Since I didn't see anyone publish a link for the public version of the LG Denial for Summary Determination, I will provide some of the text from that file.

April 17, 2013 (original denial date confidential)

LG filed a motion for SD that LG products containing { } hardware and/or software are licensed to the asserted patent. LG asserts that { } through a 2004 agreement with TPL and a 2005 agreement with PTSC Lg argues that under the express terms of these agreements, { } LG argues that at least of of its accused mobile phones contains { } hardware or software { }. Thus LG requests that the ALJ grand summary determination of noninfringment for all LG movile Phone that contain { } hardware and/or software.

Complainants argue that LG”s motion fails because it is premised on a strained and illogical interpretation of the terms of the two license agreements. Specifically, Complainants assert that the LG phones at issue do not fall within the agreements’ definition of { } because that term { }. Further, while Complainants acknowledge that the mobile phone at issue contains { }, Complainants argue that the phone itself is an LG product and is not exempt from liability for infringing on the accused patent. Complainants conclude that the parties’ conflicting interpretations of the license agreements preclude summary determination.

The ALJ finds as follows:

Summary determination shall be rendered if pleadings and any depositions, answer to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a SD as a matter of law…….

The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. When such an initial showing is established, the burden shifts to the opposing party who must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. To avoid SD the non moving party must produce evidence of sufficient caliber to support judgment in its favor……..If the responding party fails to make such a showing, the moving party is then entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

When ruling on a motion of SD courts must examine all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non moving party.

On June 28, 2004, { } entered into a patent license agreement with TPL , Moore and TPL Micro Ltd. Concerning the ‘336 patent. This agreement granted { }. Under Delaware law, contract terms are given the meaning that would typically be ascribed to them by a reasonable third person. However, when there is uncertainty in the meaning and application of contract language, the reviewing court must consider the evidence offered in order to arrive at a proper interpretation of contractual terms. When construing an ambiguous term, a court should consider any admissible extrinsic evidence that may shet light on the expectations of the parties at the time they entered into the Agreement………..Finally, if there are issues of material fact, the trial court must resolve those issues as the trier of fact……….

…..The ALJ finds that a material dispute exists with respect to certain terms included in these license agreements such that SD is inappropriate and a trial on the merits is warranted to determine whether any LG products are covered by the licenses.