NOVA DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES, LTD. v. WALTERS et al

Filing 141

ORDER THAT THE INDIVIDUAL DEFTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS, ETC. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 6/27/12. ) 6/28/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(gn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOVA DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES,
LTD.
v.
MATTHEW K. WALTERS, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 10-7618

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2012, upon
consideration of the motion for summary judgment of the
defendants Matthew Walters, Dale Walters, and Brian Guerra
(“individual defendants”) (Docket No. 93), and the motions for
summary judgment of No Conversion (Docket No. 94), No Fraudulent
Concealment or Nondisclosure (Docket No. 96), and No Trade Secret
Misappropriation (Docket No. 98) of the defendants Children’s
Medical Ventures, LLC, Respironics, Inc., and Respironics
Novametrix, LLC (“corporate defendants”), the plaintiff’s
responses thereto, the defendants’ briefs in reply, after oral
argument on the motions on May 9, 2012, and for the reasons
stated in a memorandum of law bearing today’s date, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:

1.

The claims for conversion and for correction of
inventorship in Counts IV and VI against Brian
Guerra and Dale Walters are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as withdrawn by the plaintiff;

2.

The claim for fraudulent concealment or
nondisclosure in Count IV against Dale Walters is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as withdrawn by the
plaintiff;

3.

The individual defendants’ motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED IN PART as follows:
A.

With respect to Matthew Walters on
Counts II and IV; and

B.

With respect to all individual
defendants on Counts III and V;

4.

The individual defendants’ motion as to Count VI
is DENIED with respect to Matthew Walters;

5.

The corporate defendants’ motions for summary
judgment are GRANTED.

WHEREAS the sole remaining claim (Count VI) in the
current phase of the bifurcated proceedings relates to patent
ownership, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall discuss a
proposed schedule and list of activities with respect to that
claim.

If the parties can agree on a proposed schedule, counsel

for the plaintiff shall submit that to the Court on or before

-2-

July 20, 2012.

If the parties cannot agree, each side shall

submit a proposed schedule by that date.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mary A. McLaughlin
MARY A. McLAUGHLIN, J.

-3-