Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WORDTECH SYSTEMS, INC., No. 2:04-CV-1971-MCE-EFB

A California Corporation

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INTEGRATED NETWORK SOLUTIONS,

CORP., dba INTEGRATED 

SYSTEMS, aka INTERNET 

NETWORK STORAGE COMPANY, 

aka INSC; NASSER KHATEMI; 

HAMID ASSADIAN; BRIAN J. 

DEAN; MICHAEL F. ELLSWORTH;

EHTERAM GHODSIAN; INTEGRATED

NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC., a

Nevada Corporation; SHOHREH

JAVADI; SAN JUAN UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES 1-

50, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Wordtech Systems, Inc.

(“Wordtech”) has alleged that Defendants Integrated Network

Solutions, Inc., Nasser Khatemi and Hamid Assadian (“Defendants”)

infringed several of its patents (“Patents-in-Suit”).

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 152 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

 This affirmative defense was raised by a Co-Defendant who 2

has since been dismissed from the proceedings.

2

Presently before the Court is Wordtech’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment. Wordtech argues that invalidity of the

Patents-in-Suit has never been raised as a triable issue of fact

by Defendants. Wordtech further contends that even to the extent

the issue may have been raised, Defendants failed to establish

the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on validity as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). For the reasons set forth

below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.1

BACKGROUND

On September 22, 2004, Plaintiff, a California corporation

and the owner of the Patents-in-Suit at issue in this matter,

filed an infringement action against the Defendants. Plaintiff

filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 28, 2005,

alleging, among other things, infingement of the Patents-in-Suit. 

In their prayer for relief, Plaintiff sought a declaration that

the Patents-in-Suit were valid. Defendants answered the FAC

three weeks later. 

In their Answer, Defendants declared Plaintiff’s allegations

regarding the issuance and ownership of the Patents-in-Suit to be

“correct.” Defendants raised several affirmative defenses, but

did not include patent invalidity.2

On February 13, 2007, Defendants moved to amend their Answer

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 152 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

to include the affirmative defense of patent invalidiy. This

Court denied Defendant’s Motion, holding that Defendants failed

to show diligence in pursuing the affirmative defense of

invalidity and could not satisfy the good cause standard required

to grant such a Motion. 

On March 16, 2007, Wordtech filed the present Motion for

Partial Summary Adjudication. Defendants did not oppose

Plaintiff’s Motion, as reflected by Plaintiff’s Reply in Support

of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed on April 11, 2007. 

In light of Defendant’s lack of opposition, Plaintiff now seeks a

declaration of validity of the Patents-in-Suit. 

STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate for patent cases. Avia

Group Int’l, Inc., v. L.A. Gear California, Inc., 853 F.2d 1557,

1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provide for summary judgment when “the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). One of the

principal purposes of Rule 56 is to dispose of factually

unsupported claims or defenses. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 325 (1986).

Rule 56 also allows a court to grant summary adjudication on

part of a claim or defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (“A party

seeking to recover upon a claim ... may ... move ... for a

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 152 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

summary judgment in the party’s favor upon all or any part

thereof.”); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Madan, 889 F. Supp.

374, 378-79 (C.D. Cal. 1995); France Stone Co., Inc. v. Charter

Township of Monroe, 790 F. Supp. 707, 710 (E.D. Mich. 1992).

The standard that applies to a motion for summary

adjudication is the same as that which applies to a motion for

summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), 56(c); Mora v.

ChemTronics, 16 F. Supp. 2d. 1192, 1200 (S.D. Cal. 1998).

Under summary judgment practice, the moving party

always bears the initial responsibility of informing

the district court of the basis for its motion, and

identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions

on file together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it

believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of

material fact.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 323(quoting Rule 56(c)).

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the

burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a

genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,

585-87 (1986); First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S.

253, 288-89 (1968).

In attempting to establish the existence of this factual

dispute, the opposing party must tender evidence of specific

facts in the form of affidavits, and/or admissible discovery

material, in support of its contention that the dispute exists. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).

The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in

contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the

outcome of the suit under the governing law, and that the dispute

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 152 Filed 06/21/07 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

is genuine, i.e., 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, 248, 251-52 (1986); Owens v.

Local No. 169, Assoc. of Western Pulp and Paper Workers, 971 F.2d

347, 355 (9th Cir. 1987). Stated another way, “before the

evidence is left to the jury, there is a preliminary question for

the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but

whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to

find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of

proof is imposed.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251 (quoting

Improvement Co. v. Munson, 14 Wall. 442, 448, 20 L.Ed. 867

(1872)). As the Supreme Court explained, “[w]hen the moving

party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must

do more that simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as

to the material facts .... Where the record taken as a whole

could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving

party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita, 475

U.S. at 586-87.

In resolving a summary judgment motion, the evidence of the

opposing party is to be believed, and all reasonable inferences

that may be drawn from the facts placed before the court must be

drawn in favor of the opposing party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 

Nevertheless, inferences are not drawn out of the air, and it is

the opposing party’s obligation to produce a factual predicate

from which the inference may be drawn. Richards v. Nielsen

Freight Lines, 602 F. Supp. 1224, 1244-45 (E.D. Cal. 1985).

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 152 Filed 06/21/07 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, the Court must begin its analysis with

the presumption that these Patents-in-Suit are valid. 35 U.S.C.

§ 282. This presumption of patent validity is based upon the

assumed expertise of the Patent Office. Speed Shore Corp. v.

Denda, 605 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1979). In an infringement

action, the burden is upon the challenger to produce evidence

that raises the issue of invalidity. Avia Group Int’l, Inc., 853

F.2d at 1562. The challenger must establish facts by clear and

convincing evidence that forcefully manifest invalidity. Id. 

In the present case, Wordtech does not labor under the

burden of proving the validity of its Patents-in-Suit. Wordtech

is entitled to the presumption of validity until such evidence is

proffered by the Defendants suggesting otherwise. Defendants did

not contest validity in their Answer. Defendants admitted that

Wordtech’s Patents-in-Suit are properly issued and presently

owned by Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendants did not raise the

affirmative defense of invalidity. Invalidity is an affirmative

defense in any infringement action, to be raised in the

pleadings. 35 U.S.C. § 282. 

By failing to deny Wordtech’s allegations of validity, as

well as failing to raise the affirmative defense of invalidity,

Defendants did not successfully raise the issue in the pleadings. 

Despite the extremely limited record, Wordtech is entitled to the

presumption of validity.

Wordtech identifies the lack of denials or affirmative

defenses made by Defendants in regard to invalidity as grounds

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 152 Filed 06/21/07 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

for partial summary judgment. Having alleged a lack of genuine

issue of material fact, the burden shifts to Defendants to

demonstrate invalidity. As noted above, Defendants elected not

to oppose Wordtech’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Given

Defendants’ failure to deny Wordtech’s allegations or raise the

affirmative defense of invalidity, together with their failure to

oppose the present Motion, the Court finds Defendants have failed

to meet their burden. Accordingly, for purposes of this

litigation, Wordtech’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the

Validity of the Patents-in-Suit is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Wordtech’s Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment of Validity is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 152 Filed 06/21/07 Page 7 of 7