Mintz

Mintz v. DIETZ & WATSON, INC.

Good Law
704 F. Supp. 2d 1004·2010 WL 1292274·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30446
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 30, 2010Civil 05cv1470 L(CAB), 05cv2200 L(CAB)California4,232 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lorenz, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY [doc. # 182] DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON VALIDITY [doc. # 178]; GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION RE: NONINFRINGEMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION RE: INFRINGEMENT [doc. #180]; and DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Currently pending are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment seeking to find the patent-at-issue valid or invalid on the ground of obviousness; and to find whether defendant infringed or did not infringe the patent. The motions were fully briefed and oral argument held on the issue of the validity of the patent.

A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary adjudication is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When “the moving party for summary judgment meets its initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, the burden 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.