On Thursday, LG Electronics moved for summary judgment in the District of Delaware against Arendi S.A.R.L., alleging that Arendi failed to meet its obligations and cannot prove that LG infringed the asserted patent.
Previously, Arendi sued LG for patent infringement in November 2012, for the infringement of the 7,917,843 patent, entitled, “Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for Addressing Handling from a Computer Program.” Again, in November 2020 Arendi sued LG for patent infringement, claiming that LG infringed Arendi’s patent in the devices it manufactures and sells. Specifically, the patent-in-suit (the ’843 patent) allegedly allows a user to access and search in one computer program, while staying in another computer program to display a document.
In its reply in support of the motion, LG stated that Arendi “accused the Non-Rebel 4 Products of infringing the ’843 patent, but then failed to provide the requisite infringement contention claim charts. Arendi failed to take the necessary steps to preserve an infringement theory for the Non-Rebel 4 Products, and according, Arendi can no longer prove that the Non-Rebel 4 Products infringe.” Additionally, LG claimed that Arendi failed to explain why it was unable to meet its discovery obligation and instead “attempted to improperly amend its contentions” in its opening expert report. Afterwards, LG moved to strike these new contentions and evidence, which the court granted, according to the filing. Consequently, LG proffered that Arendi is now left with no evidence to establish LG’s purported infringement. LG claimed that Arendi has tried to sidestep the court’s order relating to the motion to strike, among other things.
Subsequently, LG argued that it is entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement “because Arendi failed to meet its discovery obligations to maintain its infringement allegations and because Arendi lacks the theories, evidence, and expert testimony to reach the jury on the issue of infringement as to the Non-Rebel 4 Products.” In particular, LG contended that it should be granted summary judgment because the court has already rejected Arendi’s opposing argument and Arendi is not able to prove LG’s Non-Rebel 4 Products infringe its patent.
LG seeks for the court to grant summary judgment of non-infringement.
Arendi is represented by Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP. LG Electronics is represented by Fish & Richardson P.C.