Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Coopervision, Inc.

Good Law
207 F. Supp. 2d 1103·2002 WL 1362982·63 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1897·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13175
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 17, 2002CV01-3678 AHM (EX)California4,850 words

Opinion

Opinion

Matz, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Coopervision, Inc.’s (alternatively, “Defendant” or “Coopervision”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Coopervision moves for summary judgment on Count One of Plaintiff Wesley Jessen Corp.’s (alternatively, “Plaintiff’ or “Wesley Jessen”) Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“FAC”). That claim alleges that Coo-pervision infringed claims 1, 13, 15, 22, 23 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 5,414,477 (“ ’477 Patent”) entitled “Colored Contact Lens Having Very Natural Appearance.” (FAC ¶ 18; Statement of Genuine Issues (“SGI”) ¶ 1). Coopervision contends it is entitled to summary judgment on this claim because the undisputed facts demonstrate that the ’477 Patent is invalid.

Defendant makes two, arguments, in support of its motion. First, Coopervision argues that each of the.,claims in the ’477 Patent is obvious and thus invalid in view of the combination of the Knapp ’402 patent and the LeGrand-Fuhrman Vanity Eye Accent lenses (“LeGrand-Fuhrman lenses”). (Mot. at 14). Second, Coopervision argues that the claims of the ’477 patent are invalid because they…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.