Sig Sauer Inc. et al v. Freed Designs, Inc.

Filing 104

///ORDER denying 83 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. So Ordered by Judge Steven J. McAuliffe.(lat)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sig Sauer, Inc.; Check-Mate
Industries, Inc.; Check-Mate
International Products, Inc.;
Nordon, Inc.; and Thomas
Pierce d/b/a Pierce Designs,
Plaintiffs
v.

Case No. 14-cv-461-SM
Opinion No. 2017 DNH 189

Freed Designs, Inc.,
Defendant

O R D E R

Patentee’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing
the affirmative defense of anticipation with respect to Claims 1
and 4 of the patent in suit (document no. 83), is denied.

Invalidity due to anticipation is a question of fact.

IPXL

Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
2005).

Although a question of fact, anticipation may still be

resolved on summary judgment if the record reveals no genuine
dispute of material fact, and if no reasonable jury could find
that the patent is anticipated.

Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp

Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

1 

Here, the alleged infringer has proffered sufficient
evidence in the nature of relevant prior art and expert opinion
testimony, that, if believed by a jury, would permit a finding
by clear and convincing evidence that the claims at issue are
invalid.

At the very least, the alleged infringer has plainly

identified material facts that are genuinely disputed, thereby
rendering summary judgment with respect to the anticipation
defense unavailable.

“A [prior] reference may anticipate

inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed
is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating
reference.

In re Hugh Edward Montgomery, et al., 677 F.3d 1375,

1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotation
omitted).

Mr. Wood, plaintiff’s expert, an apparent person of

ordinary skill in the relevant art, has opined that a number of
prior references anticipate the claims at issue, and it cannot
be said on this record that there are no material facts
genuinely disputed or that the patentee is entitled to relief as
a matter of law with respect to the anticipation defense.

Conclusion
The motion for partial summary judgment (document no. 83)
is necessarily denied.

2 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
September 14, 2017
cc:

Laura L. Carroll, Esq.
Zachary R. Gates, Esq.
Neal E. Friedman, Esq.
Michael J. Bujold, Esq. 

3