DMF Inc v. AMP Plus Inc

facts in the parties’ SDF as “undisputed,” (2) ELCO responded to the corresponding facts in the parties’ SDF as “disputed,” but either did not address the relevant aspects of the claim limitation identified herein, or did not support its assertion with evidence as required by C.D. Cal. L.R. 56-3, or (3) the Court considered a dispute between the parties regarding the claim limitation and found in the Summary Judgment Order that the parties did not have a question of material fact as to whether the accused products met that claim limitation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: ELCO either has not disputed [see C.D. Cal. L.R. 56-3], or has failed to show a genuine question of material fact, that the accused products each meet the following claim limitations of the remaining asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,964,266 (“the °266 Patent’):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL ‘Oo’ Case No. 2:18-cv-07090-CAS(GJSx) Date July 22, 2020 Title DMF, INC. v. AMP PLUS, INC. ET AL. 1. The preamble of Claim 1, which states, “[a] compact recessed lighting system.”…