New Pacer--BARCO’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 5,809,336;
U.S. PATENT NO. 5,440,749; AND U.S. PATENT NO. 5,530,890

-

Heavily redacted (My words)

-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
BARCO N.V., a Belgian corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD.,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP., and
ALLIACENSE LTD.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:08-cv-05398 JW

BARCO’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TPL’S
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS FOR U.S. PATENT NO. 5,809,336;
U.S. PATENT NO. 5,440,749; AND U.S. PATENT NO. 5,530,890

Date: January 23, 2011
Time: 9:00 A.M.
Courtroom: 9, 19th Floor
Chief Judge Ware
page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
II. LEGAL STANDARD..............................................................................................................2
III. THE ‘336 PATENT .................................................................................................................3
A.
IV. THE ‘749 PATENT ...............................................................................................................15
V. THE ‘890 PATENT ...............................................................................................................17
VI. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................20
page ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

page
CASES
Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., 275 F.3d 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2002).............................. 2
Barco N.V. v. Tech. Props. Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106431, *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20,
2011) ...................................................................................................................................... 2
LG Electronics Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360 (N.D. Cal. December 4,
2002) ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166, *12-13
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011) .................................................................................................... 2, 3
View Engineering, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., 208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............. 2
STATUTES
P.L.R. 3-1(c) ................................................................................................................... 1, 2, 6, 20

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 23, 2011 at 9:00 A.M., or as soon thereafter as
counsel may be heard, the undersigned shall appear before Chief Judge Ware in Courtroom 9 on the
19th Floor at the U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, and present
Plaintiff Barco N.V.’s (“Barco”) Motion To Strike Portions of TPL’s Infringement Contentions.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Barco seeks an order striking those portions of Defendants’ Technology Properties Limited,
Patriot Scientific Corporation, and Alliacense Limited (collectively “Defendants” or “TPL”)
Infringement Contentions (ICs) for those claims that do not comply with Patent Local Rule (“P.L.R.
3-1(c)”) by relying on products and materials that have no connection or relationship with the accused
products.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

Whether the Court should strike those portions of TPL’s Infringement Contentions that rely
on products and materials that have no connection or relationship with Barco’s accused products.

I. INTRODUCTION

The inadequacies of TPL’s ICs have already been the subject of motion practice and a
resulting order in this case. In an Order dated September 20, 2011 (“Order”), Judge Lloyd noted
deficiencies in TPL’s ICs and ordered that amended ICs be served. Dkt. 223. In that Order, Judge
Lloyd stated:
Barco is correct that some of TPL’s ICs are based on material for other products. For
instance, TPL accuses Barco of infringement based on its use of a DDP1011 chip, but it
relies upon a presentation about a DDP1000 chip and a datasheet for a CDCDLP223
chip in its ICs. See Docket No. 208-2, Ex. A-8, Pic. 1927. And, in doing so, TPL does
not explain how or why information concerning a DDP1000 chip or a CDCDLP223
chip is relevant to its IC for a DDP1011. Perhaps information concerning these other
two chips is relevant, or perhaps it is not; from TPL'’ ICs, the court cannot say. Thus, to
the extent that TPL’s ICs rely upon information concerning products not at issue in this
litigation, TPL must amend its ICs to either provide information concerning the
products at issue or explain how and/or why information concerning any products not at
issue is relevant to its ICs. (Dkt. 223, page 7). In response to this Order, TPL served amended ICs on October 11, 2011 for U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (“the ‘336 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 5,440,749 (“the ‘749 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 5,530,890 (“the ‘890 patent”).
TPL’s most recent ICs, however, still contain many of the same deficiencies noted in Judge
Lloyd’s order, and additional deficiencies. TPL still relies on products and materials that are
unrelated to the accused Barco products. In addition, TPL cites non-Barco products - products made
and sold by companies unrelated to Barco – as supposedly showing how the accused products
infringe. And in some instances, the amended ICs suffer from precisely the same deficiency
highlighted by Judge Lloyd above where “TPL accuses Barco of infringement of a DDP1011 chip but
it relies on a presentation about a DDP1000 chip.” Id. at page 7.
Accordingly, Barco moves to strike portions of TPL’s ICs that continue to rely on products
and materials that have no connection with the accused products. Further, Barco requests that the
Court preclude TPL from further amending its Infringement Contentions. The ICs for each of the
asserted patents are addressed in turn below.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

This District's Patent Local Rules (P.L.R.s) require parties to identify “specifically where
each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” Patent Local
Rule 3-1(c); Barco N.V. v. Tech. Props. Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106431, *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
20, 2011) (Dkt. 223); Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166,
*12-13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011); LG Electronics Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 366
(N.D. Cal. December 4, 2002).
This Court has recognized that citing unrelated products that have no connection with the
accused products is insufficient to satisfy P.L.R. 3-1(c). Dkt. 223. Further, this District has noted
that “all courts agree that the specificity under Local Rule 3-1 must be sufficient to provide
reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff believes it has a ‘reasonable chance of proving
infringement.’” Shared Memory Graphics LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166, *12-13. (citing View
Engineering, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2000).) The
infringement contentions “must be sufficient to raise a ‘reasonable inference that all accused
products infringe.’” Shared Memory Graphics LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166, *12-13 (citing
Antonious v. Spalding & Evenflo Cos., Inc., 275 F.3d 1066, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Further, this District has refused a party to amend its Infringement Contentions where that
party was given a chance to amend its Infringement Contentions but failed to adequately do so and
where the patents-in-suit and the accused products existed for many years. See Shared Memory
Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99166, *24-25 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011).

III. THE ‘336 PATENT

TPL has accused eleven Barco products of infringing claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and
16 of the ’336 patent. See Exh. D1, TPL’s Infringement Contentions for the ‘336 patent at pages 2-3.
On September 20, 2011, the Court ordered TPL to amend its ICs following a dispute between the
parties regarding their adequacy. In response to the Court’s Order, TPL amended its claim charts.
The following table lists the eleven products that TPL has accused Barco of infringing the ‘336
patent, along with the corresponding Bates Numbers for TPL’s claim charts.2
The ‘336 Patent
Accused Instrumentality or
Product
ICs Amended
Since Court
Order of Sept
20, 2011?
Exhibit
No.
Bates Range
(PICXXX)
1 JPEG DCPB-2000 D-1 PIC1596-1634
Encoder/Decoder Board No
D-2 PIC1635-1673
2 iCon H400 Projector Yes D-3 PIC12499-12565
3 SIM 5R Projector Yes D-4 PIC12566-12632
4 SLM R12+ Projector Yes D-5 PIC12633-12688
5 Barco Media Server Axon No D-6 PIC1809-1870
6 Barco LED Display Digitizer
(e.g., DX-700)
No D-7 PIC1871-1924
7 RLM R6+ Projector Yes D-8 PIC12813-12868
8
&
9
iCon H500 Projector
and
iCon H250 Projector
Yes D-9 PIC12869-12934
1 The Exhibits cited in this Motion are included as Exhibits to the Declaration of Edward Runyan
(“Runyan Decl.”). In this motion, Exhibits begin with the letter D in order to remain consistent with
the numbering of exhibits used in Barco Dispute Joint Report # 2. Exhibits A through C were copies
of TPL’s ICs served prior to the Judge Lloyd’s Order of September 20, 2011 and Exhibits D through
H-3 are TPL’s ICs served on October 11, 2011 after Judge Lloyd’s Order.
2 With respect to the ‘336 patent, Barco notes that TPL did not amend its infringement contentions
for the following four products: 1) Barco JPEG Encoder/Decoder Board, 2) Barco Media Server
Axon, 3) Barco LED Display Digitizer, and 4) Barco Lighting Console. For these products for
which the ICs were not amended, Barco assumes that the infringement contentions served earlier
remain in effect.
See Exh. D-1 at PIC1599.
10 ID R600+ Projector Yes D-10 PIC12935-13000
11 Hog iPC Lighting Console No D-11 PIC2061-2104
Specific deficiencies with TPL’s ICs for the ’336 patent are explained below.
A. TPL Relies on
. The following is an example from TPL’s claim chart for a
limitation in claim 1 of the ‘336 patent:
For this claimed limitation, TPL relies solely
does not cite to any additional information or materials.
3 A copy of the Zuchowski publication is provided as Exh. H-1 to this motion
The following is another example from TPL’s claim chart for another limitation in claim 1 of
the ‘336 patent:
See Exh. D-1 at PIC1600 (Emphasis in Original)
Here, TPL relies solely on
None of these cited publications
the accused Barco products.
As required by the Patent Local Rules, TPL must identify “specifically where each limitation
of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” P.L.R. 3-1(c) (emphasis
added). TPL fails to do so, because
The table below is a complete list of instances
Claim Limitation Claim(s) where
Limitation Is Present Citation in ICs
“said central processing unit and said ring
oscillator variable speed system clock
each including a plurality of electronic
devices constructed of the same process
technology with corresponding
manufacturing variations”
1 and 11 “processing frequency capability of said
central processing unit and a speed of
said ring oscillator variable speed system
clock varying together due to said
manufacturing variations and due to at
least operating voltage and temperature
of said single integrated circuit”
1 and 11 “varying the processing frequency…in
the same way as a function parameter
variation in one or more fabrication or
operational parameters associated with
said integrated circuit substrate.”
Claim Limitation Claim(s)
where Limitation Is Present
Citation in ICs “thereby enabling said processing
frequency to track said clock rate in
response to said parameter variation”
6 and 13 “wherein said one or more operational
parameters include operating
temperature of said substrate or
operating voltage of said substrate”
7 an 14 “clocking said central processing unit at
a clock rate using said variable speed
clock with said central processing
unit…dependent upon variation in one
or more fabrication or operational
parameters associated with said
integrated circuit substrate”
10 and 16 E
Because the Zuchowski, Sundaresan, and Fetzer publications
In particular, as noted in the table above, the ICs for claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 16 for all eleven
Barco projectors that TPL has accused of infringing the ‘336 patent should be stricken as these

B. TPL Relies

TPL relies on several non-Barco products in its ICs. For instance, as shown below, TPL
relies on See Exh. D-3, at PIC12508 (emphasis and explanatory boxes added). It should be noted that the
As another example, TPL to the accused product:
See Exh. D-3, PIC12511 (emphasis and explanatory boxes added).
Barco Products.
See Exh. D-5, PIC12637 (emphasis and explanatory boxes added). The
The table below provides a list of instances where TPL relies on non-Barco products.
Accused Instrumentality or Product
Reliance on Non- Citation to ICs
Accused Instrumentality
or Product
Citation to ICs
Exh. D-3, PIC12508, PIC12516,
PIC12525, PIC12530, PIC12538,
PIC12546, PIC12555, PIC12560
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16)
1 iCon H400 Projector
Exh. D-3, PIC12511, PIC12519,
PIC12533, PIC12541, PIC12549,
PIC12563 (claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, and
16)
Exh. D-4, PIC12575, PIC12583,
PIC12592, PIC12597, PIC12605,
PIC12613, PIC12622, PIC12627.
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16)
2 SIM 5R projector
Exh. D-4, PIC12578, PIC12586,
PIC12600, PIC12608, PIC12616,
PIC12630.
(claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 16)
3 RLM R6+ Projector Exh. D-8, PIC12817
(general contentions)
Exh. D-9, PIC12877, PIC12885,
PIC12894, PIC12899, PIC12907,
PIC12915, PIC12924, PIC12929.
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16)
4 Barco Projector iCon H500
and
Barco Projector iCon H250
Exh. D-9, PIC12880, PIC12888,
PIC12902, PIC12910, PIC12918,
PIC12932
(claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 16)
Exh. D-10, PIC12943, PIC12951,
PIC12960, PIC12965, PIC12973,
PIC12981, PIC12990, PIC12995.
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16)
5 ID R600+ Projector
Exh. D-10, PIC12946, PIC12954,
PIC12968. PIC12976, PIC12984,
PIC12998.
(claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 16)
6
SLM R12+ Projector Exh. D-5, PIC12637
(general contentions) products cited in . Accordingly, as summarized in the table
above, the ICs for claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 for the Barco projectors should be stricken:
iCon H400 Projector, SIM 5R Projector, iCon H500 Projector, iCon H250 Projector, and ID R600+
Projector.
C. TPL Relies
For several of the accused products, TPL relies on Chips that have no connection with the
accused products. For instance, TPL asserts that the Barco SLM R12 + Projector
As Judge Lloyd pointed out, the DDP1000 Chip may or may not be relevant to TPL’s
analysis of the DDP1011, but the relevance if any cannot be presumed; it must be shown. See
Judge Lloyd’s Order issued on September 20, 2011, at page 7 (Dkt. 223). TPL has not shown
any such relevance. Included below is a complete list of all instances of claims w
Accused Product Example In ICs
1 iCon H400 Projector Exh. D-3, PIC12507-08, PIC12515-16,
PIC12523-25, PIC12529-30, PIC12537-38,
PIC12545-46, PIC12553-55, PIC12559-60
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16)
2 SIM 5R Projector D
Exh. D-4, PIC12574-75, PIC12582-83,
PIC12590-92, PIC12596-97, PIC12604-05,
PIC12612-13, PIC12620-22, PIC12626-27
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16)
3 SLM R12+ Projector Exh. D-5, PIC12638-41, PIC12644-48,
PIC12651, PIC12654-59, PIC12662-66,
PIC12669-73, PIC12676, PIC12679-84,
PIC12687
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16)
4 Media Axon Server Exh. D-6, PIC1815, PIC1823, PIC1835,
PIC1843, PIC1851, PIC1863
(claims 6, 10, 11, 13, and 16)
5 DX-700 Display
Digitizer
Exh. D-7, PIC1879-80, PIC1886-87,
PIC1897-98, PIC1904-05, PIC1911-12,
PIC1922-23
(claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 16)
6 RLM R6+ Projector Exh. D-8, PIC12818-21, PIC12824-28,
PIC12831, PIC12834-39, PIC12842-46,
PIC12849-53, PIC12856, PIC12859-64,
PIC12867
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16)
7 iCon H500 Projector
and
iCon H250 Projector
Exh. D-9, PIC12876-77, PIC12884-85,
PIC12892-94, PIC12898-99, PIC12906-07,
PIC12914-15, PIC12922-24, PIC12928-29
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16)
8 ID R600+ Projector
D
Exh. D-10, PIC12942-43, PIC12950-51,
PIC12958-60, PIC12964-65, PIC12972-73,
PIC12980-81, PIC12988-90, PIC12994-95
(claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16)
Barco respectfully ICs for claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13,
15, 16 for the following Barco projectors should be stricken: iConH400, SIM 5R, SLM R12+, RLM
6+, iCon H500, iCon H250, and ID R600+. Further, ICs for claims 6, 10, 11, 13, and 16 should be
stricken for Barco’s Media Axon Server. And ICs for claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 16 should be
stricken for Barco’s DX-700 LED Display Digitizer.

IV. THE ‘749 PATENT

TPL has accused five Barco products of infringing claims 1, 43, 44, 45, 47, 54, and 55 of the
’749 patent. See Exh. B, TPL’s Infringement Contentions for the ‘749 patent at pages 2-3. On
September 20, 2011, the Court ordered TPL to amend its ICs. In response to the Court’s Order, TPL
amended its claim charts. The following table lists the five products that TPL has accused Barco of
infringing the ‘749 patent, along with the corresponding Exhibit Numbers for each accused product.
The ‘749 patent Accused Instrumentality or
Product ICs Amended Since Court
Order of Sept 20, 2011?
Exhibit No.
Bates Range
(PICXXXX)
1 iCon H400 Projector Yes E-1 PIC12757-12784
2 SIM 5R Projector Yes E-2 PIC12785-12812
3 iCon H500 Projector Yes E-3 PIC13067-13093
4 iCon H250 Projector Yes E-3 PIC13067-13093
5 ID R600+ Projector Yes E-4 PIC13094-13120
Specific deficiencies with TPL’s ICs for the ’749 patent are explained below.
A. TPL Like TPL’s ICs for the ‘336 patent, TPL
Claim Limitations For Which TPL Relies On Zuchowski
Claim Limitation Claim(s) where Limitation Is
Present TPL’s Citation in ICs said central processing unit integrated circuit and said
ring counter variable speed system clock being
provided in a single integrated circuit, said ring
counter variable speed system clock being configured
to provide different clock integrated circuit as a result
of transistor propagation delays, depending on at least
one temperature of said single integrated circuit,
voltage and microprocessor fabrication process for
said single integrated circuit
54 Exh. E-1, PIC12781;
Exh. E-2, PIC12809,
Exh. E-3, PIC13090; &
Exh. E-4, PIC13117
on this publication should be stricken. In particular, claim 54 for all five of the following Barco
projectors should be stricken: iCon H400, SIM 5R Projector, iCon H500, iCon H250, and ID R600+.
B. TPL As with its ICs for the ‘336 patent, here TPL relies on non-Barco products in its ICs
are listed in the table below.
Accused Instrumentality or Product Citation to ICs
Exh. E-1, PIC12779
(claim 54)
1 iCon H400 Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
Exh. E-1, PIC12782
(claim 55)
Exh. E-2, PIC12807
(claim 54)
2 SIM 5R Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
m
W )
Exh. E-2, PIC12810
(claim 55)
Exh. E-3, PIC13088
(claim 54)
3 iCon H500 Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
Exh. E-3, PIC13091
(claim 55)
Exh. E-3, PIC13088
4 (claim 54)
iCon H250 Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
Exh. E-3, PIC13091
(claim 55)
Exh. E-4, PIC13115
(claim 54)
5 ID R600+ Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
Exh. E-4, PIC13118
(claim 55)
ICs that
, the ICs for all five of the accused Barco projectors for
claims 54 and 55 should be stricken as they rely on unrelated products: iCon H400, SIM 5R
Projector, iCon H500, iCon H250, and ID R600+.

C. TPL

For all of the accused Barco products for the ‘749 patent,
Accused Instrumentality or Product
Example In ICs
1 iCon H400
Projector accused to
have a DDP3320
Chip
Exh. E-1, PIC12761, PIC12777-79
(claim 54)
2 SIM 5R Projector,
accused to have a
DDP3320 Chip
Exh. E-2, PIC12789, PIC12805-07
(claim 54)
3 iCon H500
Projector, accused
to have a DDP3320
Chip
Exh. E-3, PIC13070, PIC13086-88
(claim 54)
4 iCon H250
Projector, accused
to have a DDP3320
Chip
Exh. E-3, PIC13070, PIC13086-88
(and claim 54)
5 ID R600+
Projector, accused
to have a DDP3320
Chip
Exh. E-4, PIC13097, PIC13113-15
(claim 54)
As Judge Lloyd pointed out, the DDP1000 Chip may or may not be relevant to TPL’s
analysis of the DDP1011, but the relevance, if any, cannot be presumed; it must be shown. See Judge
Lloyd’s Order issued on September 20, 2011, at page 7 (Dkt. 223). TPL has not shown any such
relevance. Barco respectfully requests that ICs for claim 54 for all five of the Barco projectors (iCon
H400, SIM 5R Projector, iCon H500, iCon H250, and ID R600+) accused of infringing the ‘749
patent should be stricken as the ICs rely on chips that have no connection with the accused chips.

V. THE ‘890 PATENT

TPL has accused five Barco products of infringing claims 11, 12, 13, 17, and 19 of the ‘890
patent. See Exh. C, TPL’s Infringement Contentions for the ‘890 patent at pages 2-3. On September
20, 2011, the Court ordered TPL to amend its ICs. In response to the Court’s Order, TPL amended
its claim charts. The following table lists the five products that TPL has accused Barco of infringing
the ‘890 patent, along with the corresponding Exhibit Numbers for each accused product.
The ‘890 patent Accused Instrumentality or Product
ICs Amended Since Court Order of Sept
20, 2011?
Exhibit No.
Bates Range
(PICXXXX)
1 iCon H400 Projector Yes F-1 PIC12689-12722
2 SIM 5R Projector Yes F-2 PIC12723-12756
3 iCon H500 Projector Yes F-3 PIC13001-13033
4 iCon H250 Projector Yes F-3 PIC13001-13033
5 ID R600+ Projector Yes F-4 PIC13034-13066
Specific deficiencies with TPL’s ICs for the ’890 patent are explained below.
A. TPL As with its ICs for the ‘336 and ‘749 patents, TPL relies on
Accused Instrumentality or Product Citation to ICs
Exh. F-1, PIC12716
(claim 17)
1 iCon H400 Projector accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
ge)
Exh. F-1, PIC12707,
PIC12710, PIC12721
(claims 11, 12, 19)
Exh. F-2, PIC12750
(claim 17)
2 SIM 5R Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
W )
Exh. F-2, PIC12741,
PIC12744, PIC12755
(claims 11, 12, 19)
Exh. F-3, PIC13027
(claim 17)
3 iCon H500 Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
Exh. F-3, PIC13018,
PIC13021, PIC13032
(claims 11, 12, 19)
Exh. F-3, PIC13027
4 (claim 17)
iCon H250 Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
Webpage)
Exh. F-3, PIC13018,
PIC13021, PIC13032
(claims 11, 12, 19)
5 ID R600+ Projector, accused to
have a DDP3320 Chip
Exh. F-4, PIC13060
(claim 17)
TPL’s Reliance on Non-Barco Products
Accused Instrumentality or Product
Reliance on Non-Barco product
Citation to ICs Texas Instruments
Projector (from a Rambus
Webpage)
Exh. F-4, PIC13051,
PIC13054, PIC13065
(claims 11, 12, 19)
the ICs for claims 11, 12, 17, and 19 for all five of the Barco
projectors accused of infringing the ‘890 patent (iCon H400, SIM 5R Projector, iCon H500, iCon
H250, and ID R600+) should be stricken as they rely on unrelated products.
As with its ICs for the ‘336 and ‘749 patents,
TPL’s Reliance on Other Unrelated Products
Accused Instrumentality or Product
Accused Chip Unrelated Chip Relied
On By TPL
Example In ICs
1 iCon H400
Projector )
Exh. F-1, PIC12714-16
(claim 17)
2 SIM 5R Projector Exh. F-2, PIC12748-50
(claim 17)
3 iCon H500
Projector
Exh. F-3, PIC13025-27
(claim 17)
4 iCon H250
Projector
Exh. F-3, PIC13025-27
(claim 17)
5 ID R600+ Projector Exh. F-4, PIC13058-60
(claim 17)
In particular, the ICs for claim 17 in all of the product reports for
all five Barco projectors (iCon H400, SIM 5R Projector, iCon H500, iCon H250, and ID R600+)
should be stricken as they rely on chips that have no connection with the accused chip.

VI. CONCLUSION

TPL failed to comply with P.L.R. 3-1(c) for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, Barco
respectfully requests that the Court grant Barco’s Motion to Strike TPL’s Infringement Contentions
that rely on unrelated products and materials. Further, the inadequacies of TPL’s ICs have already been the subject of motion practice and a resulting order in this case. See Judge Lloyd’s Order of September 20, 2011. (Dkt. 223.) TPL, however, still relies on products and materials that are unrelated to the accused Barco products. And in some instances, the amended ICs suffer from precisely the same deficiency highlighted by Judge Lloyd. Accordingly, because the inadequacies of TPL’s ICs have already been the subject of
motion practice and a resulting order in this case, Barco requests that the Court preclude TPL from
further amending its Infringement Contentions.

Dated: December 9, 2011 BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
By: s/ Edward K. Runyan
Edward K. Runyan
Attorneys for Plaintiff Barco