Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Lenovo International et al

Filing 1442

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 1067 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/30/2010. (las)

Download PDF
Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Lenovo International et al Doc. 1442 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOC. L.L.C, A Utah Limited Liability Co., Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY OF `002 AND `222 PATENTS vs. W INBOND ELECTRONICS CORP., et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:05-CV-64 TS Former Defendant Sony filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the `002, `222 and `767 Patents on the ground that it was anticipated by a detector program developed by NEC Corporation (NEC program). Sony filed the Motion on behalf of itself, Winbond, ASUS, and MSI. MSI subsequently filed a joinder in the Motion.1 All claims between Sony and Plaintiff have been dismissed and all claims regarding the `767 patent have been withdrawn from this case. 1 Docket No. 1081. 1 The Court, having considered the entire record on this motion, finds that there are material issues of fact. Therefore summary judgment must be denied. The Court notes that in one sentence on the last page of Plaintiff's Opposition, it purports to seek summary judgment that the "NEC program is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102."2 Such a single sentence buried in an Opposition brief is insufficient to constitute a motion. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' Motion Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the `002, `222, and `767 Patents (Docket No. 1067) is DENIED as to the `002 and `222 Patents and MOOT as to the `767 Patent. DATED July 30, 2010. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2 Docket No. 1158, at 14. 2

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?