Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Fisher-Price

Filing 65

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Infringement. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/18/2011. (las)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION

ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF PATENT
INFRINGEMENT

vs.

FISHER-PRICE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and EXPRESSO FITNESS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

Case No. 1:08-CV-10 TS

Defendants.

The Court has before it Plaintiff ICON Health & Fitness Corporation’s (“ICON”) Motion
for Summary Judgment of Patent Infringement.1 Although the Motion was filed on January of
2010, no opposition has yet been filed. In this Court, “[f]ailure to respond timely to a motion
may result in the court’s granting the motion without further notice.”2 Pursuant to this rule, and
in light of the foregoing, the Court will grant ICON’s Motion.

1

Docket No. 37.

2

DuCivR 7-1(c).
1

I. BACKGROUND
ICON manufactures, markets, and sells fitness equipment. In July 2008, ICON filed its
first amended complaint adding Expresso Fitness Corporation (“Expresso”) as a defendant.
Therein, ICON alleges, among other claims, that Expresso’s line of exercise cycles, including
models numbers S2r, S2u, S3r, S3u, and S3y (collectively, “Accused Products”), infringe upon
claims 1, 23, 43, and 46 of its United States Patent No. 6,447,424 (“’424 Patent”). On January
19, 2010, ICON moved for summary judgment on these claims.
In November 2009, Expresso filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Northern District of
California. The bankruptcy case was closed in December 2009. Around the time of the
bankruptcy, a non-party (Interactive Fitness Holdings, LLC “IFH”) acquired the assets of
Expresso. ICON sought to substitute IFH for Expresso as the defendant in this case, but this
request was recently denied by Magistrate Judge Nuffer.3 No objection to this Order has been
filed and the time to do so has expired.
Shortly after this motion was denied, ICON requested to submit for decision its
unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 19, 2010.4 In its request to submit
for decision, ICON notes that the Magistrate Judge found that Expresso continues in existence
and is still subject to suit.5 The Court further notes that Expresso’s bankruptcy has now closed
and there is nothing before the Court to suggest that Expresso’s bankruptcy discharged, or

3

Docket No. 61.

4

Docket No. 62.

5

See Docket No. 61, at 7-8.
2

otherwise disposed of, ICON’s claims. Although Expresso is defunct, ICON desires to carry
forward on its motion and asserts that there is no reason why this Court should preclude ICON
from carrying its claims against Expresso to judgment.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
As discussed previously, when an opposing party fails to timely respond to a motion, the
Court may grant the motion without further notice.6 However, federal courts have made clear
that “it is improper to grant a motion for a summary judgment simply because it is unopposed.”7
In such situations, the standard for summary judgment is somewhat modified.8 “It is the role of
the court to ascertain whether the moving party has sufficient basis for judgment as a matter of
law. In so doing, the court must be certain that no undisclosed factual dispute would undermine
the uncontroverted facts.”9 The Court “must consider the plaintiff’s . . . claim based on the
record properly before the court, viewing the uncontested facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party.”10

6

DuCivR 7-1(c).

7

E.E.O.C. v. Lady Baltimore Foods, Inc., 643 F. Supp. 406, 407 (D. Kan. 1986) (citing
Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Administracion Central Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th
Cir. 1985)).
8

Thomas v. Bruce, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1163 (D. Kan. 2006).

9

Id. (citing Lady Baltimore Foods, 643 F. Supp. at 407).

10

Sanchez-Figueroa v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 527 F.3d 209 (1st Cir. 2008).
3

III. DISCUSSION
ICON moves this Court for summary judgment in its favor on its claims that ICON that
Expresso’s Accused Products infringe upon claims 1, 23, 43, and 46 of its ’424 Patent. Having
carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds that there is a sufficient basis to enter judgment in
favor of ICON on its claims of infringement. The Court can find no genuine issue of material
fact, disclosed or undisclosed, that precludes an entry of judgment in favor of ICON. It is
therefore
ORDERED that ICON’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Infringement (Docket
No. 37) is GRANTED.
DATED April 18, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

4