Opinion
Case No. CV 04-6805 AHM (SSx).
January 10, 2006
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING, IN PART, DEFENDANT'S' MOTION FOR' SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The suit concerns the optical characteristics of patented sunglass lenses and centers primarily upon the "transmission curves" of those lenses ( i.e., plots of how much light passes through a given lens over a range of wavelengths).
The Court GRANTS, in part, Plaintiff's motion, concluding that Defendant has infringed the '509 and '175 patents. The Court also GRANTS, in part, Defendant's motion, concluding that it has not infringed the '748 patent.
II. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff SunTiger, Inc., is owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patents Nos. 4,878,748 (`748), 5,177,509 (`509), and 5,400,175 (`175), relating to optical lens technology that protects human eyesight by blocking harmful blue, violet, and ultraviolet light. Compl. ¶ 6. Defendant Sunglass Products sells "Low Light Amber" sunglasses over the internet which SunTiger claims infringe upon all three patents. Id. Sunglass Products does not challenge the validity of the patents at issue, Def.'s SGI ¶ 15, but rather, contends that its lenses do not satisfy the various claim limitations of SunTiger's patents.
A. Prior Litigation
SunTiger prevailed in a prior patent infringement suit against Scientific Research Funding Group (SRFG) on the same patents now at issue regarding lenses that SunTiger alleges are similar to those sold presently by Sunglass Products. SunTiger, Inc. v. Scientific Research Funding Group, 9 F.Supp.2d 601 (E.D. Va. 1998) (denying SRFG's motion for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment. SunTiger, Inc. v. Scientific Research Funding Group, 194 F.3d 1335, 1999 WL 379140 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 1999) (unpublished).
Of importance, here, both SunTiger and Sunglass Products have stipulated that the claim construction adopted in SRFG litigation will be "binding" on the present case. See 3/3/05 Stipulation Regarding Issues of Claim Construction at 2 [hereinafter "Stipulation"]. Thus, the relevant terms that have already been construed include the following: "means to substantially block," "means to substantially transmit," "substantially block," "substantially transmit," "sharp cut-on," "cut-on filter," and "portion." Id., Exh. A at 26-28.
B. The Disputed Claims
The present dispute concerns optical lenses which block certain portions of the light spectrum ( i.e., wavelengths harmful to the human eye), and which transmit other portions of the spectrum ( i.e., "visible" wavelengths which allows humans to see). As such, there is an inherent tension between blocking and transmission — excessive blocking degrades one's ability to see; excessive transmission permits too much harmful light to reach one's eyes.
Amongst the three patents-in-suit ( i.e., the '748, '509, and '175 patents), four claim limitations are presently at issue. That is:
(1) The Substantially Blocking Limitation: All three patents claim a lens that blocks substantially all light from 300 nm to 450 nm.
(2) The Sharp Cut-on Limitation: The '509 and '175 patents claim a lens that "commences sharply cutting on . . . at a sharp cut-on wavelength" of between 450 nm and 550 nm.
(3) The Slope Limitation: The '509 and '175 patents claim a lens that has a transmission curve, "a portion of whose slope at wavelengths of light greater than the cut-on wavelength but less than 650 nm rises more than 0.5% [T/nm]."
(4) The Quantitative Method Limitation: The '748 patent claims a lens whose "cut-on" point is determined "quantitatively," i.e., by a specific mathematical formula (as opposed to by subjective criteria regarding the appropriate balance to strike between visibility and protection).
'748 Patent, Claims 1-2; '509 Patent, Claim 1; '175 Patent, Claim 1. The parties' dispute focuses primarily on the second and third limitations.
III. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard on Summary Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides for summary judgment when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a "genuine issue of material fact for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law. Id. at 248. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish, beyond the pleadings, that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
"When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue material to its case." C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In contrast, when the non-moving party bears the burden of proving the claim or defense, the moving party can meet its burden by pointing out the absence of evidence from the non-moving party. The moving party need not disprove the other party's case. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. Thus, "[s]ummary judgment for a defendant is appropriate when the plaintiff `fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to [his] case, and on which [he] will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795, 805-06 (1999) ( citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322).
When the moving party meets its burden, the "adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Summary judgment will be entered against the non-moving party if that party does not present such specific facts. Id. Only admissible evidence may be considered in deciding a motion for summary judgment. Id.; Beyene v. Coleman Sec. Serv., Inc., 854 F.2d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 1988).
"[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party's evidence `is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [that party's] favor.'" Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552 (1999) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). But the non-moving party must come forward with more than "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Thus, "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted).
The foregoing principles relating to summary judgment motions are applicable to patent cases. "Thus, a nonmovant must do more than merely raise some doubt as to the existence of a fact; evidence must be forthcoming from the nonmovant which would be sufficient to require submission to the jury of the dispute over the fact." Avia Group, Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Where a patentee claiming infringement fails to submit evidence rebutting defendant's evidence of non-infringement, the patentee is not entitled to judgment. Grain Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 910 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
B. Effect of Prior Litigation
As stated above, SunTiger prevailed in a prior patent infringement suit against Scientific Research Funding Group (SRFG) on the same patents now in question. Both SunTiger and Sunglass Products have stipulated that the claim construction in the prior suit will control here:
The patents-in-suit have already been construed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia [and that] construction . . . is binding on the parties in this case. To the extent that the terms in the asserted claims were not construed in the said prior litigation, the parties are asking the Court to make a claim construction based on the arguments submitted in the summary judgment motions.
Stipulation at 1-2. "In a patent litigation action, where the parties do not dispute any relevant facts regarding the accused product but disagree over possible claim interpretations, the question of literal infringement collapses into claim construction and is amenable to summary judgment." Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
The relevant terms and their stipulated construction are as follows: Term Stipulated Construction
"substantially block" ". . . in reference to wavelengths, it is defined as blocking over 99% of the incident radiation at each and every wavelength" and "[in] reference to polarization, it is defined as blocking 80% or more of the horizontally polarized incident radiation at each and every wavelength" "substantially ". . . in reference to wavelengths, [it] is defined as transmit" transmitting more than 1% of the incident radiation at each and every wavelength" and "[in] reference to polarization, it is defined as transmitting more than 20% of the horizontally polarized incident radiation at each and every wavelength" "sharp cut-on" ". . . sharp cut-on is defined in the context of a dye or filter, having a cut-on slope that at some concentration or dye density rises more than one half percent (0.5%) change in transmission for every one nanometer of increasing wavelength change. The cut-on slope is that portion of the transmission spectra of a cut-on dye that represents the transition between [the] substantially blocking and the substantially transmitting region." "cut-on filter" ". . . an optical filter that substantially blocks all wavelengths shorter than the cut-on wavelength and substantially transmits all wavelengths that are longer than the cut-on wavelength. The cut-on wavelength is that wavelength in the transition zone at which the transmission is 1%." "portion" ". . . part or share of something" Stipulation, Ex. A at 26-28.Plaintiff SunTiger contends that this Court cannot apply the stipulated construction in a way that would contradict the finding of the Eastern District of Virginia that YE-82 infringed SunTiger's patents. Pl.'s Mot. at 1 ("[T]he YE-82 lens material must literally infringe whatever claim construction the Court adopts in this case."). In essence, SunTiger argues the following: (1) the parties have stipulated to the prior construction, (2) the decision in the prior suit does not bind this Court, but (3) any ruling that this Court issues must not be inconsistent with the fact that YE-82 was found to infringe its patents.
I disagree with this assessment. My decision is not foreordained by the result in SunTiger, Inc. v. Scientific Research Funding Group. SunTiger attempts to elevate the prior claim construction to the level of a decision. Despite the parties' agreement that the prior claim construction would be binding, that prior court's decision applying its own construction is only persuasive. Although the parties have agreed to be bound to the use of the prior construction, they have not agreed that this Court's application of that construction must be consistent with prior decisions involving a different defendant and different lenses. Indeed, were consistency with prior results necessary, that would be tantamount to an improper form of collateral estoppel against a current party, i.e., Sunglass Products, which was not a party (nor a party in privity) to SunTiger v. Scientific Research Funding Group. Cf. MCA Records, Inc. v. Charly Records, Ltd., 865 F.Supp. 649, 654 (C.D. Cal. 1994) ("[D]ue process requires that the party to be estopped must have had an identity or community of interest with, and adequate representation by, the losing party in the first action as well as that the circumstances must have been such that the party to be estopped should reasonably have expected to be bound by the prior adjudication.").
C. The Accused Lenses Do Not Satisfy the Quantitative Method (Fourth) Limitation
SunTiger's claim that Sunglass Products infringes the '748 patent can be dealt with summarily. The '748 patent requires that the selected cut-on point in a given lens be chosen quantitatively — i.e., by a specific mathematical algorithm. See '748 Patent, Claim 2. The relevant language from '748 claims a "sunglass lens . . . wherein the selection of the specific cut-on wavelength . . . that is determined quantitatively." Id. Sunglass Products denies that it uses quantitative methods to select a cut-on point, Def.'s SGI ¶¶ 13-14 ("Defendant does not use any quantitative methods to establish a cut-on wavelength. . . ."), and SunTiger has submitted no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, summary adjudication on this issue is appropriate.
SunTiger, however, does contend that Sunglass Products has waived its right to argue non-infringement on the basis of the quantitative method limitation, pointing out that Sunglass Products' response to a special interrogatory concerning the bases on which it planned to contest infringement did not explicitly set forth such a defense. See Sackey Decl., Exh. M ("Defendant's Supplemental Response and Objections to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One") at 3-4. SunTiger overlooks, however, the fact that Sunglass Products, in its answer to that interrogatory, expressly reserved the right to make additional arguments in the future: "Defendant does not waive its right to further expand upon its reasons for non-infringement in the context of the claim as a whole, the specification and the file history thereof." Id.
D. The Accused Lenses Satisfy the Substantially Blocking (First) Limitation
All three patents claim lenses that block substantially all light from 300 nm to 450 nm. '748 Patent, Claim 1; `'09 Patent, Claim 1; `'175 Patent, Claim 1. Two types of Sunglass Products' "Low Light Amber" lenses are at issue: 0.7 mm lenses and 1.1 mm lenses. All are made of the same material; the only distinction between the two types is their relative thicknesses. Meece Decl., Exh. 2 ("Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Motion to Compel") at ¶ 2. Sunglass Products has conceded, for the purposes of infringement, that there are no relevant differences between any of its 0.7 mm lenses. Id. at 25 ("Admission No. 35"). It has conceded the same with respect to its 1.1 mm lenses. Id.
Sunglass Products has also conceded that its lenses satisfy the substantially blocking limitation. During discovery, SunTiger propounded the following two requests for admission:
(1) Admit that DEFENDANT'S sunglasses containing Low Light Amber lenses substantially block wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum that are between 300 nm and 450 nm.
(2) Admit that DEFENDANT'S sunglasses containing Low Light Amber lenses block at least 99% of incident wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum that are between 300 nm and 450 nm.Id., Exh. 1 ("Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admissions") at 9. In response to both, Sunglass Products responded in the affirmative ( i.e., "ADMIT") with respect to both its 0.7 mm and 1.1 mm lenses. Id., Exh. 2 at 35 ("Admission Nos. 1-2). Thus, the accused lenses satisfy the substantially blocking limitation of all three patents.
E. The Accused Lenses Satisfy the Slope (Third) Limitation
The parties vigorously contest whether Sunglass Products' lenses satisfy the 0.5% T/nm slope limitation mentioned above at page 3. This question turns on what happens as the accused lenses transition from a state of blocking light to a state of transmitting light — and more specifically, how rapidly this transition occurs as the wavelengths of incident light increase. Represented graphically, the x-axis represents the wavelength of light hitting the lens, and the y-axis represents the percentage of light transmitted by the lens at that wavelength. Although each lens has a unique curve, the curves roughly resemble each other. That is, at lower wavelengths ( i.e., the lefthand side of the graph), each curve starts off low, representing very little transmission of light ( i.e., less than 1%). At higher wavelengths, and specifically, at the pre-determined "cut-on" point, the curve rises relatively steeply, representing the fact that the lens is starting to transmit more light at higher wavelengths. At even higher wavelengths, the curve levels off, representing a relatively stable, high transmission rate, perhaps 20-50% of visible light.
The following is the relevant language of the '509 and '175 patents concerning the 0.5% T/nm slope limitation:
A [lens][optical transparency] comprising . . . a sharp cut-on filter . . . being characterized by a . . . transmission curve, a portion of whose slope at wavelengths of light greater than the cut-on wavelength but less than 650 nm rises more than 0.5 percent change in light transmission for every one nanometer of increasing wavelength change.
'509 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added); `175 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added).
Neither party contests the fact that somewhere along the transmission curves of Sunglass Products' lenses, the slopes of those curves must "rise more than 0.5 percent change in light transmission for every one nanometer of increasing wavelength change" in order for infringement to be found. Id. The critical question on which summary adjudication for this limitation rests is where that measurement must be taken. SunTiger argues for an expansive location for purposes of measuring slope, contending that if the slope exceeds 0.5% T/nm anywhere in the transition region ( i.e., from the cut-on point to the plateau where the lens transmits 20% or more light), then Sunglass Products' lenses satisfy the slope limitation. Sunglass Products responds that the only relevant location is the "cut-on wavelength" itself — i.e., the wavelength "where transmittance is exactly 1%." Def.'s Reply at 3 (emphasis added). Although none of accused lenses generates a transmission curve with a slope greater than 0.5% T/nm at the cut-on point itself, Sunglass Products admits that its lenses do have slopes greater than 0.5% T/nm at higher wavelengths — specifically between 496 nm and 500 nm. See Def.'s SGI ¶ 9.
I find that the express claim language validates SunTiger's position. To satisfy the slope limitation, the accused lenses must have a "transmission curve, a portion of whose slope at wavelengths of light greater than the cut-on wavelength but less than 650 nm rises more than 0.5 percent change in light transmission for every one nanometer of increasing wavelength change." '509 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added); '175 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added). The stipulated construction of the term "portion" is "a part or share of something." Stipulation, Exh. A at 28. Here, that "something" is the transmission curve of a lens. Thus, a lens will be found to satisfy the slope limitation if "part" of its transmission curve has a "slope" exceeding 0.5% T/nm. What "part" or "portion" of the transmission curve should one consider? The claim language answers that question directly: between "the cut-on wavelength" and "650 nm." '509 Patent, Claim 1; '175 Patent, Claim 1. Thus, to assess whether Sunglass Products' lenses satisfy the slope limitation, one looks at the range of wavelengths between the "cut-on wavelength" and "650 nm" to determine whether any "portion" or "part" of the transmission curve in that region has a slope exceeding 0.5% T/nm. Id.
This conclusion comports with commonsense notions of the underlying mathematical concepts. That is, the word "portion" implies that we look to a region of a transmission curve, not a singular point as Sunglass Products advocates, since a point, by definition, cannot be subdivided into more than one "portion." Further, although not binding on this Court, this conclusion jibes with the result in SunTiger, Inc. v. Scientific Research Funding Group, 9 F.Supp.2d 601 (E.D. Va. 1998). Sunglass Products acknowledges that "[t]he portion of the [transmission curve] for the YE-82 lens material between 530 nm-540 nm has a slope of over 0.5% T/nm" and that the Eastern District of Virginia, therefore, concluded "as a matter of law that the YE-82 lens material infringed the Patents." Def.'s SGI ¶¶ 6-7. It is undisputed that YE-82 does not have a transmission curve with a slope greater than 0.5% T/nm at the cut-on point itself. Applying the agreed upon claim construction as Sunglass Products urges ( i.e., evaluating slope only at the cut-on point itself) would contradict the outcome in that litigation.
F. The Accused Lenses Satisfy the Sharp Cut-on (Second) Limitation
The following is the relevant language of the '509 and '175 patents concerning the sharp cut-on limitation:
A [lens] [optical transparency] comprising . . . a sharp cut-on filter . . . being adapted to commence sharply cutting on transmission of light at a sharp cut-on wavelength of between 450 nm and 550 nm.
'509 Patent, Claim 1; '175 Patent, Claim 1. The stipulated claim construction defines a "sharp cut-on" as "a dye or filter having a cut-on slope that . . . rises more than one half percent (0.5%) change in transmission for every one nanometer of increasing wavelength change." Stipulation, Ex. A at 27. That is, the curve must exhibit a slope of greater than 0.5% T/nm in "that portion of the transmission spectra . . . that represents the transition between [the] substantially blocking and the substantially transmitting region." Id. (emphasis added). The terms "substantially blocking region" and "substantially transmitting region," however, have yet to be construed.
"Claim construction is a matter of law for the court, but claim construction is `not an obligatory exercise in redundancy' and therefore does not require the court to repeat or restate every claim term." Macrovision Corp. v. Dwight Cavendish Developments Ltd., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ( quoting U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The Court must interpret only disputed terms. Id. ( citing Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc., 103 F.3d 1571, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Claim construction begins and ends with the actual words of the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In construing disputed claim terms, the court should look first to intrinsic evidence. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Intrinsic evidence includes the language of the claims, the specification, and the file history, if in evidence. Id. The file history is often important intrinsic evidence because any interpretation that is either provided or disavowed in the file history affects the claim scope. Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249 n. 3. In most situations, analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve ambiguity in a disputed claim term. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
Extrinsic evidence refers to evidence that is external to the patent and its file history, such as expert testimony, inventor testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises and articles. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584. A court may rely on extrinsic evidence to construe claims, but only where the intrinsic evidence alone does not resolve any ambiguity. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. However, a court may consult extrinsic evidence to ensure that its claim construction is not inconsistent with how a person skilled in the art would understand the claim terms. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308-09 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Moreover, the court may freely consult dictionaries and may rely on dictionary definitions when construing claims, to the extent the dictionary definition does not contradict a definition found in the patent documents. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n. 6.
Absent a special and particular definition created by the inventor, e.g., the inventor acted as his own lexicographer, terms in a claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. Id. at 1249. It is necessary to review the specification to determine whether disputed terms have been used by the inventor in a manner other than their ordinary meaning. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Technical terms are interpreted from the perspective of persons skilled in the art. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp., 157 F.3d 866, 871 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In light of these principles, the Court must construe the terms "substantially blocking region" and "substantially transmitting region."
Sunglass Products contends that the "substantially blocking region" is the area of the curve ( i.e., a range of wavelengths) where the transmission of light at a given wavelength is less than 1%. SunTiger agrees. Sunglass Products then argues, however, that the "substantially transmitting region" is the area of the curve where the transmission of light is greater than 1%. Thus, in effect, Sunglass Products argues that the two regions directly abut each other — with a shared border occurring at the cut-on point ( i.e., where the transmission of light equals 1% exactly). SunTiger disagrees with this construction, arguing that the "substantially transmitting region" is the area of the curve where the transmission of light exceeds 20%.
I agree with SunTiger. Although the term "substantially transmitting region" has not been construed, the term "substantially transmitting" has. That term was given a definition that depends on whether one is referring to non-polarized or polarized light:
The term "substantially transmitting" is defined as follows. When used in reference to wavelengths [ i.e., non-polarized light], [it] is defined as transmitting more than I percent of the incident radiation at each and every wavelength. When . . . used [in] reference to polarization, it is defined as transmitting 20% or more of the horizontally polarized incident radiation at each and every wavelength.
Stipulation, Exh. A at 27. The claim language makes explicit that "blocking" refers to blocking non-polarized light and that "transmitting" refers to transmitting polarized light. For example, the '509 patent claims:
A lens . . . comprising . . . a sharp cut-on filter . . . adapted to block over ninety-nine percent of wavelengths of non-polarized light between 300 nm and about 450 nm and to transmit greater than 20 percent of wavelengths of polarized light greater than 625 nm. . . .
'509 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added). Edited further, it reads: "[A] sharp cut-on filter . . . adapted to block . . . non-polarized light . . . and to transmit . . . polarized light. . . ." Id. In the present situation, then, the appropriate construction of "substantially transmitting" is the definition applicable to polarized light — i.e., "transmitting 20% or more of the horizontally polarized incident radiation at each and every wavelength." Stipulation, Exh. A at 27.
The specifications of the '509 and '175 patents further support my conclusion that the "substantially transmitting region" is that area of a curve where the transmission of light exceeds 20% (indeed, the specifications indicate an even higher transmission rate of 30-40%):
The spectral curves are divided into a blocking zone, a transition zone and a transmissive zone. * * *
[For a] filter 14 having a cut-on at 450 nanometers[,] wavelengths between 300 and 449 nanometers are substantially blocked up to the transition zone where the sharp cut-on filter 14 cuts-on at 450 nanometers and steeply rises up to the transmissive zone where 30 to 40 percent of the wavelengths that are longer than 625 nanometers are transmitted.
'509 Patent, col. 16, 11. 58 through col. 17, 11. 3 (emphasis added); '175 Patent, col. 16, 11. 55-68 (emphasis added).
Going back to the sharp cut-on limitation, itself, the accused lenses will satisfy this limitation if they exhibit transmission curves that have a slope greater than 0.5% T/nm in "that portion of the transmission spectra . . . that represents the transition between [the] substantially blocking and the substantially transmitting region." Id. (emphasis added). The substantially blocking region ends at the cut-on point, i.e., where transmission equals 1%; the substantially transmitting region begins where transmission is greater than 20%. As explained above in reference to the slope limitation, Sunglass Products' lenses have slopes exceeding 0.5% T/nm in this region, and thus, its lenses satisfy the sharp cut-on limitation as well.
IV. CONCLUSION
The accused lenses satisfy the disputed limitations of the '509 and '175 patents. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS SunTiger's motion for summary judgment as to those two patents.
Docket No. 60.
The accused lenses, however, do not satisfy the quantitative method limitation of the '748 patent. Thus, the Court GRANTS Sunglass Products' motion as to that patent.
Docket No. 21.
This Order is not intended for publication. The parties shall lodge a joint, stipulated proposed judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.