PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. EMC Corporation
- Edward Davila
- 5:13-cv-01358
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In PersonalWeb v. EMC, Judge Davila granted defendants’ unopposed summary-judgment motion after patent review proceedings invalidated the asserted claims.
PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC lost their asserted patent claims addressed by the ruling; EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. obtained summary judgment on those claims.
What happened
PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC sued EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. over asserted claims of six patents. The defendants asked for summary judgment, arguing that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had invalidated all asserted claims and that those decisions could not be further appealed. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
The court reviewed the defendants’ evidence, including the Board’s final decisions, Federal Circuit judgments, and inter partes review certificates. It explained that an unopposed motion cannot be granted automatically, but may be granted when the moving papers show there is no genuine dispute about an important fact and the movant is entitled to judgment under the law.
Judge Davila granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count 1 and in connection with the asserted claims of the six listed patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,791; 6,415,280; 7,945,544; 7,945,539; 7,949,662; and 8,001,096.
The detailed version
- PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. EMC Corporation · No. 5:13-cv-01358
- Edward Davila
- Sept. 10, 2019
Background
PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC asserted claims from six patents against EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. The defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure that requires judgment when the record shows no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The defendants argued that every asserted claim had been invalidated in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. They also argued that the invalidations were no longer subject to appeal. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that it could not grant an unopposed summary-judgment motion solely because the opposing party failed to respond. It still had to determine whether the defendants’ motion and supporting evidence showed that no material factual dispute existed. The court found that the evidence supported the motion. That evidence included the Board’s final written decisions, judgments from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and inter partes review certificates for the six patents.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count 1 and in connection with the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,791, 6,415,280, 7,945,544, 7,945,539, 7,949,662, and 8,001,096. The excerpt does not provide additional explanation of Count 1 or state a separate disposition for any other count.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.