Business Objects, S.A. v. Microstrategy, Inc.

Good Law
280 F. Supp. 2d 1000·2003 WL 22077759·2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15840
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2003C 01-3908 CRBCalifornia2,567 words

Opinion

Opinion

Breyer, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

In this lawsuit plaintiff Business Objects, S.A. alleges that defendant Micros-trategy, Inc. manufactures software which infringes Claims 1, 2 and 4 of United States Patent No. 5,555,403 (“the ’403”) owned by plaintiff. The Court issued its claim construction order on May 1, 2003. Now pending before the Court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of all three Claims. After carefully considering the papers and evidence filed by the parties, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion.

STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). An issue is “genuine” only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is “material” if the fact may affect the outcome…

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.