United States District Court, D. Delaware
George Pazuniak, Esquire of O'Kelly Ernst & Bielli, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Nelson E. Brestoff, Esquire of Nelson E. Brestoff, PLC, Daniel C. Cotman, Esquire of Cotman IP Law Group, PLC. Robert J. Yorio, Esquire of Carr & Ferrell LLP.
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire, David E. Moore, Esquire, and Bindu A. Palapura, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for Defendant. Of Thomas G. Pasternak, Esquire and Amanda K. Streff, Esquire of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP.
ROBINSON, District Judge.
On August 8, 2011, plaintiff Technology Innovations, LLC (" TI" ) filed suit in this district against defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (" Amazon" ) alleging infringement of
two patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,517,407 (" the '407 patent" ) and 7,429,965 (" the '965 patent" ). (D.I. 1) Amazon responded to TI's original complaint with both a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 with respect to the '407 patent. (D.I. 7; D.I. 14) The court denied Amazon's motions on April 25, 2012. (D.I. 39) Subsequently, Amazon answered and filed its affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including in its prayer for relief a request for costs and attorney fees. (D.I. 40 at 18) After being granted leave to amend its complaint (D.I. 79), TI filed an amended complaint removing all allegations of infringement with respect to the '407 patent. (D.I. 80)
TI is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business in Estero, Florida. (D.I. 80 at ¶ ¶ 1-2) TI owns the '965 patent. ( Id. at ¶ 9) Amazon is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. ( Id. at ¶ 3) It makes, manufactures, and/or sells the accused products. ( Id. at ¶ 19)
Presently before the court are Amazon's motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of the '965 patent (D.I. 107; D.I. 111), and TI's cross-motion for partial summary judgment of no invalidity of the '965 patent. (D.I. 115) Amazon also filed a motion to exclude the testimony and evidence of Dr. Conte and Mr. McCourt. (D.I. 104) The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 and 1338(a).
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Summary Judgment
" The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.10, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A party asserting that a fact cannot be--or, alternatively, is--genuinely disputed must support the assertion either by citing to " particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for the purposes of the motions only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials," or by " showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A) & (B). If the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmovant must then " come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court will " draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000).
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must " do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87; see also Podohnik v. U.S. Postal Service, 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2005) (stating party opposing summary
judgment " must present more than just bare assertions, conclusory allegations or suspicions to show the existence of a genuine issue" ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the " mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment," a factual dispute is genuine where " the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). " If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249-50 (internal citations omitted); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (stating entry of summary judgment is mandated " against a party who fails ...