Insights
Firm News

Dolby Wins Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement in Patent Dispute with Lucent

April 25, 2005 Announcement

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (April 25, 2005) – Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) announced today that on April 22, 2005 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Dolby’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that Dolby has not infringed, induced others to infringe or contributed to the infringement of United States Patent No. 5,341,457 (the “’457 patent”) and United States Patent No. 5,627,938 (the “’938 patent”).  The ’457 patent and the ’938 patent generally involve a process and means for encoding and decoding audio signals.  Dolby had sought a declaration of noninfringement as part of an ongoing dispute with Lucent Technologies, Inc. and Lucent Technologies Guardian I, LLC (together “Lucent”)  In granting summary judgment, the court found that Lucent had not presented evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could find that Dolby’s AC-3 technology, which is used in DVD’s, HDTV and other entertainment technologies and is licensed to hundred of companies around the world, infringes either the ‘457 or ’938 patents.

John Cooper, lead counsel for Dolby on the case and a partner at the law firm of Farella Braun + Martel, commented, “Lucent thought it could bully Dolby and its licensees into paying royalties even though there was no infringement — Friday’s ruling indicates just how wrong they were.”

In May 2001, after a number of its customers had been threatened with patent infringement claims by Lucent, Dolby filed a lawsuit against Lucent in the United States District Court seeking a declaration that the ’457 and ’938 patents are invalid and that Dolby has not infringed, induced others to infringe or contributed to the infringement of any of the claims of these patents (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. C01-20709 JF(RS)). In August 2002, Lucent filed counterclaims alleging that Dolby has infringed the two patents directly and by inducing or contributing to the infringement of those patents by others. Lucent contended that products incorporating Dolby’s AC-3 technology infringe those patents. The court’s April 22, 2005 ruling resolves these issues in favor of Dolby.    As part of the court’s action, the trial date with respect to Dolby’s lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ’457 and ’938 patents was rescheduled to September 2005. 

About Farella Braun + Martel LLP
Since its founding in 1962, Farella Braun + Martel has achieved a national reputation for the acumen of its business practice, the high profile cases of its complex commercial litigation practice and its prestigious client base. The San Francisco-based firm serves a diverse group of clients from multinational corporations to emerging businesses. The firm also has an office in the Napa Valley focused on the wine industry and related businesses. 

Firm Highlights

News

Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Farella Braun + Martel Attorneys, Practices

Farella Braun + Martel announces that Chambers USA has recognized 13 lawyers and 6 practice areas in the legal directory’s 2021 edition. Individual Rankings: Tyler Gerking – Insurance: Policyholders Jeffrey Hamilton – Cannabis Law...

Read More
Publication

Insights Into the First Patent Trial in Waco, Texas - MV3 Partners v. Roku

A 7-person jury in Waco, Texas, recently returned its verdict in the first patent trial held before Judge Albright: defense verdict, no finding of infringement. In the MV3 Partners v. Roku dispute, MV3 Partners...

Read More
News

Four Farella Intellectual Property Partners Named 2021 IP Stars; Firm Recommended for Patent Litigation

Farella Braun + Martel’s James L. Day , Jeffrey M. Fisher , Eugene Mar , and Stephanie P. Skaff  have been named IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property in its 2021 guide to the...

Read More
News

How I Made Partner: 'I Started Bringing in Cases That Generated Work for Me and for Others at the Firm,' Says Winston Liaw of Farella Braun + Martel

Read More
Publication

No Quarter: What Claims Doesn’t Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Protect Platform Companies Against?

Depending on what you read or who you talk to, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) (CDA) is either a tool of censorship, a shield of Big Tech that...

Read More
News

Google Wins Unanimous Verdict in Patent Case in Western District of Texas

Farella Braun + Martel client Google LLC won a complete defense verdict from a Texas federal jury in the Western District of Texas on October 6. At issue were allegations that Google's Nest Hub...

Read More
Publication

Tips For Banks As USAA Check Deposit Patent Dispute Grows

In January 2020, we wrote a  Law360 guest article  that highlighted some of the risks that followed Wells Fargo Bank NA's strategy in its patent dispute with the United Services Automobile Association over remote deposit check imaging technology. Nearly...

Read More
Publication

SCOTUS Copyright Fair Use Decision: Google vs. Oracle Recap and Takeaways

Eugene Mar and Erik Olson discuss "SCOTUS Copyright Fair Use Decision: Google vs. Oracle Recap and Takeaways." After more than a decade of litigation that included multiple trials and appeals, the Supreme Court of...

Read More
Publication

Data Center Business Deals Gone Bad, and the Risks of the “Known in the Industry” Defense

Exploring business partnerships often involves or even requires sharing highly confidential trade secret information. The data center industry is no exception, and its participants have in recent years faced litigation focused around the intellectual...

Read More
News

Jeff Fisher Named Among Top Trade Secrets Lawyers in California by the Daily Journal

Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Jeffrey M. Fisher was named among 2021’s “Top Trade Secrets Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal . Jeff is an accomplished trial lawyer with...

Read More