Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc. C.A. No. 11-54 -SLR, March 19, 2013

Robinson, J.  Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is denied.  Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment of no infringement is granted.  The parties’ respective summary judgment motions on the issue of validity are granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendant’s expert’s testimony is denied as to one patent and judgment was reserved as to another.  The court also construed disputed terms.

 

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment of infringement, which was denied.  The parties’ respective competing data in support raises a genuine issue of material fact.  Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment of no infringement  under the doctrine of equivalents was granted.  The use of NADH as an electron donor is insubstantially different from the use of NADPH.  The court denied in part and granted in part the parties’ respective motions regarding validity.  Defendant raised a substantial question on the issue of inherent anticipation.  Defendant’s motion on the issue of obviousness was denied, as it raised a fact issue.  Plaintiff’s motion is granted on the issue of indefiniteness, as the court adopted plaintiff’s claim construction.  Defendant’s motion is granted on the issue of written description as to one claim because the specification does not provide sufficient support.  Plaintiff’s motion to exclude defendant’s expert’s testimony was denied as to one patent at issue.  The court reserved its decision regarding exclusion of the expert’s testimony concerning another patent at issue.  The court also construed the following disputed terms:

 

“acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase enzyme;”

“a recombinant yeast microorganism expressing an engineered isobutanol biosynthetic pathway,”

“pathway step a);…(pathway steb b);…;” and

“the microorganism produces isobutanol as a single product.”