IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D.N.Y.: Summary judgment granted in part, denied in part in action targeting Google Streetview, (Oct 2, 2023)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Cross motions for summary judgment were denied as to most issues because the parties both had presented expert testimony which a reasonable jury would be entitled to credit.

Google and a patentee asserting infringement by Google’s Streetview product both presented evidence sufficient to find a genuine dispute of material fact on most issues in dispute, the U.S. District Court in New York has held. The only exceptions were infringement claims relating image mosaicing for which there was no evidence and a counterclaim claim for failure to mark, which did not apply because Google had actual notice of infringement (Kewazinga Corp. v. Google LLC, September 28, 2023, Schofield, L.).

Kewazinga Corporation (Kewazinga) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 9,055,234 (the ’234 patent), 6,522,325 (the ’325 patent), and 6,535,226 (the ’226 patent), each of which was directed to a “navigable telepresence method and system.” Kewazinga brought suit against Google, LLC (Google) for infringement, alleging that Google’s Streetview product infringed all three patents. After the close of discovery both parties moved for summary judgment.

Google’s motion. Google moved for summary judgment of non-infringement because its product did not involve an “array of cameras” and did not employ the “mosaicing” technique claimed by the patents. The court held that the question of whether Google’s use of a collection of cameras attached to a vehicle constituted an “array” was a fact question upon which the parties’ experts differed, so summary judgment was denied.

On the issue of “mosaicking,” the court noted that Kewazinga had offered two theories of how Google used that process, one in the creation of panorama images and one in the creation of transition animations, but the evidence in the record only supported the panorama issue. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of Google on the transition animation claims.

Kewazinga’s motion. Kewazinga moved for summary judgment of invalidity on lack of written description and anticipation grounds. Both of these entailed fact questions about the knowledge of a person skilled in the art at the relevant time and so constituted a genuine dispute of material fact.

Kewazinga also moved for summary judgment on whether it was obligated to mark its products under the patent marking statute, and summary judgment was granted on this point because there was no dispute that Google had received actual notice of the asserted patents.

The case is No. 20 Civ. 1106 (LGS).

Attorneys: Jason Sobel (Brown Rudnick LLP) and Gregory Springsted (Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP) for Kewazinga Corp. Deborah Mariottini (Desmarais LLP) for Google LLC.

Companies: Kewazinga Corp.; Google LLC

Cases: Patent NewYorkNews