Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01311/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01311-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTICANCER, INC., a California

corporation, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09-cv-1311-GPC(JMA)

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING

[DKT. NO. 101]

vs.

FUJIFILM MEDICAL SYSTEMS U.S.A.,

INC., d/b/a FUJIFILM LIFE SCIENCE, a

New York corporation; et al.,

Defendants.

Currentlypending before the Court and set for hearing on Friday, March 8, 2013, is Defendants

Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc., Fujifilm Corporation (collectively, “Fujifilm”), and GE

Healthcare Inc.’s (“GE,” together “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

(Dkt. No. 101.) Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Court will take these matters under

submission and issue a written order in due course. Having considered the submissions of the parties,

and in anticipation of the hearing, the Court hereby tentatively rules:

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is GRANTED. 

(1) Direct Infringement

AntiCancer has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a claim for direct infringement

under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). As a preliminary matter, AntiCancer failed to provide any evidence to

support a direct infringement contention in response to Defendants’ interrogatories. Furthermore,

- 1 - 09-cv-1311-GPC(JMA)

Case 3:09-cv-01311-GPC-JMA Document 116 Filed 03/07/13 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

AntiCancer’s allegation of direct infringement by Ms. Pappas during two demonstrations fail to show

that she was unauthorized to conduct the demonstrations and fail to show that she conducted all of the

steps in the patent claims. See Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple Inc., 692 F.3d 1351, 1359 (2012)(the

patenteemust show that the Defendant performed all of the steps in the claimed methods). In addition,

AntiCancer’s circumstantial evidence of marketing material is conclusory, and fails to provide

sufficient evidence to support a direct infringement claim. 

(2) Induced Infringement 

AntiCancer has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a claim for induced

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Inducement of infringement requires that there be a showing

of an underlying act of direct infringement. Linear Tech. Corp. V. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F. 3d

1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Having failed to show any direct infringement, AntiCancer has failed

to show an essential element to its’ claim. Even assuming arguendo that the Court found some

infringing act, AntiCancer’s reliance on circumstantial evidence such as marketing brochures is

insufficient. See E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp, 473 F.3d 1213, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

(3) Contributory Infringement 

AntiCancer has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a claim for contributory

infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). AntiCancer has not pled any facts to support 

the finding that the Fujifilm instruments are not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. As such,

the Court finds that a reasonable jury would be unable to make a finding in support of AntiCancer’s

contributory infringement claim.

Counsel are advised that the Court’s rulings are tentative, and the Court will entertain

additional argument during the March 8 hearing. th

DATED: March 7, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 09-cv-1311-GPC(JMA)

Case 3:09-cv-01311-GPC-JMA Document 116 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 2