Nano-Second Technology Co Ltd v. Dynaflex International

Filing 147

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW signed by Judge Ronald S.W. Lew re Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of Plaintiff's Patent 113 . (jp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 NANO-SECOND TECHNOLOGY CO., )
LTD., a Taiwanese
)
12 Corporation
)
)
13
)
Plaintiff,
)
14
)
v.
)
15
)
)
16 DYNAFLEX INTERNATIONAL,
)
a California Corporation., )
17 and GFORCE Corp. d/b/a DFX )
SPORTS & FITNESS, a Nevada )
18 Corporation
)
)
19
Defendants.
)
20

CV 10-9176 RSWL (MANx)
Statement of
Uncontroverted Facts and
Conclusions of Law Re:
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment of NonInfringement of
Plaintiff’s Patent [113]

After consideration of the papers and arguments in

21 support of and in opposition to Defendants Dynaflex
22 International and GForce Corporation’s (“Defendants”)
23 Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of
24 Plaintiff Nano-Second Technology Co.’s (“Plaintiff”)
25 Patent [113], this Court makes the following findings
26 of fact and conclusions of law.
27 ///
28 ///
1

1
2

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS
1.

Defendant Dynaflex International, Inc.

3 (“Dynaflex) is a California Corporation, recently
4 purchased by Defendant GForce, a Nevada Corporation,
5 that imports and markets several lines of gyroscopic
6 wrist exercisers (“wrist exercisers”).

Smith-Matele

7 Decl. ¶ 3.
8

2.

Plaintiff is a Taiwanese corporation that sells

9 wrist exercisers abroad and in the United States.
10 Plaintiff owns United States Patent No. 5,800,311
11 (“‘311 Patent”).

First Amended Compl. ¶ 49; Alberstadt

12 Decl. ¶ 2.
13

3.

Some of the wrist exercisers that Defendants

14 sell were either purchased from Plaintiff or from
15 Plaintiff’s distributors.

Smith-Matele Decl. ¶¶ 2,3,

16 Ex. 1.
17

4.

The A4, Dynaflex Lighted Ball (“A4") and A5,

18 Dynaflex Pro Plus (“A5") are authentic products made by
19 Plaintiff that Defendants purchased directly from
20 either Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s distributors.
21 Alberstadt Decl. Ex. 5; Smith Matele Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.
22

5.

A November 8, 2009 invoice shows that

23 Defendants ordered 3,840 A5 products in bulk from
24 Plaintiff.
25
26

Smith Matele Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.

The doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that

27 “the initial authorized sale of a patented item
28 terminates all patent rights to that item.”
2

Quanta

1 Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625
2 (2008).
3

2.

A patent owner is foreclosed from suing a

4 defendant for infringement based on the defendant’s use
5 or sale of a product purchased from the patent owner.
6 Id. at 630.
7

3.

Pursuant to the doctrine of patent exhaustion,

8 Defendants are not liable for patent infringement for
9 the resale of A4 and A5.
10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 DATED: July 23, 2012
13
14
15

HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3