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

Filing 94

ORDER denying 63 patentee's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to literal infringement. 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 045

Freed Designs, Inc.,
Defendant

O R D E R

The patentee, Freed Designs, Inc., has filed a motion for
partial summary judgment declaring that the accused products
literally infringe the patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 6,928,764
(the “‘764 Patent”).

Disputed terms have been construed

(document no. 58), and the parties now differ with respect to
the application of the claims to the accused devices.

Because infringement (or non-infringement) is an issue of
fact, a trial court must approach a motion for summary judgment
“with a degree of care proportional to the likelihood of its
being inappropriate.”

SRI International v. Matsushita Electric

Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Summary

judgment on the issue of literal infringement “is proper when no
1 

reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a
properly construed claim either is or is not found in the
accused device.”

PC Connector Solutions LLC v. SmartDisk Corp.,

406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Here, several common barriers to the entry of partial
summary judgment in the patentee’s favor present themselves.
First and foremost, a reasonable jury could find noninfringement should it conclude that the accused device does not
have, inter alia, “at least one pair” of “opposed ribs,” or ribs
“oriented inward from the interior side walls,” or ribs with a
“bottom shoulder,” or “a bottom shoulder distanced above the
tangs.”

Neither party has yet provided (properly disclosed)

expert opinion evidence regarding the comparative nature or
characteristic features in the patented and accused device, in
the context of the construed claims, and the record as it stands
is inadequate to establish either that no genuine disputes of
material fact exist, or that the patentee is entitled to partial
summary judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion
As genuine issues of material fact exist and the patentee
has not shown entitlement to partial summary judgment as a
matter of law, and a reasonable jury on this record could find
2 

that every limitation recited in the construed claims is not
found in the accused device, the patentee’s motion for partial
summary judgment with respect to literal infringement (document
no. 63) is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
March 9, 2017
cc:

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

3