United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY [Doc. 97]
Victoria A. Roberts, Judge
Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Choon's Design Inc.
(“Choon's”) alleges the following causes of
action against Defendant Tristar Products, Inc.'s
Count I - Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8, 485, 565
(“the ‘565 patent”);
Count II - Contributory Infringement of the ‘565
Count III - Induced Infringement of the ‘565 patent;
Count IV - Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8, 684, 420
(“the ‘420 patent”);
Count V - Contributory Infringement of the ‘420 patent;
Count VI - Induced Infringement of the ‘420 patent;
Count VII - Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8, 622,
441 (“the ‘441 patent”);
Count VIII - Contributory Infringement of the ‘441
Count IX - Induced Infringement of the ‘441 patent;
Count X - Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8, 936, 283
(“the ‘283 patent”);
Count XI - Contributory Infringement of the ‘283
Count XII - Induced Infringement of the ‘283 patent.
[Doc. 45]. Tristar filed an eight-count Counterclaim; it
seeks a declaration of non-infringement and declaration of
invalidity for each of Choon's four patents. [Doc. 47].
parties stipulated to the dismissal of all claims and
counterclaims related to the ‘283 patent - i.e., Counts
X, XI and XII of the Third Amended Complaint and
counterclaims seven and eight. [Doc. 99].
matter is now before the Court on Tristar's Motion for
Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity. [Doc.
97]. The motion is fully briefed (including a sur-reply), and
the Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary to decide the
reasons stated, Tristar's Motion for Summary Judgment of
Non-Infringement and Invalidity [Doc. 97] is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set
forth in the Conclusion.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
patent is infringed when a person “without authority
makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States . . . during the term of the
patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
of a patent infringement claim entails two prongs. The first
step is “claim construction to determine the scope of
the claims, followed by . . . determination of whether the
properly construed claim encompasses the accused
device.” Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160
F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
first step - claim construction - requires the Court to
determine the scope and meaning of the asserted claims as a
matter of law. See Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372-74 (1996). The
Court did this in its Order on Claim Construction dated April
21, 2016. [Doc. 68].
second step, the determination of infringement, “is
assessed by comparing the accused device to the claims; the
accused device infringes if it incorporates every limitation
of a claim, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents.” MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects,
S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation and
internal brackets omitted). If any claim limitation is
missing or not met, “there is no literal infringement
as a matter of law.” Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La
Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
patent owner has the burden to prove infringement and must do
so by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
“Infringement, either literal or under the doctrine of
equivalents, is a question of fact.” Brilliant
Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC, 707 F.3d 1342, 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
judgment of non-infringement is appropriate “if, after
viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the
non-movant, there is no genuine issue whether the accused
device is encompassed by the [patent] claims, ” and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d
1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If any
reasonable juror could find infringement, summary judgment
must be denied. Brilliant Instruments, 707 F.3d at
1344; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,