Judge Farnan recently issued an opinion in LG Display Co., Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corp., C.A. No. 06-726-JJF (D. Del. Apr. 30, 2010). LG Display (“LGD”) had alleged infringement of four patents, while AU Optronics (“AU”) counter-claimed for infringement of another four patents. Judge Farnan bifurcated the trial into two one-week portions, the first portion addressing AUO’s infringement claims against LGD, and the second portion addressing LGD’s claims against AUO. The trial took place in June 2009.
Judge Farnan then issued the resulting decisions in phases. Earlier this year, Judge Farnan issued an opinion in favor of AU Optronics on their portion of the case, finding that LGD infringed each of AU’s patents. Last week, Judge Farnan followed up with an opinion again in favor of AU Optronics, holding that they did not infringe any of LGD’s patents.
While most of last week’s opinion was fact-specific, there was at least one legal issue addressed. A third party, CMO, had initially been a defendant in the case, but was issued a stay sometime after claim construction. CMO petitioned, however, for leave to file a post-trial memorandum despite the stay, arguing that they had an interest in the Court’s claim construction determinations. Id. at 4. Judge Farnan denied them leave to file, stating simply that “the Court will not permit CMO to interject itself into the post-trial briefing of LGD and AUO where proceedings against CMO have been stayed,” but that the Court would consider CMO’s positions as submitted during the Markman proceedings. Id. at 5.
See the opinions below the break.
LG Display Co., Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corp., C.A. No. 06-726-JJF (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2010) [Phase I]
06-726a-I
LG Display Co., Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corp., C.A. No. 06-726-JJF (D. Del. Apr. 30, 2010) [Phase II]
06-726
Delaware IP Law Blog 