Transonic Systems, Inc. v. Fresenius USA, Inc.

Good Law
425 F. Supp. 2d 1082·2006 WL 862945·2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16146
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 4, 2006C 03-4969 SICalifornia3,673 words

Opinion

Opinion

Illston, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE '989 AND '419 PATENTS, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT, AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

Now before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which were submitted without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b), and defendants’ motion to strike what they claim is new evidence improperly submitted with plaintiffs reply. Having carefully considered the submitted papers, and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENIES plaintiffs cross-motion. In addition, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to strike as being moot.

BACKGROUND

On November 7, 2003, plaintiff Transonic Systems, Inc. (“Transonic”) sued defendants Fresenius USA, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (“Fresenius”) for infringement of two patents owned by Transonic, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,685,989 (“the '989 patent”) and 6,514,419 B2 (“the '419 patent”). Transonic and Fresenius both develop and market technology related to kidney dialysis. Patients are prepared for dialysis by having a shunt surgically implanted,…

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.