United States District Court, D. Delaware
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Plaintiff,
UNIFRAX I LLC, Defendant.
Richard L. Horwitz, Esq., David E. Moore, Esq., Bindu A.
Palapura, Esq., Stephanie E. O'Byrne, Esq., POTTER
ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Adam K.
Mortara, Esq., Christopher D. Landgraff, Esq. (argued),
Christopher R. Hagale, Esq. (argued), Sharon Desh, Esq.
(argued), BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP,
Chicago, Illinois Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq., Kelly E. Farnan, Esq.
(argued), Jason J. Rawnsley, Esq., Katharine L. Mowery, Esq.,
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware;
Joseph G. Curatolo, Esq., Salvatore A. Sidoti, Esq., CURATOLO
SIDOTI CO. L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio; Jake M. Holdreith, Esq.
(argued), David A. Prange, Esq., Alyssa N. Lawson, Esq.
(argued), ROBINS KAPLAN LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota Attorneys
ANDREWS, DISTRICT JUDGE.
memorandum addresses the following summary judgment motions:
(1) Defendant Unifrax I LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment
of Non-Infringement or Alternatively of Invalidity (D.I.
183); (2) Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint (D.I. 243); and (3) Plaintiffs Amended Motion to
Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (D.I. 259). I reviewed all
the briefing for these motions. I held oral argument on April
18, 2017. (D.I. 282 ("Tr.")).
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 has the initial burden
of proving the absence of a genuinely disputed material fact
relative to the claims in question. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). Material facts are
those "that could affect the outcome" of the
proceeding, and "a dispute about a material fact is
'genuine' if the evidence is sufficient to permit a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving
party." Lamont v. New Jersey, dll F.3d 177, 181
(3d Cir. 2011). The burden on the moving party may be
discharged by pointing out to the district court that there
is an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving
party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
burden then shifts to the non-movant to demonstrate the
existence of a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87
(1986); Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa.,
891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989). A non-moving party
asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support such
an assertion by: "(A) citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, including depositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations ..., admissions, interrogatory
answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that the
materials cited [by the opposing party] do not establish the
absence ... of a genuine dispute ...." Fed.R.Civ.P.
determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists,
the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in
that party's favor. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380 (2007); Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180,
184 (3d Cir. 2007). A dispute is "genuine" only if
the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S.
At 247-49. If the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient
showing on an essential element of its case with respect to
which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex
Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of
Non-Infringement or Alternatively of Invalidity
moves for summary judgment of non-infringement arguing that
(1) there is no direct infringement because Defendant's
accused product does not contain a layer of 100% platelets as
required by the asserted claims and (2) Plaintiffs indirect
infringement claims fail. (D.I. 184).
are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether
Defendant's accused product contains a layer of 100%
platelets as required by the asserted claims. For example,
there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
DEHESIVE 480, which the 3G11 product uses, is a silicone
resin or carrier. (See, e.g., D.I. 215 at SOF
10-16). There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether silane is a silicone resin or carrier. (See,
e.g., Id. at SOF 17-20). Thus, summary judgment is
denied as to Plaintiffs direct infringement claims.
conceded its indirect infringement claims. (Id. at
p. 21 n.5; Tr. 33:24-34:14). f Thus, summary judgment is
granted as to Plaintiffs indirect infringement claims.
also move for summary judgment of invalidity arguing that
Mormont anticipates the asserted patent claims. (D.I. 184).
There is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
Mormont discloses the use of silicones such as PDMS.
(See, e.g., ...