Sage Denies Allegations in View CounterclaimMarch 28th, 2013 by Editor
Faribault, Minn.-based Sage Electrochromics has responded to the counterclaim recently filed by Milpitas, Calif.-based View Inc. against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the response, Sage denies allegations made against it that its patents, no. 5,724,177 (the ‘177 patent), titled “Electrochromic Devices and Methods,” and no. 7,372,610 (the ‘610 patent), titled “Electrochromic Devices and Methods,” are invalid “for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of the patent laws of the United States.”
Sage had originally filed suit against View, formerly Soladigm, alleging that it has infringed on both of the named patents. View had denied the allegations and also filed the counterclaim. In addition, that counterclaim was amended early this month.
In the amended response and counterclaim, View brings forth allegations related to its U.S. patent no. 8,243,357 (the “’357 patent”), titled “Fabrication of Low-Defectivity Electrochromic Devices.” The company claims this patent was awarded to it last August and that Sage “has infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’357 patent, directly and/or indirectly … ”
“On information and belief, Sage and/or one or more of its employees or authorized agents has obtained knowledge of the ’357 Patent as a result of, by way of example, diligence performed in connection with financing received by Sage from, e.g., Compagnie de Saint-Gobain (and/or its affiliated entities), and/or the acquisition of Sage by Compagnie de Saint-Gobain,” writes View.
Sage denies these allegations in its response.
In addition, View alleges that Sage has infringed on its U.S. Patent No. 5,831,851 (the “’851 patent”), “Apparatus and Method for Controlling High Throughput Sputtering.” Company officials say they notified Sage of the alleged infringement on February 15 and “requested that Sage provide a suitable explanation sufficient to demonstrate any claim … that it does not infringe the ’851 patent.”
In response, Sage “that View notified SAGE of the ’851 Patent by a letter dated February 15, 2013 … [and] admits that it responded to View’s letter on February 28, 2013.” The company denies the remaining allegations of infringement of the ‘851 patent.
“Sage has not literally infringed and does not literally infringe, directly and/or indirectly, contributorily and/or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’357 or ’851 patents,” writes the company.
Additionally, Sage claims that the ’357 and ’851 patents “are invalid at least because they fail to meet the conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102 and/or 103.”
Sage further notes that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is the appropriate venue for the case due to the fact that View announced in November 2012 “that its Dynamic Glass was installed and publicly in use in the W San Francisco Hotel located at 181 3rd Street, San Francisco, CA.”
Sage is requesting that the court dismiss View’s amended answer and counterclaim with prejudice; enter judgment against View and in favor of Sage; and award Sage its fees and costs.