Summary judgment rulings issue in cable case
Belden Technologies Inc., et al. v. Superior Essex Communications LP, et al., Civ. No.08-63a-SLR, August 24, 2010.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity for anticipation is granted as to one patent and denied as to the remaining patents. Plaintiff’s infringement motion is granted in part. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity for anticipation and obviousness is granted with respect to one patent and denied as to others. Defendant’s motion for noninfringement is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion for failure to mark is granted with respect to 6 patents and denied as to a seventh patent. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement is denied without prejudice to renew.
The technology patented involves high performance data cables and methods for making such cables. The court finds compliance with the marking statute is amenable to summary judgment. Defendant’s package marking does not comply where it has not identified a factual issue with respect to inability to mark the product itself. Defendant’s motion is granted except with respect to the method patent. Defendant’s knowledge of the patents is insufficient. Plaintiff must show an affirmative communication of a specific charge of infringement. The court finds that certain claims have been infringed and plaintiff has not made the requisite showing as to others. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The parties are directed to advise the court which patents and accused products remain in suit.
