Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02669/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02669-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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 By order of August 11, 2005, said motion was referred

by the undersigned to the magistrate judge.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

McKESSON INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-02-2669 FCD KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRIDGE MEDICAL, INC.,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On September 26, 2005, Magistrate Judge Mueller filed

Findings and Recommendations (“F&R”) on defendant Bridge Medical,

Inc.’s (“defendant”) motion for summary judgment of noninfringement,1 recommending denial of the motion. Defendant

timely filed objections to the F&R on October 17, 2005 and

plaintiff McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. (“plaintiff”)

replied thereto on October 31, 2005.

Case 2:02-cv-02669-FCD-KJM Document 547 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2 The court notes that with respect to the magistrate

judge’s findings on defendant’s motion for non-direct

infringement, the magistrate judge was not obligated to consider

every alternative bases for defendant’s motion. While defendant

sought a finding of partial summary judgment, the grant of such a

motion is discretionary and should be done only if it will

“materially expedite the adjudicative process.” 10A, Wright &

Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc., § 2737 at 319. Here, the magistrate

judge found that there were triable issues of fact on direct

infringement based on defendant’s use of the MedPoint System;

that use-theory of direct infringement presents common disputed

issues and facts with the other theories of direct infringement

raised by defendant (namely, making, selling or offering to sell

an infringing system). 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (there is direct

infringement of a patent only when a party “makes, uses, offers

to sell or sells any patented invention”). As such, it was

properly within the magistrate judge’s discretion to decline to

reach these other theories of infringement. 

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Eastern District Local Rule 72-304, this court

has conducted a de novo review of this matter. Having carefully

reviewed the entire file, the court finds the F&R to be supported

by the record and by proper analysis.2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

The F&R, filed September 26, 2005, is adopted in full. 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2005.

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02669-FCD-KJM Document 547 Filed 12/09/05 Page 2 of 2