Netgear did not enter an agreement with Via Licensing but produced a series of products that conform to the WiFi standard and WMM Specification.
Throughout the trial, plaintiffs adhered to the strategy to group the accused products when providing evidence of infringement.
The court acknowledged that end users could enable fragmentation through software control and therefore might infringed the patents at issue.
However, the district court held "the notice letters sent by Philips prior to the instant suit were not sufficient to establish the knowledge and intent elements of contributory and induced infringement".
[3] In addition, the district court stated the initial notice of patent infringement was not sufficient to establish Netgear's knowledge of infringtement.
[1] However, Netgear's customer service records that had recommended end-users enable fragmentation on four models (WPN111, WG511, WPN824, and WG311T) was accepted as a viable evidence.
The patent under consideration claimed "a system for reducing power consumption in mobile devices that access wireless networks".
The court held that the DRR period must have a fixed length for the Netgear's devices to infringe the 642 patent.
The district court stated that the jury could not find that the device literally infringed the "synchrnously" element of the 642 patent, because it was impossible to know from plaintiffs' oscilloscope graphs (one of the evidence submitted by plaintiff) the precise time between when defendant's accused mobile devices reach their power-on mode and when a beacon signal is to be received.
Also, the district court allowed Fujitsu's expert witness to demonstrate a WiFi system configured to transmit an alert signal every 102 milliseconds.
The district court reported that the Netgear system remained on as long as a "more data" flag or the alert beacon was enabled.
In addition, Fujitsu argued that the district court's definition of "synchronous" would require two events to occur at precisely the same time which they stated is a physical impossibility.
This patent described a system for quality of service in a communications network where the base station assigns priority to different clients and traffic types.
LG electronics argued that Netgear products that implemented WMM Specification infringed its 993 patents.
The WMM Specification is a complement to the 802.11 standard that outlines a set of structures and methods to ensure better quality of service within an 802.11 compliant network.
Infringement of US patent 4,975,952 occurred in the four specific models for which Netgear's consumer support records recommended enabling packet fragmentation.