M2M Solutions LLC v. Sierra Wireless America, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 12-30 - RGA, March 31, 2016.
Andrews, J. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity and for non-infringement is denied.
The disputed technology relates to a programmable communicator device capable of receiving and authenticating transmissions and storing them and further contemplates a remotely programmable device that allows for remote data monitoring. Defendants claim that the patent is invalid for failure to meet written description and enablement requirements, that it is indefinite because the process module claim limitation is an improper hybrid claim with both apparatus and method steps, and that it contains means-plus-function claim terms without sufficient corresponding structure. Defendants provide insufficient evidence regarding what a POSITA would understand with respect to written description and enablement. Defendants’ arguments regarding indefiniteness were rejected in related litigation and likewise fail to persuade the court in this case. Attorney conclusory arguments do not meet the burden of demonstrating insufficient structure. Defendants’ non-infringement arguments likewise fail. Defendants address only one of four ways the plaintiff’s expert claims the accused products meet the programmable interface limitation. Defendants further misinterpret the court’s claim construction. With respect to the “permitted callers” claim term, the parties had agreed that the accused products do not infringe under the court’s claim construction and the court directed them to file a stipulation regarding this understanding. They have not done so, and the court declines to grant summary judgment based on a draft agreement.