Bose Corp v Lightspeed Aviation, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-10222-WGY, Memorandum and Order (D. Mass. July 30, 2010) (Young, D.J.) [Summary Judgment, Anticipation].

Plaintiff Bose Corp. (“Bose”) filed suit against Defendant Lightspeed Aviation, Inc. (“Lightspeed”) alleging that Lightspeed’s Zulu ANR Aviation headsets infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,181,252, entitled “High Compliance Headphone Driving” (the “’252 patent”). Among other defenses, Lightspeed asserted invalidity based on: (1) anticipation of all claims of the ’252 patent by the Voyager headset and (2) anticipation of Claims 1 and 5 by the Telex headset. The District Court (Young, D.J.) granted summary judgment for Bose on the Voyager headset and narrowed the issues on the Telex headset.

Though other summary judgment arguments are discussed in the opinion, the decision is dominated by an anticipation analysis. Bose asked the Court to rule as a matter of law that the ’252 patent is not anticipated by the Voyager headset. In addition, the parties crossmoved for summary judgment on anticipation of Claims 1 and 5 of the ’252 patent by the Telex headset.

The Court began by analyzing the Voyager headset. The dispute concerned whether the Voyager headset practices the “high compliance driver with a driver compliance which is greater than [the] rear cavity compliance” limitation, as required by all claims of the ’252 patent. The Court reviewed the different measurements of the driver compliance by both parties and found that “no real doubt exists but that the Voyager headset does not meet the high compliance limitation.” Therefore, the Court found that Lightspeed failed to establish that the Voyager headset fulfills all of the limitations of the ’252 patent and granted summary judgment for Bose.

In contrast, the Court found that there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the Telex headset constituted prior art. However, the Court analyzed whether the Telex headset practices all of the limitation of claim 1 in order to narrow the issues for trial. Because Bose did not produce any evidence that the Telex headset does not practice all limitations of claim 1 and only cast doubt on the adequacy of the Telex headset, the Court found that there was no issue of material fact. Thus, as a matter of law, the Telex headset practices all the limitations of claim 1, and as long as Lightspeed can establish that the Telex headset constitutes prior art, it anticipates the ’252 patent.