In one of their many disputes (see here for further details) Bose sued Lightspeed for infringement of Patent No. 5,181,252 directed to drivers in noise cancelling headsets. After Judge Young construed the disputed limitations both parties moved for summary judgment on various grounds. Judge Young’s decision on those motions can be found here.
In view of the claim construction, Lightspeed conceded infringement of claim 1. As to anticipation, the court granted summary judgment for Bose that a first piece of prior art did not anticipate the patent. But the court did rule that a second piece of art met all the limitations of claim 1 and left for trial the question of whether that art was properly prior art for purposes of § 102(a) (known or used by others) or 102(g)(2) (made by another).
Lightspeed also moved for invalidity under § 112 for lack of enablement, improper written description, or indefiniteness. But that motion was denied because § 112 relies on an understanding of one skilled in the art and Lightspeed advanced no evidence on that point.
Bose Corp. v. Lightspeed Aviation, Inc., 09-10222-WGY (D. Mass. July 30, 2010)
Comments