Wham-O, Inc. v. Sport Dimension, Inc.

Good Law
398 F. Supp. 2d 1081·2005 WL 3008900·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27844
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 9, 2005C-04-5055 EMCCalifornia4,983 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docket No. 41)

Plaintiff Wham-O, Inc. has filed suit against Defendant Sport Dimension, Inc. for patent infringement — more specifically, for infringement of claims 1-4 of the ’593 patent. Currently pending before the Court is Sport Dimension’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. Sport Dimension argues that Wham-O’s claim of infringement, which is based on the doctrine of equivalents, must fail as a matter of law because of prosecution history estoppel and the all limitations rule. Wham-0 has filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on Sport Dimension’s prosecution history estoppel defense.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Sport Dimension’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Wham-O’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Only claims 1-4 of the ’593 patent are at issue in this litigation. Claims 2-4 are all dependent on claim 1. The invention claimed in claim 1 of…

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.