Sig Sauer Inc. et al v. Freed Designs, Inc.
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,
Case No. 14-cv-461-SM
Opinion No. 2017 DNH 045
Freed Designs, Inc.,
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
SRI International v. Matsushita Electric
Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
judgment on the issue of literal infringement “is proper when no
reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a
properly construed claim either is or is not found in the
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
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.
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
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.
Steven J. McAuliffe
United States District Judge
March 9, 2017
Laura L. Carroll, Esq.
Zachary R. Gates, Esq.
Neal E. Friedman, Esq.
Michael J. Bujold, Esq.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?