United States District Court, D. Delaware
DRGER MEDICAL GMBH, a German Corporation; DRAEGER MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. and DRAEGER MEDICAL INC., Delaware corporations, Plaintiffs,
ALLIED HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.
SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.
At Wilmington this 27th day of March, 2015, having reviewed defendant Allied Healthcare Products, lnc.'s ("defendant") motion for summary judgment (D.I. 93), and the papers filed in connection therewith; the court issues its decision based on the following reasoning:
1. Background. On October 4, 2013, plaintiffs Dräger Medical GMBH, Draeger Medical Systems, Inc., and Draeger Medical, Inc. (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed the instant action against defendant alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8, 286, 633 ("the '633 patent") and 7, 487, 776 ("the '776 patent") (collectively, "the patents-in-suit"). (D.I. 1) Defendant answered the complaint on October 28, 2013 and counterclaimed for non-infringement and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 22) On November 21, 2013, plaintiffs answered the counterclaims. (D.I. 44) The court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on March 24, 2014. (D.I. 87; D.I. 88) The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
2. Standard. "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., 415 U.S. 574, 586 n.10 (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, 415 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 (2000).
3. 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 (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 (1986) (stating entry of summary judgment is mandated "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial").
4. Analysis. The '633 patent, titled "Carbon Dioxide Absorber for a Rebreathing System, " issued to Dräger Medical GmbH on October 16, 2012. The basic object of the '633 patent is "to improve a carbon dioxide absorber such that it can be connected to the connection head of a rebreathing system in a simple manner." ('633 patent, col. 1:51-53) Consistent with the inventive thrust of the patent, the carbon dioxide absorber disclosed in claim 1 comprises:
a connection head at the rebreathing system, said connection head including a pivotable mount;
an absorber housing;
a guide plate on a front side of said absorber housing, said guide plate being pushed into said pivotable mount of said connection head;
guide plate gas ducts arranged concentrically at said guide plate;
connection head gas ducts provided in said connection head and with a design corresponding to said guide plate gas ducts, said guide plate gas ducts for connection to said connection head gas ducts;
guide grooves between said guide plate and said absorber housing for connecting said guide plate to said mount;
centering pins pointing in a direction of said absorber housing from said connection head; and centering means in one or more of said guide plate and said absorber housing, said centering means for meshing with said centering pins from said connection head;
said pivotable mount being pivotable between a first position and a second position, said first position arranging said pivotable mount adjacent said connection head, said second position arranging said pivotable mount ...