View Responds to Patent Infringement Allegations, Makes Counterclaims

Milpitas, Calif.-based View Inc., formerly Soladigm Inc., has responded to patent infringement allegations made against it by Sage Electrochromics and has filed a counterclaim against the Faribault, Minn.-based company.

Sage 

In its February 15 response, View denies that the aforementioned patents are valid, along with Sage’s claims regarding its alleged infringement of the patents.

“View has not infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, induced infringement, or contributed to the infringement of any valid, enforceable claim of the ’177 or ’610 patents,” writes the company.

In addition, the company alleges that “one or more claims of the ’177 and ’610 patents are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of the patent laws of the United States.”

In its counterclaim, View claims that it obtained U.S. patent no. 8,243,357 (the “’357 patent”), entitled “Fabrication of Low Defectivity Electrochromic Devices,” last August and that Sage has infringed upon this patent “at least by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing electrochromic glass products (including but not limited to SageGlass and Quantum Glass products) in the United States, and/or by contributing to and/or inducing others to do the same.”

The counterclaim continues, “On information and belief, SAGE and/or one or more of its employees or authorized agents has obtained knowledge of the ’357 patent as a result of, by way of example, diligence performed in connection with financing received by SAGE from, e.g., Compagnie de Saint-Gobain (and/or its affiliated entities), and/or the acquisition of SAGE by Compagnie de Saint-Gobain (and/or its affiliated entities), and/or as a result of the instant filing of these Counterclaims.”

View alleges that it “is suffering, and unless restrained by the Court, will continue to suffer irreparable harm” by the alleged infringement.

The company also is seeking a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed on either the ‘177 or the ‘610 patent and “that one or more claims of the ’177 or ’610 patents is invalid.”

At press time, Sage had not yet responded to the counterclaims made against it.