Fullview Inc. v. Polycom Inc.
Published: Dec. 2, 2022 | Result Date: Mar. 21, 2022 | Filing Date: Jan. 23, 2018 |Case number: 3:18-cv-00510-EMC Summary Judgment – Plaintiff
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Seth R. Gassman
(Hausfeld LLP)
Bruce J. Wecker
(Hausfeld LLP)
Defendant
David Paul Dalke
(Winston & Strawn LLP)
Eimeric Reig-Plessis
(Winston & Strawn LLP)
Joe S. Netikosol
(Winston & Strawn LLP)
Kelly C. Hunsaker
(Winston & Strawn LLP)
Karalena M. Guerrieri
(Winston & Strawn LLP)
Samantha M. Lerner
(Winston & Strawn LLP)
Facts
Fullview Inc. owns several patents involving devices that could produce panoramic photos. One such patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,128,143 titled "Panoramic Viewing System with Support Stand" referred to a small, high resolution, panoramic viewer with several cameras having the same optical center. On January 31, 2019, Polycom Inc. challenged the patent's validity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Polycom's petition, and also its request for rehearing.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended, in its second amended complaint, infringement of, among others, '143 by direct infringement, infringement by inducement, and infringement via the doctrine of equivalents.
DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendant alleged invalidity on five grounds, but in seeking summary judgment only argued patent obviousness. It used two publications for its contention: "Generation of High-resolution Stereo Panoramic Images by Omnidirectional Imaging Sensor Using Hexagonal Pyramidal Mirrors" by Yamazawa et al., published on August 17-18, 1998 and, "High-resolution Omnidirectional Stereo Imaging Using Pyramidal Mirrors" by Yamazawa et al., published Mar. 24-27, 1997.
Result
The court granted plaintiff Fullview's motion for summary judgment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390