Court Must Determine Meaning Of NessCap Patent Before Determing Infringement Claims Against Maxwell Technologies
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. announced that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California held that it must determine the meaning of patent claim limitations in a NessCap Co. Ltd. patent before determining whether NessCap’s claim of infringement may proceed to trial.
Maxwell had asked the court for an immediate ruling that four of its BOOSTCAP® ultracapacitor products do not infringe NessCap’s U.S. Patent No. 6,724,544 ("’544 patent"). At a hearing on November 30, 2007, the court tentatively ruled that Maxwell’s ultracapacitors do not infringe NessCap’s ’544 patent. However, in a written order dated December 5, the court denied Maxwell’s motion for summary judgment, deciding instead to wait until the court considers additional briefing on the issue of patent claim interpretation. The court scheduled an April 8, 2008 hearing to determine the claim meaning of the ’544 patent.
In its order, the Court expressly held that its ruling was "without prejudice" and that Maxwell may re-file its motion once the court determines the claim scope. Maxwell maintains its position that NessCap’s claims of infringement are without merit and remains confident the Court will conclude that Maxwell’s products do not infringe the ’544 patent.
Maxwell’s earlier-filed case against NessCap remains pending in the same court. In that case, Maxwell is asserting four of its patents against NessCap’s entire line of ultracapacitors. In April, the court preliminarily enjoined NessCap from making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States its "prismatic" ultracapacitors based on one of the four Maxwell patents, concluding that Maxwell has a likelihood of success in establishing that NessCap does infringe that patent. Maxwell’s claims based on the other three patents also remain pending against NessCap’s products.
