QR Spex, Inc. v. Motorola Inc.

588 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (2008)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

QR Spex, Inc. v. Motorola Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California
588 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (2008)

  • Written by Ann Wooster, JD

Facts

QR Spex, Inc. (QR) (plaintiff) was a patent holding company that licensed its patent portfolio to other companies. QR collaborated with a company to invent eyewear (the QR eyewear) with integrated radio transceivers. The QR eyewear received United States Patent No. 6,769,767 (the ‘767 patent). QR’s patented eyewear included detachable temples with embedded electronic components. This feature allowed users to swap eyewear temples to access the desired functionality for headphones, television sets, or child monitors. QR claimed that its eyewear would create a Bluetooth network to allow users to listen to MP3 player music wirelessly. The ‘767 patent described the Bluetooth receiver as co-molded within one of the temples, but the figures and specifications showed and described a transceiver permanently set in a cavity without a way to remove it from the eyewear. Motorola Inc. (defendant), a manufacturer of wireless-communications products, collaborated with Oakley Inc. and related Oakley companies (Oakley) (defendants) to invent two pairs of eyewear called the O ROKR and the O ROKR Pro (the Oakley eyewear). The Oakley eyewear had Bluetooth transceivers attached to the frames by clips, screws, posts, and ridges. The Bluetooth transceivers in the Oakley eyewear were not permanently set in the frames and could be easily removed or replaced. QR brought suit against Motorola and Oakley, claiming that the Oakley eyewear infringed Claim 1 of the ‘767 patent that described eyewear with a Bluetooth transceiver embedded in the frame. Oakley argued that the Oakley eyewear did not infringe the ‘767 patent because the Bluetooth transceivers were not embedded within the frames. Oakley moved for a partial summary judgment of noninfringement. QR opposed the motion.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Carney, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership