Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01971-10/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.,

A California Corporation

2:04-CV-1971-MCE-EFB

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, among others, Defendants Nasser

Khatemi and Hamid Assadian (“Defendants”) infringed several of

its patents (“Patents-in-Suit”).

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 153 Filed 06/25/07 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). 

2

Presently before the Court are Defendants Khatemi and

Assadian’s Motions for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for

Summary Judgment of Defenses. Defendants argue that Plaintiff

has insufficient evidence to prove its case at trial against them

as individuals. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ Motions are

unsupported by admissible evidence, that Defendants have not

demonstrated a lack of genuine issue of material fact and that

Defendants are not protected by the corporate shield from

personal liability. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’

Motions are DENIED.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 as

individuals, as well as against the corporate entity of

Defendant’s employer, Integrated Network Solutions Corp.

(“INSC”).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were executives of INSC. 

Plaintiff claims that “Assadian held himself out as being in

charge and an owner of INSC,” and that “Khatemi...and Assadian

are the only two people working at INSC.” Hwang Decl., ¶3, 7, 8,

15, Ex. G. 

///

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 153 Filed 06/25/07 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

Defendants offer a different picture of their employment at

INSC, stating in their interrogatories and declarations that they

are not now, nor have ever been officers of INSC. Defendants

further declare that they have never acted outside the scope of

their employment with INSC. Defendants affirmatively state that

they “have never offered for sale, manufactured, resold, used,

assembled or sold any of INSC’s products.” Decl. of Assadian 2;

Decl. of Khatemi 2. 

Defendants filed the present Motions seeking a declaration

that Plaintiff’s Complaint is unsupported against them as

individuals. 

STANDARD

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

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

thereof.”);

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 153 Filed 06/25/07 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

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 is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. 

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 153 Filed 06/25/07 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

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),

aff’d, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987). 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 153 Filed 06/25/07 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 stated above, to prevail on the present Motions,

Defendants must show there is a lack of genuine issue as to any

material fact. Here, Defendants attempt to demonstrate a lack of

dispute regarding the scope of their official capacities with

INSC by directing the Court to Defendants’ own statements and

interrogatory responses. While that evidence certainly bears on

the validity of Plaintiff’s assertions for purposes of resolving

the ultimate issues in this matter, it is clearly not sufficient

to defeat summary judgment.

In fact, Plaintiff’s evidence suggests both Assadian and

Khatemi acted in official capacities at INSC. Specifically,

Plaintiff alleges it negotiated directly with Defendants

regarding a license for INSC’s allegedly infringing devices. 

Plaintiff also references depositions in which Defendants state

they are the only two employees at INSC’s Irvine office, and that

“important decisions” are delegated to “mostly Mr. Khatemi and

[Mr. Assadian].” Hwang Decl. Ex. F.

 Plaintiff’s evidence, if true, provides grounds for suit

against Defendants as individuals. Officers of an infringing

corporation can be held liable for corporate torts in which the

officer participates. Comm. for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc. v.

Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 823 (9th Cir. 1996). In addition, corporate

officers are liable for the tort of patent infringement under 35

U.S.C. § 271 where the officer has an “active directing hand in

full charge of its operations”. Int’l Mfg. Co. v. Landon, Inc.,

336 F.2d 723, 728 (9th Cir. 1964). 

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 153 Filed 06/25/07 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

Resolution of Defendants’ employment status at INSC presents

an issue of fact inappropriate for summary judgment. Therefore,

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative

for Summary Adjudication of Defenses are DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motions for

Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Summary Adjudication

of Defenses are DENIED. 

Dated: June 22, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 153 Filed 06/25/07 Page 7 of 7