Precision Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. Jetstream Systems Co.

Good Law
693 F. Supp. 814·1988 WL 90462·6 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1704·1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9889
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 1988C 86 4516 AJZCalifornia3,948 words

Opinion

Opinion

Zirpoli, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is an action commenced by plaintiff, Precision Metal Fabricators, Inc. (hereinafter “Precision”), against defendants Jet-stream Systems Company (hereinafter “Jetstream”), and Stanley Lenox, for infringement of three U.S. patents, Nos. 4,347,022 (the “ ’022 patent”), 4,456,406 (the “’406 patent”), and 4,568,223 (the “’223 patent”). This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a).

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the ground that Jetstream’s air conveying equipment does not infringe plaintiff’s patents. Defendants also claim that the ’223 patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 . Although defendants originally challenged the ’022 patent and the ’406 patent on enablement grounds, they have since withdrawn the enablement argument with respect to those patents.

DISCUSSION

I. The Standard for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in patent infringement actions. Chemical Engineering v. Essef Indus., 795 F.2d 1565, 157 (Fed.Cir.1986). However, summary judgment may be granted where the movant has supported its motion with affidavits…

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.