Silicon Graphics v. ATI Is A Draw

Posted on | May 2, 2008 | No Comments

2008-1334 Silicon Graphics v. ATI Technologies
WD/WI 06-c-0611

ATI appeals from the judgments of Judge Barbara Crabb on the verdicts that Silicon Graphic’s  6,650,327 patent valid and enforceable.  The court had previously granted summary judgment of non-infringement to ATI on most of the asserted patent claims, and Silicon Graphics had voluntarily dismissed the rest.  Phillip Brooks previously wrote about the case here.

Thanks to the prolific use of "Sealed Documents" in ECF, it is difficult to see the details of all the issues, but this much is known.  Silicon Graphics accused various ATI
graphics chips, cards and processors–described as the R3xx, R4xx, R5xx and R6xx series–of infringing the ’327; 6,292,200; and 6,885,376 patents.  All are generally directed to products and processes for rendering 3-D graphics.

Infringement.  Along the way, Silicon Graphics voluntarily dismissed the ’376 patent from suit, and the court entertained cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement.   The court concluded, with one exception, that the accused products did not directly or indirectly infringe the asserted claims of either the ’200 or ’376.  The exception was for indirect infringement of some claims of the ’376 patent when used in combination with non-Microsoft operating systems.

Although the specific bases for finding non-infringement are highly technical and not readily summarized here, the court essentially found that Silicon Graphics failed to present any evidence that ATI’s products operated as claimed in the patent.  Much centered around "exponent bias," "floating point scan conversions, " etc.  In addition, Silicon Graphic’s license with Microsoft precluded infringement when used with Microsoft operating systems.

The court was clearly unhappy with Silicon Graphic’s arguments and tactics, noting that some issues (doctrine of equivalents) and arguments were (i) not pled, (ii) disclaimed in discovery, or (iii) not meaningfully briefed or argued.  This irritation is best expressed here:

Finally, I note that neither side provided adequate assistance to the court in its fact finding task. First, many of plaintiff’s proposed facts purportedly explaining the function of the accused devices were unintelligible. . . . Plaintiff proposes as fact

“Examples of commands sent by the CP include telling the VGT what type of primitive to draw and from where to fetch the data to do so, read and write register commands are passed to the RBBM, and vertex fetch instructions to the VAP and vertex fetcher.”).

* * *

It is impossible to determine whether an unintelligible fact is material or not.  Plaintiff may have hidden gems in statements like this, but without further explanation, they are useless in presenting a case to a lay court. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company v. Reinsurance Results, Inc., – F.3d – , Case No. 07-1823 (7th Cir., Jan. 16, 2008) (“There is nothing wrong with a specialized vocabulary — for use by specialists. Federal district and circuit judges, however . . . are generalists. . . . Lawyers should understand the judges’ limited knowledge of specialized fields and choose their vocabulary accordingly.”).

Plaintiff’s strategy was not a winning one; in the future, its lawyers would be well advised to present facts to the court that are intelligible to everyday speakers of English.  [Emphasis by PATracer.]

Invalidity. Summary judgment left for trial some infringement claims of the ’327 (when used with a non-Microsoft OS) and ATI’s counterclaims of invalidity as to the ’327 and inequitable conduct.   Silicon Graphics then moved to dismiss its infringement claims and, then, gave a covenant not to sue as to these claims.  It then moved to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  This was done, however, just a day or two before a jury trial was set and, despite the events and motion, it started on schedule.  The jury ultimately concluded that the claims of the ’327 were not anticipated based on the references offered by ATI.

Also, after a one day trial to the bench on ATI’s counterclaim of inequitable conduct, Judge Crabb ruled that the patents were not unenforceable.

Documents:

2008-1334_order_partial_sj.pdf

2008-1334_motion_to_dismiss.pdf

Images from: AMD, http://ati.amd.com/products/

Comments