Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 09 C 4530, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2012) (Holderman, C.J.).
Chief Judge Holderman granted defendant Tellabs’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity in this patent case. As an initial matter, the Court held that Tellabs was limited to the arguments set forth in its Local Patent Rule 3.1 final invalidity contentions. The Court, therefore, disregarded Tellabs’ anticipation arguments, which were not in the final contentions, and focused upon the obviousness arguments, which were in the final contentions.
The Court held that the asserted prior art was a printed publication because of undisputed testimony that the article was presented at a standards setting meeting and that at the meeting 25 copies of the article were distributed without restriction. The Court acknowledged that Tellabs had not provided any evidence of an individual that actually received one of the reports. But it was enough that Tellabs had provided “substantial” circumstantial evidence corroborating its testimony. For example, subsequent articles written by third parties referenced the prior art paper.
Finally, the Court considered the obviousness arguments. Fujitsu failed o challenge Tellabs four page obviousness arguments, except to argue that the prior art reference was not enabling. However, the Court held that a prior art need not be enabling, it simply must teach the elements of the claims in suit.