Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01373-KAJ Document 475 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 2
y CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
d ”MCOCiiiiiW"?i$6*l?`ii%iY#TW—_ “//`/ M OSSHCCCNI""` lEi§‘ii’Eiil'tZ“§lil2ir..t
RO. Box 2207
Wilmington DE 19899
(302} ess situ
Collins J. Sell; Ji". tsozi esa sem
TEL (302) 888-6278
FAX {302) 255-4278 rose wt sneer, nw, suns seo
EMAIL [email protected] washington oc zoose
REPLY TO Wilmington Otnce rat.{202) ast rrii
mx (202} 293 6229
W li F rgo Center
Gcwbef 30= 2006 sjurli dma, Suite stso
355 South Grand Avenue
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING LOS ’l“g‘*""$ CA ww}
ret(2i3} 787 2500
r¤x(213) 687 0498
Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court ‘“"““`”W"l°""°°““
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 1980l
Re: Ampex v. Eastman Kodak Company, er ol.,
CA. No. O4—1373~i{A.l
Dear Judge Jordan:
We represent defendants inthe abovecaptioned matter. In view ofthe
Court’s October 26, 2006 Claim Construction Order and Memorandum Opinion,
and particularly in view of the Court’s construction of "data," “pixel data," "said
pixel data,” etc. (see D.l. 472, Memorandum Op. at 9-17), we wanted to direct the
_ Court’s attention to the particular portion of defendants’ pending Motion for
Summary Judgment ot`Non—int"ringement that is based on these claim terms and
that we believe is case—dispositive.
The Court’s October 26, 2006 Claim Construction Order, adopting
_ Det’endants’ proposed construction, construed the "said data" limitations to
require that the video pixel data (i.e. luminance, red chrominance, and blue
_ clirominance values) stored on bulk memory be the some data that is initially
captured and stored inthe syste1n’s random access memory. (Memorandum Op.
at E6) ("l construe °the video data,’ ‘tl1e video pixel data,’ ‘data set,’ and ‘image
data set’ to mean ‘numerical information representing the sarne luminance, red
elirominance, and blue chrominance components of each pixel in a video image");
(Id. at E3) ("Therefore, in order for digital data to represent the some image, it
must represent the some luminance, red chrominance, and blue olirorninance
L values for each pixel of that image? (emphasis in original). The Court’s order
states explicitly that none of the asserted claims will cover a system in which the
pixel values change as a result of processing. (Id at E6) ("["l`]he claims will not
cover a system that, in the course of processing the data, changes the values of the
luminance and chrominance components?).

Case 1:04-cv—01373-KAJ Document 475 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 2
Honorable Kent A. Jordan
Page 2
October 30, 2006
As explained in Defendants” summary judgment papers, there is no
dispu.te that the data that is stored on the carneras’ memory card is nor the same
data that was initially captured. (Defendants Opening Brief in Support of their
Motion for Summary Judgment ofl\ion—l1r‘fringemezit (DI. 304) at 26-34;
Defendants Reply Brief (D.l. 409) at 7-16.) lt is undisputed. that the processing
that occurs in the accused cameras changes the pixel values. ln fact, Ampex
acknowledged in its Opposition that, because ofthe changes to pixel values that
occur in the accused cameras, it could not demonstrate literal infringement "[i]f
De;t`endants’ proposed construction for the "said data" limitations is adopted?
(D.l. 366, Ampex’s Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of
Non-Infringement at p. 29).
There is therefore no dispute that the cameras do not literally infringe the
"said data" limitations of the asserted claims. ln addition, as explained in
Defendants’ summary judgment papers, summary judgment is also warranted
under the doctrine of equivalents based on Ferro estoppel, the ali—elements rule,
and the substantial differences to data when processed in the accused cameras.
(DI. 304 at 32—34; DI. 409 at 12-15).
Defendants emphasize these portions of their Nomlnfringement Summary
J udgrnent briefs because of the clarity ofthe Court’s claim construction and
because application of that construction to the undisputed facts regarding the
operation ofthe accused cameras should be fully dispositive on the issue of
infringement.
Respectfully, C
Collins J%Seit2, Jr.x.\
(DE Bar No. 2237)
CJ S,Jr./saj
l cc: Jesse J. ienner, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Norman H. Beamer, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire (by electronic mail)
Michael J. Summersgill, Esquire (by electronic mail)
{49671 5)