MeadWestvaco Corporation et al v. Rexam PLC et al

Filing 389

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: The parties' Motions for Summary Judgment,(Dkt. Nos. 291,294, 297). (see Order for complete details) Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 8/18/11. (tfitz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
MEADWESTVACO

CORPORATION,*?/ a!.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. I:10cv511

REXAMPLC,e/a/.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' Motions for Summary Judgment.
(Dkt. Nos. 291, 294, 297.) This case concerns a component of perfume fragrance packaging
called the invisible dip tube, a tubing product that transports the fragrance from the bottle to the
sprayer. The invisible dip tube virtually disappears when immersed in liquid.
There are eleven issues before the Court. The first issue is whether the Court should

grant Plaintiffs MeadWestvaco Corporation and MeadWestvaco Calmar's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Defendants' anticipation defense when a combination of the prior art
may suggest the creation of the patents at issue. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion because

claim 15 of the '132 patent is not embodied in a single prior art reference, precluding an
anticipation defense as a matter of law.
The second issue is whether the Court should grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment in regard to Defendants' obviousness defense when (1) MWV disclosed
Defendants' letters regarding obviousness to the United States Patent and Trademark Office

("PTO") prior to the patents' approval; (2) prior art taught away from the use of fluoropolymers
as dip tubes because of potential carcinogens; (3) the claimed invention met a long-felt and