Case 3:19-cv-00410-EMC Document 504 Filed 10/25/22 Page 1 of 41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COOLIT SYSTEMS INC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-cv-00410-EMC
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
`DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND GRANTING IN
`PART AND DENYING IN PART
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Docket Nos. 387, 394
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Asetek Danmark AS (“Asetek”) filed suit against CoolIT Systems, Inc. and its
`
`subsidiaries, and Corsair Gaming, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiaries (collectively “CoolIT”), asserting
`
`that CoolIT infringed and continues to infringe five of its patents — i.e., the ‘601, ‘196, ‘362, ‘354
`
`and ‘355 patents (collectively “CoolIT Patents”). CoolIT counterclaimed, alleging that Asetek
`
`infringed four of CoolIT’s patents — i.e., the ‘330, ‘284, ‘266, and ‘567 patents. All of the
`
`allegedly infringed patents relate to liquid cooling systems and methods for cooling heat-
`
`generating electronic components. Both parties move for summary judgment. For the reasons
`
`stated below, the Court GRANTS IN PART Asetek’s Motion for summary judgment for validity
`
`of the ‘362 Patent and DENIES IN PART the Motion for noninfringement of the CoolIT Patents.
`
`The Court DENIES IN PART CoolIT’s Motion for summary judgment for validity of the CoolIT
`
`Patents and GRANTS IN PART the Motion for noninfringement of the ‘362 Patent.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00410-EMC Document 504 Filed 10/25/22 Page 35 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`b.
`
`The “Single Receptacle” Requirement
`
`The parties dispute whether (1) the first structure defining the upper (pump) chamber is a
`
`second receptacle, and (2) the upper and lower chambers of the Tamriel are “separable.” If the
`
`first structure (upper chamber) constitutes a receptacle by itself, or the upper and lower chambers
`
`are separable as separate receptacles rather than constituting a single unitary unit, the device will
`
`not satisfy the stipulated “single receptacle” reservoir construction.
`
`According to Asetek’s expert Dr. Tuckerman, the first structure of Tamriel (i.e., the top
`
`chamber) is a “subcomponent . . . designed to fit within the reservoir housing via mating and
`
`interconnecting features” to form a “single receptacle.” 11/3/2021 Tuckerman Expert
`
`Infringement Rep. ¶¶ 147, 149-150. CoolIT, on the other hand, argues that both structures are
`
`each a receptacle separable by removing the screws – i.e., “removably coupled” together. Ds’
`
`Opp’n at 9-10. Hence, there is not a simple “receptacle.” CoolIT finds similarities to the Ryu
`
`reference in the CMI case. In CMI, CMI had argued that the heat exchanging interfaces in the
`
`accused products were screwed to the device and were not intended to be removed, and to do so
`
`would damage the products or otherwise render them nonfunctional; therefore, it did not infringe
`
`the ‘362 Patent requiring the heat exchanging interface to be “removably coupled” to the reservoir.
`
`CMI USA Inc., 852 F.3d at 1359-60. However, the jury found that the device was “removably
`
`attached” or “removably coupled,” and the Federal Circuit affirmed, even though removal would
`
`cause coolant to leak. Id. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the patent did not require the
`
`functionality of each component upon detachment, and the device would function again if the
`
`components were reattached. Id. CoolIT argues that, like the Ryu reference, the two separable
`
`receptacles expose fluid to the outside of the closed-loop and require gasket-tubing to seal the
`
`connections. Ds’ MSJ at 22. Asetek disputes CoolIT’s comparison to Ryu.
`
`The parties’ arguments about whether there are one or two receptacles focus mainly on
`
`mechanical separability – i.e., through screws and a gasket. CoolIT argues the fact that the two
`
`chambers are thus attached and separate shows there are two receptacles. However, the Court
`
`does not find a mechanical distinction dispositive and instead looks to the function of the
`
`structures. A receptacle is a structure that receives and contains fluid. Docket No. 386-4, Ex. 3
`
`35
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00410-EMC Document 504 Filed 10/25/22 Page 36 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`(12/8/2021 Abraham Non-Infringement Rep.) ¶ 86 (“[A] receptacle . . . is simply ‘one that
`
`receives and contains something’ like a container”) (quoting Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`
`Dictionary)).
`
`Here, the two structures are not only spatially separated by the tubing (i.e., gasket)10, but
`
`they are also functionally independent. CoolIT’s expert, Dr. Abraham, includes a demonstration
`
`in his expert report that Tamriel’s two structures can function as two receptacles independently of
`
`and away from each other, just like the prior art Ryu. 12/8/2021 Abraham Non-Infringement Rep.
`
`¶ 245 (“I have had a demo made to show that, when the two chambers of CoolIT’s new design is
`
`separated and connected by a tube, the device functions just the same[.]”). CoolIT also points out
`
`that both Ryu and Tamriel have a separation of the pump chamber that leads to a possible leakage,
`
`which is prevented through gasket-tubing. 12/8/2021 Abraham Non-Infringement Rep. ¶ 259
`
`(“[The gasket tubing connections] are the connections that Asetek has repeatedly touted that its
`
`purported invention with a single-receptacle ‘reservoir’ would eliminate and would thus increase
`
`reliability over prior art.”). The Court agrees with CoolIT that the two structures function
`
`independently. Asetek’s contrary arguments are unconvincing:
`
`First, Asetek points out that Tamriel’s top chamber subcomponent is permanently affixed
`
`to the reservoir housing and is not separable without significant fluid loss; therefore, it is not a
`
`functionally independent device like Ryu’s pump driver that is intended to be replaceable by a
`
`user. Opp’n at 16. Asetek argues that the device was not intended to be taken apart, and doing so
`
`would destroy the product because to take out the screws would require breaking the circuit board.
`
`Id. However, Asetek’s argument fails because the issue here is not whether the device itself would
`
`be destroyed if physically taken apart but whether the first and second structures can each function
`
`as a receptacle, which Dr. Stein has shown through his simulation.11
`
`
`10 CoolIT points out that both Ryu and Tamriel have a separation of the pump chamber that leads
`to a possible leakage, which is prevented through gasket-tubing. 12/8/2021 Abraham Non-
`Infringement Rep. ¶ 259 (“[The gasket tubing connections] are the connections that Asetek has
`repeatedly touted that its purported invention with a single-receptacle ‘reservoir’ would eliminate
`and would thus increase reliability over prior art.”).
`
`11 CoolIT also points out that this issue was unsuccessfully litigated by Asetek in CMI. Ds’ Reply
`at 10. However, CMI is not entirely on point because CMI did not deal with whether a structure
`36
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-00410-EMC Document 504 Filed 10/25/22 Page 37 of 41
`
`
`
`Next, Asetek points out that the top chamber subcomponent fulfills the same function as
`
`the impeller cover 46A in Asetek’s preferred embodiment but is not described as a “receptacle” in
`
`the ‘196 patent. Ds’ Opp’n at 17. However, it is the ‘362 Patent at issue in this case, not the ‘196
`
`patent. Furthermore, impeller cover 46A is only a preferred embodiment in the ‘196 patent and
`
`therefore not dispositive.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Tamriel’s two structures function as two
`
`receptacles.12
`
`c.
`
`Nesting Doll
`
`Asetek also argues that, even if the top chamber subcomponent of the Tamriel is called a
`
`receptacle, it is still only a smaller receptacle contained within the larger receptacle that forms the
`
`reservoir housing, like the “nesting doll analogy.” Id. at 18. Asetek points out that in CMI, CMI
`
`argued that the presence of a sub-chamber (which they argued was a receptacle) within the
`
`reservoir housing meant that the reservoir was not a single receptacle. Id. at 17-18. Judge Tigar
`
`noted:
`
`
`it could be that even if the copper sub-chamber is a receptacle, that
`would not change the fact that the reservoir is a single receptacle
`divided into an upper chamber and lower chamber – the lower
`chamber would merely include or consist entirely of a smaller
`receptacle or sub-chamber. For example, nesting dolls contain many
`receptacles. But the smaller dolls – or receptacles – do not affect
`whether the biggest doll is a ‘single receptacle’.
`
`Id. at 18 (quoting the CMI case, Docket No. 426 at 6).
`
`The Court finds the nesting doll analogy unconvincing under the facts of this case.
`
`According to Dr. Abraham, the “encasement” or “outer wall” has no function and is merely
`
`cosmetic without touching liquid; the device will function the same even if it is removed.
`
`12/8/2021 Abraham Non-Infringement Rep. ¶¶ 235-39. Asetek argues that the surrounding wall
`
`
`constituted a receptacle, but whether the accused product met ‘362 Patent’s requirement that the
`“heat-exchanging interface” must be “removably attached” or “removably coupled” to the
`“reservoir.” ‘362 Patent, at 20:3–6; CMI USA Inc., 852 F.3d at 1356.
`
`12 Asetek also argues that CoolIT’s own documents and pictures of Tamriel refer to the top
`chamber subcomponent as “chamber” and not a “receptacle.” Ds’ Opp’n at 14 (citing Ex. E).
`However, the relevant document does not specifically label the top chamber subcomponent as a
`“receptacle” but merely has the heading “chamber, pump, Tamriel.” See Ex. E.
`37
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`