“These changes present a question of material fact and make summary judgment on the validity of these patents inappropriate,” the motion said.
VideoLabs said this means its case against HP in Texas should be allowed to proceed.
It said HP will likely oppose this move and, instead, will be asking U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright to lift the stay only in order to rule on an “early summary judgment motion on invalidity.” Such a filing from HP has yet to land in court, however.
VideoLabs said it’s too soon for Judge Albright to contemplate moving the case in this direction.
“If defendant files a motion for summary judgment on invalidity regarding the asserted patent found indefinite by the ALJ, this court will still need to construe the disputed claim terms to rule on the motion,” VideoLabs argued. “ITC findings are not binding on this court, and any disputed claim terms will need to be construed by this court.”
Representatives for VideoLabs and HP did not return a request for comment.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,769,238; 8,139,878; and 8,208,542.
