Summary judgment on opposed non-invalidity arguments is refused
Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. et al., No. 04-1373-KAJ, Nov. 2, 2006.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the patent is not invalid as obvious is granted in part and denied in part. The technology relates to digital cameras. The motion addresses seven prior art combinations. Citing a need to streamline the case for trial, defendants oppose only four. The court enters summary judgment on the three unopposed combinations of prior art. Plaintiff contends that defendants have failed to explain how to combine the references. The court found that defendants had provided sufficient detail, and did not need to anticipate the court’s claim construction and argue various alternatives in order to survive summary judgment. The motion was denied as to the opposed combinations.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
Jordan, J. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that the patent is not invalid as obvious is granted in part and denied in part. The technology relates to digital cameras. The motion addresses seven prior art combinations. Citing a need to streamline the case for trial, defendants oppose only four. The court enters summary judgment on the three unopposed combinations of prior art. Plaintiff contends that defendants have failed to explain how to combine the references. The court found that defendants had provided sufficient detail, and did not need to anticipate the court’s claim construction and argue various alternatives in order to survive summary judgment. The motion was denied as to the opposed combinations.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
