MACDERMID PRINTING SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. v. E.I. DUPONT DENEMOURS AND COMPANY

Filing 201

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 1/15/2013. (mmh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MACDERMID PRINTING SOLUTIONS,
L.L.C.,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-4325 (MLC)
O P I N I O N

Plaintiff,
v.
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY,
Defendant.

THE PLAINTIFF, MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C.
(“MacDermid”), brings this patent infringement action against the
defendant, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”).
generally dkt. entry no. 1, Compl.)

(See

MacDermid alleges, inter alia,

that DuPont infringes United States Patent Number RE39,835 (“the
’835 Patent”) by “making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or
importing” a product known as “Cyrel DFM 67”.

(See id. at ¶¶ 8-

11.)
DUPONT now moves for summary judgment in its favor and against
MacDermid insofar as MacDermid alleges that DuPont’s activities
relating to Cyrel DFM 67 infringe the ’835 Patent.
no. 162, Mot.)

(See dkt. entry

DuPont properly supports the Motion with both a

brief and statement of undisputed facts.

(See dkt. entry no. 163,

Br. in Supp.; dkt. entry no. 163-1, Statement of Undisputed Facts.)
See also L.Civ.R. 7.1(d)(1), 56.1(a).

MACDERMID has filed a brief in response to the Motion.
dkt. entry no. 174, MacDermid Br.)

(See

It has not filed a response to

DuPont’s statement of undisputed facts, and it has not offered a
counterstatement of facts.

MacDermid’s brief consists of only two

paragraphs, wherein MacDermid concedes that Cyrel DFM 67 does not
infringe the ’835 Patent.

(See id. at 1 (stating, inter alia,

“MacDermid no longer contends that DFM 67 plates infringe on the
835 [sic] Patent.”).)
THE COURT will thus issue a separate Order and Judgment,
thereby (1) granting the Motion, and (2) entering judgment in
DuPont’s favor and against MacDermid in this action, insofar as it
concerns Cyrel DFM 67.

s/ Mary L. Cooper
.
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge

Date:

January 15, 2013

2