Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. v. Unifrax I LLC

United States District Court, D. Delaware

May 5, 2017

E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
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 for Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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.")).

         I. LEGAL 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 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.

         The 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. 56(c)(1).

         When 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.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement or Alternatively of Invalidity

         Defendant 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).

         There 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Defendant 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., ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.