ACCO Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products, Inc.

Good Law
592 F. Supp. 2d 1208·2008 WL 5114327·2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101379
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 4, 2008C 04-03526 SICalifornia7,816 words

Opinion

Opinion

Illston, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On October 22, 2008, the Court heard oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Having considered the arguments of counsel and the papers submitted, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiffs motion and DENIES defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

The Court described the facts of this case in its March 19, 2008 Order, 2008 WL 753899 denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (“March 19 Order”). [Docket No. 137]

Guardian infringed the '989 patent. Kensington ultimately lost on summary judgment. See ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Security Devices, Inc., No. C 00-2296 SI (N.D.Cal. Jul. 23, 2002), aff'd 346 F.3d 1075 (Fed.Cir.2003). Kensing-ton now claims that PC Guardian’s product infringes the '794 patent.

The operation of the accused product is not disputed. The product consists of a cable attached to a lock. At the end of the lock is a rectangular metal protrusion, referred to as a “flanged tab structure,” as…

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.