JUNKER v. MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC. et al

Filing 220

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC #197) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC #202) IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE EXPERT TESTIMONY (DOC #196) IS DENIED IN PART WITH PREJUDICE AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT REPORTS (DOC #203) IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG ON 1/4/19. 1/4/19 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_____________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
MEDICAL COMPONENTS, INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
_______________________________________:
LARRY G. JUNKER,

CIVIL ACTION

No. 13-4606

ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2019, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s “Motion to
Exclude the Expert Testimony of Richard P. Meyst, Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Dana Trexler Smith,
and Timothy Schweikert” (Doc. No. 196), Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Judgment on
Invalidity, Infringement, and Damages” (Doc. No. 197), Defendants’ “Motion for Summary
Judgment of Invalidity and Non-Infringement” (Doc. No. 202), and Defendants’ “Motion to
Exclude the Expert Report of Peter W. Bressler (Daubert Motion)” (Doc. No. 203), and the
respective memoranda in support, responses, and replies thereto, and for the reasons set out in
the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that:
•

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Judgment on Invalidity, Infringement, and
Damages” (Doc. No. 197) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED only as to the following affirmative
defenses raised by Defendants: indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112; the on-sale bar
under § 102(b); prosecution history estoppel, and patent misuse. In all other respects,
Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

•

Defendants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Non-Infringement”
(Doc. No. 202) is DENIED.

•

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Richard P. Meyst, Gerald J.
Mossinghoff, Dana Trexler Smith, and Timothy Schweikert” (Doc. No. 196) is
DENIED, IN PART WITH PREJUDICE AND IN PART WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE as
to Plaintiff’s contention that: (1) Meyst uses the wrong claim construction; (2)
Meyst’s indefiniteness opinion should be excluded; (3) Meyst’s inventorship opinion
should be excluded because “inventorship is not in the case.” Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED AS MOOT as to Schweikert, based on Defendants’ representation that they
do not intend to call him as a witness. In all other respects, Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.1

•

Defendants’ “Motion to Exclude the Expert Report of Peter W. Bressler (Daubert
Motion)” (Doc. No. 203) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg
____________________________
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.
As noted in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, I have not relied on Meyst’s opinions on
infringement or damages, or any of Mossinghoff’s or Smith’s opinions, in deciding the cross-motions for
summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff may re-raise his arguments that these opinions should be
excluded prior to trial.
1

As noted in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, I have not relied on Bressler’s opinions on
infringement in deciding the cross-motions for summary judgment. Accordingly, Defendants may re-raise
their arguments that these opinions should be excluded prior to trial.
2