apparatuses, each of which comprises a "serial processor" and a "plurality of parallel processors," among other components. According to the specifications, this "system architecture provides seamless transitions between parallel and serial processing modes, while maintaining memory coherence and providing sufficient performance for streaming applications." '388 patent at 1:64-67; '879 patent at 2:4-7.

Various Intel products that include computer processors are at issue in this case.² The patents state that "a 'processor' or 'process' includes any human, hardware and/or software system, mechanism or component that processes data, signals, or other information." '388 patent at 12:29-31; '879 patent at 12:45-47. The parties do not appear to dispute the meaning of this term. Each of the accused products comprises a central processing unit (CPU) with multiple cores, an integrated graphics processing unit (GPU), and various other components. The parties dispute whether the CPU and its cores are "serial processors" or "parallel processors."

B. The instant suit

XMTT filed this lawsuit against Intel on November 16, 2018. The case was previously assigned to Judge Richard Andrews. On April 30, 2020, Judge Andrews held a claim construction hearing to address five disputed terms of the asserted patents, and on May 12, 2020, he issued an order construing the five disputed claim terms. XMTT I, 2020 WL 2404825. The case was later reassigned to the undersigned District Judge.

Shortly after the Court's claim construction order, Intel petitioned to institute inter partes review of all the claims in the '388 patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, or Board) granted review, proposed its own construction of certain terms, and relied on those constructions in denying Intel's petition. See Intel Corp. v. XMTT, Inc., No. IPR2020-00145, 2020 WL 2562752 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2020). Intel appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the Board's decision on the basis of judicial estoppel.

While the appeal was pending, the parties filed a joint supplemental claim construction brief before this Court. The Federal Circuit issued its decision before the Court ruled on the parties' supplemental constructions, and Intel subsequently asked this Court to adopt the Board's constructions. Intel also proposed constructions of several terms for the first time, including but not limited to "serial processor" and "parallel processor." XMTT opposed the proposed constructions, arguing that the terms' plain language was sufficient.³ The Court agreed with XMTT and denied Intel's request for a supplemental claim construction order, finding that Intel "offer[ed] no . . . discussion of why it contends the plain language is insufficient." XMTT II, 2022 WL 2904308, at *7.

On December 22, 2022, both parties filed combined summary judgment and Daubert motions.

Discussion

Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Because the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court "view[s] the facts contained in each motion in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, 768 F.3d 300, 309 (3d Cir. 2014). "[A] grant of summary judgment of noninfringement is proper when no reasonable factfinder could find that the accused product contains every claim limitation or its equivalent." Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 843 F.3d 942, 949 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

The patent infringement analysis has two steps. "The first step is determining the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing." Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019). These two steps are not always strictly sequential, however, and "[d]istrict courts may engage in a rolling claim construction, in which the court revisits and alters its interpretation of the claim terms as its understanding of the technology evolves." Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enters., Inc., 302 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

A. Claim construction

Although the Court previously declined to construe the term "serial processor," claim construction is necessary at this stage because the parties now dispute the plain meaning of that term. "A determination that a claim term 'needs no construction' or has the 'plain and ordinary meaning' may be inadequate when a term has more than one 'ordinary' meaning or when reliance on a term's 'ordinary' meaning does not resolve the parties' dispute." O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). Courts "are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent's asserted claims[,]" and claim construction is not warranted when "th[e] disputed issue was the proper application of a claim term to an accused process rather than the scope of the term." Id. at 1363 (citing Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). When "the parties actively dispute[ ] the scope" of certain claim terms, however, it is legal error to "determin[e] only that the terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning" and "[leave] this question of claim scope unanswered." Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

XMTT contends that claim construction is unnecessary because the parties' dispute is a "factual disagreement regarding the plain and ordinary meaning of unconstrued terms." Pl. XMTT's Br. in Opp. to Intel's Mot. for Summ J. ("XMTT Resp.") at 6. This argument is unpersuasive. Although XMTT recognizes that Intel defines a "serial processor" as a "processor that executes instructions one at a time, in a sequential manner," it seems to argue that serial processors "execute programs having a sequential, program order and retire instructions according to that sequential program order." Id. at 6, 15. XMTT relies on statements by its infringement expert, Dr. Thomas Conte, who asserts that Intel's "incorrect definition . . . would exclude essentially every known processor at the time of the invention and decades prior." XMTT Resp., Ex. 9, Reply Expert Report of Dr. Thomas M. Conte ("Conte Reply Report"), at ¶ 73. Given that the parties do not agree on what the term "serial processor" includes and instead each offer their own definition, this is a case in which "reliance on a term's 'ordinary' meaning does not resolve the parties' dispute." O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362.

XMTT attempts to avoid claim construction by arguing that Intel's definition is an overly narrow application of the plain meaning of "serial processor." XMTT does not explain, however, how Intel's proposed definition—a "processor that executes instructions one at a time, in a sequential manner"—is an application of XMTT's own...