Codex Corp. v. Milgo Electronic Corp.

534 F. Supp. 418, 215 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 165, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9324
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedMarch 3, 1982
DocketCiv. A. 76-793-S
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 534 F. Supp. 418 (Codex Corp. v. Milgo Electronic Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Codex Corp. v. Milgo Electronic Corp., 534 F. Supp. 418, 215 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 165, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9324 (D. Mass. 1982).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENT

SKINNER, District Judge.

The plaintiffs have moved to amend the court’s Findings, Rulings and Order of June 12, 1981. Some of these proposed amendments correct predictable technical errors by the court and these have been adopted. Others go to the substance of findings, for some of which I have found support in the evidence, but some of which appear to add findings not expressly dealt with during the trial. The detailed resolution of these proposed amendments are as follows:

1. My memory of the evidence supports the original findings except that transmission at high speeds is not over telephone lines.

2-3. The suggested changes are not supported by the evidence.

4-5. A quibble duly adjusted.

6. A technical correction.

*420 7. A technical correction which was not apparent in the evidence, but to which all parties agree.

8-9. These are technical corrections to which all parties agree.

10. I didn’t articulate the difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical spectra, but the suggested amendment is consistent with the evidence and eminently sensible.

11. The precise dating suggested is not significant and I have omitted it.

12. The changed language in paragraph 7 on page 13 reflects the comments of both parties. The phrase “as nearly as possible” was taken from Mr. Whang’s testimony.

13. See No. 27, infra.

14. I have combined the comments of the parties in the changes on page 15.

15-16. The reference to the WU 2247 as being the same as the 4400/24 PB was an error, and has been eliminated. The confusion occurred because both the WU 2247 and the 4400/24 PB were the versions of Milgo 4400/24 series.

17. Re-examination of the Milgo spectographs leads me to rewrite the first paragraph of page 17 as it appears in the amended findings. It also is true that the Kansas court’s findings with respect to the 3300 and 2200 models referred to patents not at issue in this case.

18. The reference to a doctoral thesis was clearly an error and has been corrected to “master’s”.

19. The proposed amendment is adequately dealt with by changing “all” to “most”.

20. The suggestion to use a more technically accurate description was agreed to by both parties and adopted.

21. The reference to prior art is footnoted.

22. The proposed amendment adds some accuracy.

23-24. I misread the opinion of the Kansas court with respect to the claims in dispute before it, being confused by the discussion of the fixed equalizer. The defendant is correct in its comment that claims of the ’023 patent referring to the fixed equalizer were apparently not before that court. Conclusion 2 on pp. 31-32 has accordingly been entirely rewritten.

25. Rather than get into the obsolescence of fixed equalizers, about which the evidence was slight, I have eliminated the reference, which was superfluous in any case.

26. I do not accept the proposed amendment.

27. I was informed by counsel at the outset that I should concern myself with claims 1, 19 and 25 of the ’023 patent. There was little, if any, discussion during the trial of the dependent claims. To the extent that the validity of the dependent claims rests on the assertion that the patent teaches narrow skirts, i.e., a composite filter characteristic of less than 50% roll-off, my finding that such a teaching is nowhere contained in the patent would collaterally estop these parties to assert validity on that basis. Accordingly, I do not adopt the proposed amendment.

28. The suggested amendment probably does eliminate the possibility of confusion between “band limiting” as ordinarily used and the special meaning given to the phrase by Mr. Whang. It has been adopted.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Findings, Rulings and Order entered June 12, 1981 are vacated, and Amended Findings, Rulings and Order reflecting the foregoing are filed herewith. The Declaratory Judgment heretofore entered is vacated. No judgment shall enter until the amount of the award of attorneys’ fees has been determined and made a part of said judgment.

AMENDED FINDINGS, RULINGS AND ORDER

This is an action for a declaratory judgment establishing the invalidity of three patents held by the defendants (hereinafter collectively “Milgo”) as assignees of the inventors:

*421 (1) No. 3,524,023, Sang Y. Whang, inventor, Band Limited Telephone Line Data Communication System (“Whang ’023”).
(2) No. 3,619,503, Robert G. Ragsdale, Phase and Amplitude Modulated Modem (“Ragsdale ’503”).
(3) No. 3,783,194, Yiesturs V. Vilips, Data Modem Having a Fast Turn-Around Time Over Direct Distance Dialed Networks (“Vilips ’194”).

By a supplemental complaint, plaintiffs (hereinafter collectively “Codex”) sought a similar declaration with respect to Patent No. 3,943,285, Robert G. Ragsdale and Henry H. Parrish, but this patent was withdrawn from the case prior to the trial.

The defendants have by answer and counterclaim asserted the validity of their patents, alleged infringement of their patents and seek injunctive relief and damages. Both sides claim they are entitled to attorneys’ fees.

During the trial I ordered summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Ragsdale ’503 on the basis of the admission by Mr. Rags-dale that the only novelty in his patent was in a claim which was not at issue in this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT — WHANG '023

Background

The patents in issue deal with devices called modems, the function of which is to convert the discrete digital signals of computers into analogue signals suitable for transmission over telephone lines, and at the receiving end, to convert the analogue signals back to digital signals which can be “read” by the receiving computer. “Modem” is short for “modulator-demodulator.”

Computer signals are binary, that is, they consist of but two electrical impulses, one positive, one negative, usually represented as “1” and “0”. Each 1 or 0 is known as a “bit.” Information, or “data,” is coded by assigning words, letters or numerical values to various combinations of bits. Common coding practice employs the “tribit,” a “word” consisting of three bits. Combinations of tribits are then transmitted according to a pre-set code to convey data. There are eight available tribits: 000, 001, 011, 111, 101, 110, 100, and 010.

A modem which can transmit eight identifiable signals can transmit tribits; a modem which can transmit only four identifiable signals can transmit only dibits, 01, 11, 10, 00; a modem which can transmit only two identifiable signals can transmit only the single bit “words”, 1 and O. Use of tribits obviously increases the range and speed of data transmission.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
534 F. Supp. 418, 215 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 165, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/codex-corp-v-milgo-electronic-corp-mad-1982.