- Court: Intellectual Property Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Patents, Infringement
- Date Filed: 04-09-2013
- Case #: 10-428-SLR
- Judge(s)/Court Below: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
- Full Text Opinion
Opinion (Robinson): Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. ("Golden Bridge") sued Apple, Inc. ("Apple") and several other companies alleging infringement of its Patent Nos. 6,574,267C1 and 7,359,427 which both relate to a method to reduce interference caused by wireless phones by determining the lowest transmission power level that assures high data throughput. The case against Apple was severed. Golden Bridge claimed Apple both directly and indirectly infringed claims common to both patents. For an accused device to directly infringe a patent it must “perform each and every step or element of a claimed method or product.” For an accused device to indirectly infringe a patent it must either actively induce infringement, or contribute to infringement by knowingly being “made or especially adapted for use in” infringement of the patent. Both methods of showing indirect infringement are dependent on showing direct infringement. Following claim construction and consideration of evidence, the court determined that Golden Bridge was unable to produce any evidence that showed the implementation of a common limitation, which required “spreading the access preamble.” That limitation required the random selection of a signature and increasing its bandwidth after its generation. Because Golden Bridge was unable to show any evidence that the accused devices practiced the spread preamble limitation, it could not show that Apple’s devices performed each step of the claimed method and therefore could not establish direct infringement. Because it was unable to establish direct infringement, Golden Bridge was also unable to establish indirect infringement. Accordingly, Apple’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was granted.