On July 26, 2010, through an Opinion and Order entered by the Honorable Sue L. Robinson, the District of Delaware ruled on ten motions in the two related patent infringement actions captioned, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-72-SLR, and Cisco Systems v. Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft mbH, Civil Action No. 09-232-SLR. The patents in suit relate to voice over internet protocol telephony. The problem claimed to be solved by the invention is how to use internet telephony without interrupting the real-time transfer of data. Id. at 16.

In light of the breadth and length of the Opinion, which is fifty-seven (57) pages, this posting focuses only on the Court’s ruling with respect to the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. In that regard, Sigram Schindler Betieligungsgesellschaft (“SSBG”) sought partial summary judgment that Cisco’s 1861, 881 SRST and 888 SRST router products infringe claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453 (“the ‘453 patent”), claim 45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,483,431 (“the ‘431 patent”) and claims 69 and 84 of U.S. Patent No. 7,145,902 (“the ‘902 patent”). Cisco sought summary judgment that its router products did not infringe the patents under any of the fourteen infringing scenarios identified by SSBG’s expert in his infringement report. Id. at 13. In short, the Court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and denied SSBG’s motion for summary judgment of infringement. Id. at 30-31. A complete copy of the Opinion is attached.

Significantly, the Court, by and through Judge Robinson, had also issued its Claim Construction Opinion on the same date construing certain claim limitations relevant to the issue of infringement. A copy of the Claim Construction Opinion is attached.

After analyzing SSBG’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement and Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and relying upon its claim constructions, the Court granted Cisco’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, and denied SSBG’s motion for partial summary judgment of infringement. Id. at 31. In so ruling, the Court found that all of SSBG’s relevant infringing scenarios, except “call transfer”, were premised on SSBG’s construction of the term “change over”, which the Court rejected in accepting Cisco’s construction of that term. Id. at 18-30. With respect to the “call transfer” scenario, the Court found could that SSBG had not identified a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 22-24. With respect to those asserted claims requiring “means responsive to a control signal for changing over,” the Court noted that its holding was bolstered in that there was no dispute that Cisco’s products do not contain the “control device” structure described in the specification of the patent. Further, the Court found that no reasonable jury could find that Cisco infringes the ‘431 patent for the additional reason that there was no indication in the record that Cisco directly infringes that patent. Id. at 30.