Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co.,Ltd. et al

Filing 303

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The parties' 294 & 295 objections are OVERRULED; (2) The 291 Recommendation is ADOPTED; (3) Plf's 200 motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED as follows: (a) The accused products infrin ge the Base End Closure Element, as found in claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450; (b) The terms "a region" and "such that the gas rapidly exits" as found in U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 are not indefinite; (c) U.S. Patent No . 7,347,450 is not obvious, as prior art directed to parachute references is not analogous art; (d) The asserted patents are not obvious on any ground upon which Dfts failed to identify a motivation to combine, as identified in Autoliv's Memoran dum (Doc. # 206 -1, at 32-38; see also Doc. # 200 -1, at 2 (Proposed Judgment)); (e) Because Dfts failed to articulate a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art, the asserted patents are not obvious; and (f) Claims 26-27, 35-37 , and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 are not obvious or anticipated (4) Dfts' 201 motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and no enhanced damages is GRANTED on dependent claims 26 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653, which both refer to claim 20; the 201 motion DENIED as moot as to the withdrawn claims; and the 201 motion otherwise is DENIED; This action proceeds to trial on Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450 and on Claims 3537 and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 8/5/2021. (wcl, )

Case 2:13-cv-00141-WKW-SMD Document 303 Filed 08/05/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
AUTOLIV ASP, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD, and
MOBIS ALABAMA, L.L.C.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-141-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
On February 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation on the
pending motions. (Doc. # 291.) Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. # 294), as did
Defendants (Doc. # 295). Each side also responded to the other side’s objections.
(Docs. # 298, 300.)

Based upon a de novo review of those portions of the

Recommendation to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and having reviewed
the record, the court finds no error. The parties’ objections largely are restatements
of prior arguments made in the summary judgment briefing and are correctly
addressed by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The parties’ objections (Docs. # 294, 295) are OVERRULED;

(2)

The Recommendation (Doc. # 291) is ADOPTED;

(3)

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. # 200) is

GRANTED as follows:

Case 2:13-cv-00141-WKW-SMD Document 303 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 3

(a)

The accused products infringe the Base End Closure Element, as

found in claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450;
(b)

The terms “a region” and “such that the gas rapidly exits” as

found in U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 are not indefinite;
(c)

U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450 is not obvious, as prior art directed to

parachute references is not analogous art;
(d)

The asserted patents are not obvious on any ground upon which

Defendants failed to identify a motivation to combine, as identified in Autoliv’s
Memorandum (Doc. # 206-1, at 32–38; see also Doc. # 200-1, at 2 (Proposed
Judgment));
(e)

Because Defendants failed to articulate a reasonable expectation

of success in combining the prior art, the asserted patents are not obvious; and
(f)

Claims 26–27, 35–37, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 are

not obvious or anticipated.1

1

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment contains a cursory reference to Rule
54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Doc. # 200, at 1.) However, Plaintiff neither
has moved for Rule 54(b) certification nor has it shown that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate.
See Lloyd Noland Found., Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483 F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007)
(explaining that, under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, first, “the court’s
decision must be final in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered
in the course of a multiple claims action, and a judgment in the sense that it is a decision upon a
cognizable claim for relief” and second, “the district court must then determine that there is no just
reason for delay in certifying it as final and immediately appealable” (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, a Rule 54(b) judgment does not accompany this Order.
2

Case 2:13-cv-00141-WKW-SMD Document 303 Filed 08/05/21 Page 3 of 3

(4)

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and no

enhanced damages (Doc. # 201) is GRANTED on dependent claims 26 and 27 of
U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653, which both refer to claim 20; the motion (Doc. # 201) is
DENIED as moot as to the withdrawn claims; and the motion (Doc. # 201) otherwise
is DENIED.
This action proceeds to trial on Claims 1–2, 6, 8–10, and 20 of U.S. Patent
No. 7,347,450 and on Claims 35–37 and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653.
DONE this 5th day of August, 2021.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3