Case 1:15-cv—10240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V"
`
`Civil Action No. 1 :15—cv—10240—’LTS
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS E.V.,
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP., and
`
`QIOPTIQ PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ENERGETIQ’S REPLY BRIEF IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`ASML 1309
`
`

`
`Case 1:15—cv—10240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`A preliininaxy injtmction is intended to 1nain’£a.in the statws quo;_
`
`- Wi1‘h1‘espec:t to Exéeliias’ ailegatious ihat an iuj1mction wili ham: ii:
`
`“‘[_c>}_1:ae who eiects
`
`to buiid a business on a pz'0di1ct fcmnd to _i11fringe c:'m.110t. be heard to c:m11plaiu if an injxmciion
`
`ag;ai1tIsst co-1_11'im1i11g infi'i.n.gtm1ex1¥ ci<::3t1‘oys the bxxsiness so 221ecI‘ed.“"’ M<2r‘iaI Ltd. V. C‘ipIa 1.m’., 68.1
`
`"F.3d 1.283, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citafiomomitted).
`
`VAS to Exce1‘itass,, this issue is ripe for a prelixninaxy i13junc.ti011., Based on the little Exceiitas
`
`:says in its Opposition to Euergefiq’s motion, 5! preiinxinaxy .iz1j'1u1cfion clea1'ly.iss a_pprop1'iate here.
`
`011% likelihood 0f$1*We$S»%
`
`Regarding the timing, E:r~:c.e1itas takes no issue that Energeatiq first Ieamed about this infrixlging
`
`1>1'°d*“=* dWei°I>memifi1é*te 9014 ¢
`
`—.1 Nor dcses Exceiitas, 3 Massachusetts-basecl coxnpauy, chailenge this couxfs
`
`jun's.:diction or sewice ofpmcess. 2
`
`I.
`
`LIKELXHQQD OF’ SUCCESS
`
`Irtirirrgerzzerzl. W'i1ile Defendazzfs argueihat
`
`
`
`The referenced deciafatioxzs a.1'eon file wifh the csmrt as follows: Smith I (Doc. No. 14),
`V1
`Smiith I1 (fiied.herewiti1), L01‘€:i};Z i (Doc. No. 24),, ‘Lo1‘enz II} (Doc. No. 49), Ross (Doc. No, 50),
`
`grsoni 11 Doc. No. 51 . Letz 11 Doc.
`.
`:3. 54. .
`
`'
`
`

`
`Case 1:15—cv~10240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15—cv~10240-LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`Patent Validiig. Bn:a*.1‘gratiq can/now say wi.thce1t'ainty, having now seen De‘fen_da11ts’ best
`
`case on validity, that it is iikely to prevail on Defendants’ invaiidity assextions. F01'.i11s.tance, with
`
`respect to the ‘455 _pate11t__, claim 41, Dr. Ross identifies oniy one pziim‘ art. 1‘efexfen.ce (G%irt11ea')‘t11at
`
`She says shows every limitation of the claim. But, Dr, Russ made a fatal factual xtaistake (pe1'ha_ps V
`
`uuderlix3.ing a lack of expertise in the area of the parents) by saying, that Gt~i1't11e1‘i1as a “cuwed
`
`reflective surface" that meets two requitements ofclaim 41: (1) “receive and reflect .
`
`.
`
`, the
`
`electromagnetic- energy [laser light] toward the ionized gas .
`
`.
`
`.15’ and (2) “1‘eflects the high
`
`b1‘ig11tness light {generated by the plaszna] tmvard an output of the light seurc.e." In fact, the
`
`“concave Illiimr 39” in Géii‘$11e1T that she points to does net perftmn the second of these ‘two
`
`requirements. Anti, Gti:ztne1' does not discieae a “high briglltness light," as the claim requires.
`
`Géi1tne1't1:1erefo1'e cammt invaiidate claiin 41 u11de1‘35 U.S.C7. § 102. (Sataith {I W 44, 45-54; Ex. 1.)
`
`Dr. Ross also opines that Gfixtrner, in coxnbialation with other prior art, 1'e11de1‘s claim 41
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. B.i1ti1e1'obvious11ess analysis is too c.onc1uso1y to cany any
`
`weight, a11dir1deec1, fails to meet the minimltm iegai :'equi1'eme11ts fc>1‘ax'gui11g obviousness:
`
`Dr. R053 faiied com late} to a.dcEre.ss the oI)“ecIive evidence of 11011-obviousness that
`
`Eixergetiq put forward, including long-felt need fer the invention, mlexpectedly good
`results from the ixlvention, and ovenvheltning indusfiy praiee of the invention (Smith I 1111
`7-11). 5&3 Trcmsocermr Q/jfifzom Deeps»w¢re7* Driiiirrg Irm v. M(I6I'S}€ C’oniracf0r:s USA,
`Inc, 617 F.3d. 1296, 1305 (Fed. C31‘. 2010) (reversixag district court. obviousness findi.ug
`because of “faiI_u1‘e to consider the objective eviclence Of11OI10bViOuS11€‘SS .
`. .”); Pr'o<:Ier «Kr
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15—cv—10240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 7
`
`Gamble v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (objective evidence
`of non-obviousness such as long-felt need often is “the most cogent evidence [of non-
`obviousness] in the record”).
`~
`‘
`
`0 Dr. Ross provided no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention would have made the combinations that allegedly render the invention obvious
`(Ross W 24, 31, 39, 49-56). See In Touch Tech. v. VGO Communications, Inc, 751 F.3d
`1327, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Dr. Yanco’s testimony was nothing more than impermissible '
`hindsight; she opined that all of the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior
`art, but failed to provide the glue to combine these references”); See also Kinetic Concepts,
`Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d. 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012)v(obviousness
`argument fails as defendant did not show reason why person skilled in the art would
`combine references).
`A
`
`0 Dr. Ross’ obviousness analysis consists of nothing more than boilerplate conclusory
`statements, (e. g. Ross 1111 24, 31, 39, 49-56), and this is not enough. KSR Int’! Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 US. 398, 341 (2007) (obviousness analysis must be made explicit and
`conclusory statements do not suffice); See In Touch Tech., at 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Dr.
`Yanco’s testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to her belief that one of
`ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been
`motivated to do so”). _
`
`For these reasons alone, the court can find that Defendants failed to raise a substantial question of
`
`patent validity. In addition, Defendants’ validity analysis also fails on the technical merits, as
`
`shown in Dr. Smith’s second declaration, attached hereto. (Smith II 111] 8-79.) 5
`
`II.
`
`OTHER FACTORS
`
`Irregarable Harm. Defendants’ opposition also underscores the irreparable harm here,
`
`absent an injunction-
`
`And while Energetiq need only show likelihood of success on one patent claim,
`5
`Defendants invalidity case for claim 10 of the ‘942 patent fails for similar reasons. (Smith II M
`13-40.) With respect to claim 10, Defendants also raise an argument that the claim 10 term
`“high brightness light” is indefinite. (Opp. 13 n. 7.) This argument is without merit, as the ‘982
`patent specification at col. 1, 11. 9-40, provides an express and certain definition of “high
`brightness light.” (Smith 1I,1H[ 17-22.)
`6
`See Celsis in Vilro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Price
`erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, and loss of business opportunities are all valid
`‘grounds for finding irreparable harm”)
`
`‘
`
`

`
`Case 1:15—cv—10240—LTS Document 66 Fiied 03/17/15 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
` _m‘V’s
`fix,.Rf.Q‘.v
`
`E uities and Public Interest.
`
`
`Jtxstice is not done when a 31129111 teclmology
`
`company patents a grou11dE:+1'eaki11g new teclniologyfintt ioses the c1:Istome1'andits exclusivity right
`
`because someone decides: {hat if wiii be cheaper to make the preduct itself. This kind of beh2w.io1'
`
`kills Ame.ric-an iI!Il0VatiO11.8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15—cv—10240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`Dated: March 17, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Steven M Bauer
`
`Steven M. Bauer (BBO #542531)
`Safraz W. Ishmael (BBO #657881)
`S. James Boumil III (BBO #684361)
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`One International Place
`
`Boston, MA 02110-2600
`
`Telephone: (617) 526-9600
`Facsimile: (617) 526-9899
`sbauer@proskauer.com
`sishmael@proskauer.com
`jboumil@proskauer.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on March 17, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
`
`Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. A copy of the document will be served upon
`
`Defendants’ counsel electronically Via the CM/ECF system.
`
`/s/ Steven M. Bauer
`Steven M. Bauer