Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark recently considered the parties’ summary judgment and Daubert motions in Intel Corporation v. Future Link Systems, LLC, No. 14-377-LPS (July 31, 2017). Regarding Future Link’s motions, Judge Stark granted summary judgment that RAND licensing requirements did not attach to the asserted claims of the relevant patents, and as to Intel’s equitable estoppel and uneforceability defenses. Id. at 3-8, 11-12. Judge Stark also granted Future Link’s Daubert motion, to the extent the experts’ opinions improperly expanded the scope of the claims. Id. at 23-24
Regarding Intel’s Motions, Judge Stark denied summary judgment as to indefiniteness and non-infringement, finding disputed issues of material fact, but granted-in-part Intel’s motion for summary judgment of no willfulness and no unclean hands. Regarding willfulness, Judge Stark held that, while “[i]t may be difficult to see how a reasonable factfinder would view the panoply of conduct
alleged by Future Link (if proven) to be ‘egregious … wanton, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or – indeed- characteristic of a pirate'”; at this stage the Court could not grant summary judgment of no willful infringement. Id. at 28-29 (quoting Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016)). Judge Stark found, however, that summary judgment of no unclean hands was appropriate because Future Link had failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to support a finding that Intel acted with unclean hands. Id. at 29.
Intel Corporation v. Future Link Systems, LLC No. 14-377-LPS (July 31, 2017)