Oakley, Inc. v. Bugaboos Eyewear Corp.

Good Law
757 F. Supp. 2d 1050·2010 WL 5173678·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132477
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 15, 2010Case 09CV2037 JLS (JMA)California4,719 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sammartino, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR FALSE MARKING

Defendants Bugaboos Eyewear, Corp., and Bugaboos Eyewear (U.S.) Inc., (collectively Bugaboos) allege in its counterclaim that Plaintiff Oakley, Inc. (Oakley) falsely marked its products in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292 , the patent false marking statute. In response, Oakley motions for summary judgment on the issue whether warranty cards — packaged with the eyewear sold — can give rise to a false marking claim. To make its decision, the Court considers Oakley’s motion (Doc. No. 27 (Mot. Summ. J.)), Bugaboos’ response in opposition (Doc. No. 59 (Opp’n)), and Oakley’s reply in support. (Doc. No. 67 (Reply).) And having done so, the Court GRANTS Oakley’s motion for summary judgment on the seventh counterclaim with respect to warranty cards. On a related note, Bugaboos requests the Court delay adjudication of Oakley’s motion on two bases: first, that adjudication of Oakley’s motion is improper at this time, and second, that Bugaboos requires additional discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). Both requests are DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Oakley and Bugaboos are both in…

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.