Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
February 1, 2008, Decided
[***1827] [*995] MOORE, Circuit Judge.
David Sitrick (Sitrick) appeals the United States District Court for the Central District of California's judgment that the asserted claims of his two patents are invalid for lack of enablement, indefinite, and not infringed. He also appeals the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois transferring the case to the Central District of California. We affirm the Central District of California's judgment of invalidity and conclude that Sitrick waived his objection to the Northern District of Illinois's transfer order.
The technology at issue involves integrating a user's audio signal or visual image into a pre-existing [**2] video game or movie. Sitrick is an individual inventor and owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,553,864 (the '864 patent) and 6,425,825 (the '825 patent). The Defendants produce and distribute DVDs of various movies, some of which include the allegedly infringing product, known as "ReVoice Studio." The ReVoice Studio feature allows users to combine their own voice with pre-existing video images stored on the DVD.
[*996] Sitrick sued Defendants in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of claims 54 and 56 of the '864 patent and claims 1, 20, 49, 57, 58, 62, 64, and 69 of the '825 patent. The Northern District of Illinois granted Defendants' motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Central District of California (district court). After the case was transferred, the first and only time Sitrick challenged the transfer order arose in this appeal. Sitrick filed multiple amended complaints after transfer, which acknowledge that "[v]enue properly lies [in the Central District of California]."
Defendants filed a motion for claim construction and moved for summary judgment on a number of grounds. The district court engaged a Special Master, who issued a report on each of [**3] the pending motions. The Special Master's cursory report regarding Defendants' motion for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement included no discussion of the asserted claims. The Special Master nonetheless recommended denying the motion because neither Sitrick nor Defendants presented specific evidence regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
516 F.3d 993 *; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 2251 **; 85 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1826 ***
DAVID H. SITRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DREAMWORKS, LLC, NEW LINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., NEW LINE HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC., WARNER MUSIC GROUP, INC., WARNER BROS. RECORDS, INC., WARNER-ELEKTRA-ATLANTIC CORPORATION, WARNER HM VIDEO (doing business as Warner Reprise Video), WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT INCORPORATED, and WARNER BROTHERS PICTURES, Defendants-Appellees.
Subsequent History: As Revised February 5, 2008.
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California in case no. 03-CV-4265, Judge Stephen V. Wilson.
Sitrick v. Dreamworks L.L.C., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105100 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2007)Sitrick v. Dreamworks L.L.C., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24381 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2003)
user, movies, district court, video game, signals, patents, substitution, presentation, integration, predefined, parameter, asserted claim, synthesizer, functions, intercept, specification, video, pre-existing, audiovisual, invalidity, analyzing, enabled, images, summary judgment, invention, skilled, frame, teachings, convincing, argues
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, General Overview, Appeals, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Patent Law, Specifications, Enablement Requirement, Standards & Tests, De Novo Review, Scope of Enablement, Infringement Actions, Venue, Motions to Transfer