• ALJ Charneski Rules On Motion For Summary Determination of Non-Infringement In Certain Flash Memory (337-TA-685)
  • December 14, 2010 | Author: Eric W. Schweibenz
  • Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
  • On December 1, 2010, ALJ Carl C. Charneski issued Order No. 49 in Certain Flash Memory and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-685) denying Respondents Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC’s (collectively, “Spansion”) motion for summary determination that claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,740,065 (the ‘065 patent) are not infringed.

    In its motion, Spansion asserted that claims 1 and 8, the only independent claims, were not infringed because Spansion does not “accumulatively average [ ] working conditions.”  Rather, Spansion argued that it employs an “Exponentially Weighted Moving Average” (“EWMA”).  According to Spansion, EWMAs are not described by the ‘065 patent and are different from “accumulatively averaging.”  Specifically, Spansion stated that an EWMA is “moving” so as to include only recent data, dropping older data from the average, and is “exponentially weighted.”  In addition, Spansion asserted that even if “accumulatively averaging” could include an EWMA, Spansion’s process averages error, not “working conditions.”

    After considering the motion, ALJ Charneski concluded that a dispute remained regarding the proper claim construction of the phrase “accumulatively averaging working conditions.”  Specifically, the ALJ stated that Samsung disputes Spansion’s assertion that “accumulatively averaging” has a well understood plain and ordinary meaning.  The ALJ also cited Samsung’s dispute of Spansion’s contention that its construction is consistent with the ‘065 patent specification and its dispute of Spansion’s contention that EWMA is different from accumulative average.  Finally, the ALJ noted that there was also a dispute as to whether Spansion accumulatively averages “working conditions” when it performs EWMA of “error.”  Thus, the ALJ determined that summary determination was inappropriate.