Summary judgment is denied pending outcome of Bilski appeal
Accenture Global Services GMBH, et al. v. Guidewire Software, Inc., Civ. No.07-826-SLR, March 5, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness, on-sale bar, anticipation or obviousness are denied. Defendant’s motion that the trade secret misappropriation claim is barred by the statute of limitations is denied. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is denied without prejudice to renew. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s on-sale bar arguments and related documents not identified in invalidity contentions is denied.
The parties are competitors in the consulting and technology services industry. The patents-in –suit relate to a computer program for developing component based software for the insurance industry. The court finds that notice of the on-sale bar defense was sufficient. The evidence to date on that defense does not meet the clear and convincing standard and if additional evidence exists it should be established at trial. Whether the plaintiffs could have discovered defendant’s purported misconduct relating to trade secret misappropriation prior to 2006 is a matter for the jury. The court has determined that defendant’s invalidity motion raises significant issues under Bilski and denied the motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renew after the supreme Court issues its ruling on the Bilski appeal. The court denies defendant’s motion on anticipation or obviousness without prejudice to renew upon consideration of the court’s claim construction issued contemporaneously. Defendant’s indefiniteness arguments are at odds with prior art assertion that the bounds of the claim are determinable. The motion on non-infringement is denied without prejudice to renew with the benefit of the court’s claim construction upon lifting of the stay currently in place.
