Sage, View, Referred for Mediation in Patent Infringement CaseJune 4th, 2013 | Category: Industry News
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has referred a suit filed by Sage Electrochromics against View Inc. alleging patent infringement to mediation, according to documents filed in the case. The deadline is October 15.
Sage filed the suit against View, formerly Soladigm, in December, alleging that it has infringed on two of its patents related to dynamic glass.
Meanwhile, View has filed a second amended answer to Sage’s complaint and a counterclaim in the suit. In its answer, View claims that Sage’s U.S. patent, No. 5,724,177 (the ‘177 patent), titled “Electrochromic Devices and Methods,” is not valid—and denies that it infringed upon it, based on this claim.
Likewise, View alleges that U.S. Patent No. 7,372,610 (the ‘610 patent)—which it also is accused of infringing upon—is invalid as well. The ‘610 patent also is titled “Electrochromic Devices and Methods,” according to the complaint.
“View has not infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, induced infringement, or contributed to the infringement of any valid, enforceable claim of the ’177 or ’610 patents,” writes the company in its response.
View further denies allegations that its dynamic glass product directly competes with Sage’s dynamic glass product “in the market that Sage created.” Company officials also deny claims that the company “plans to unfairly compete in the marketplace by using Sage’s patented technology and to market and sell products that infringe Sage’s intellectual property.”
View’s response also includes several counterclaim allegations. Among these, the company claims that Sage has infringed upon its U.S. Patent No. 8,243,357 (the ‘357 patent), titled “Fabrication of Low-Defectivity Electrochromic Devices,” “at least by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing electrochromic glass products (including but not limited to SageGlass and Quantum Glass products) in the United States, and/or by contributing to and/or inducing others to do the same.”
View makes similar allegations regarding its U.S. Patent No. 5,831,851 (the ’851 patent), entitled “Apparatus and Method for Controlling High Throughput Sputtering.”
“On information and belief, SAGE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’851 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (f), at least by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing thin-film coating equipment for the manufacture of electrochromic glass products (including but not limited to SageGlass and Quantum Glass products) in the United States,” writes counsel for View.
Further, View alleges that Sage has violated its U.S. Patent No, 8,432,603 (the ‘603 patent,” titled “Electrochromic Devices.”
The company is seeking an injunction to stop the alleged patent infringement, a judgment declaring that the ‘177 and ‘610 patents are not valid, damages and court costs.
At press time, Sage had not yet responded to the May 29 answer and counterclaim.