Judge Rejects Camera Tech Patent Claims

     (CN) – A federal judge sided with Samsung in a protracted legal fight over whether it infringed on two digital camera technology patents of a German company.
     U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the District of Columbia, granted Samsung’s motion for summary judgment on non-infringement of 47 products singled out by patent holder, Papst Licensing GMBH & Co.
     Samsung claimed it never made, sold, marketed or imported the products in the United States.
     Papst claimed that Samsung encouraged indirect infringement of the 47 products through Samsung entities in the United States.
     But Collyer decided not to hear Papst’s claim because it was not “sufficiently preserved in its final infringement contentions.”
     In a 2011 ruling , Collyer found Papst, which makes no products but secures patents for others’ inventions, drew out patent infringement litigation to extract royalty payments against Samsung and other digital camera technology makers, including Fujiflm, Nikon and Eastman Kodak.
     Collyer found that Papst showed “blatant disregard” of court orders to specify which cameras violated its patents, and barred the company from “advancing any arguments for infringement, or against the camera manufacturers’ claims of non-infringement.”
     This time Papst fared no better. Collyer found that its indirect infringement claim was not “specific or explicit enough to survive” her 2011 sanction.
     “Papst’s vague and conclusory contentions regarding infringement by inducement in no way satisfy the level of specificity that the court required, and thus Papst has waived the claim against defendants for infringement by inducement,” Collyer wrote.
     Papst also sought more discovery for the 47 Samsung models, claiming there was circumstantial evidence that the products were made and sold in the United States.
     But Collyer found that “nothing on which it seeks discovery would refute the high confidential sales records that defendants already shared with Papst.”
     The declaration of Samsung manager named Sang-Yoon Lee, who stated that neither defendants Samsung Techwin nor Samsung Opto-Electronics America had sold any of the 47 products in the United States, constituted “competent evidence,” Collyer wrote.
     She said that Papst’s arguments to the contrary were unpersuasive and without merit.
     “The circumstantial evidence on which Papst relies is not probative of whether these defendants, contrary to their confidential business records and sworn statements, made/sold the forty-seven accused products in the United States. Papst has not raised a genuine issue of material fact nor has it shown that more discovery would help it do so,” Collyer wrote, denying Papst’s motion for discovery and its motion to strike Lee’s declaration.

%d bloggers like this: