Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00774/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-00774-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

1

Case No. 5:11-cv-00774-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEK GLOBAL S.R.L., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:11-cv-00774-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 

INFRINGEMENT

(Re: Docket Nos. 361, 362)

Following reversal and remand by the Federal Circuit,1the parties renew their motions for 

summary judgment on the issue of infringement of United States Patent No. 7,789,110. The 

posture is precisely what one would expect. Plaintiffs TEK Global, S.R.L. and TEK Corporation 

argue that there is no genuine issue that the accused products practice each limitation of each 

asserted independent claim.2 Defendants Sealant Systems International, Inc. and ITW Global Tire 

Repair argue the reverse, that is, that no reasonable jury could find that any accused product 

practices each and every necessary limitation.3 Having studied the parties’ papers and considered 

their oral arguments, the court concludes that neither party gets its right, and that genuine issues of

material fact remain for trial. Both motions are DENIED.

While the parties address a variety of claim limitations that in fact remain in genuine 

dispute, the court focuses its comments on just three: the hose and dispenser unit housed inside a

 

1

See Docket No. 357.

2

See Docket Nos. 362, 98.

3

See Docket Nos. 361, 103.

Case 3:11-cv-00774-VC Document 396 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 5:11-cv-00774-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

recess in the base of the casing to stably and functionally connect the container and compressor, 

the recess in the base of the housing and the outer casing that defines a seat for the container. The 

parties are all well-familiar with the legal standards applicable to an infringement analysis, and so 

the court will get right to it.

The debate regarding these limitations boils down to whether the accused products have 

the necessary recess, or seat, for a stable and functional connection between the sealant container 

and compressor when the container is housed in that recess. The record is replete with evidence 

that a reasonable jury could rely on to decide this issue in either side’s favor. For Plaintiffs, not 

only does their expert Dr. Homayoon Kazerooni opine that the products do have the necessary 

recess, by pointing to the container cap when snapped into the outer casing,4but Defendants’ own 

executive and expert Brett Mueller suggests the same in describing the products’ “nest.”

5

 

Defendants’ other expert, Dr. Randall King, says the opposite.

6 While Plaintiffs dismiss King’s 

testimony as “conclusory,”

7

it is no more so than Kazerooni’s. Any lack of substance or 

foundation may be explored by cross-examination.

As for a fourth limitation—fast-fit coupling—that Defendants say is missing in the accused 

products,8a reasonable jury could nevertheless find that the products infringe. The reason is that a 

coupling is just one of three alternatives required by the court’s construction.9 The other two 

alternatives require no fast-fit coupling at all.10 Defendants dismiss these alternatives from the 

 

4

See Docket No. 376-5 at SSI002921; Docket No. 376-6 at SSI002935.

5 Docket No. 377-3 at 34:19-35:12. 

6

See Docket No. 103-11 at ¶ 4.

7 Docket No. 377-5 at 3.

8

See Docket No. 103 at 16-19.

9

See Docket No. 88 at 14-17.

10 See id.

Case 3:11-cv-00774-VC Document 396 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 5:11-cv-00774-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

accused products because they say the alternatives each require a functional connection between

the container and compressor when the container is seated in the outer casing.11 But as pointed 

above, a reasonable jury could rely on Kazerooni’s testimony alone to find otherwise.12 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

11 Docket No. 103 at 8-10, 16.

12 See Docket No. 376-6 at SSI2935.

Case 3:11-cv-00774-VC Document 396 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 3