Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01147-13/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 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RPA International Pty Ltd., d/b/a Nufurn

Pty Ltd.; Nufurn, Inc.; and Dennis

Michael Krawchuk, an individual,

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants,

CASE NO. 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

ORDER

vs.

Compact International, Inc.; Lee Johnson,

an individual; BA Global Sdn. Bhd; BZ

Global (H.K.) Limited; Chee Choon Chea,

an individual; and Kok Cheong Soo, an

individual,

Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

HAYES, Judge:

The Matter before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 112) filed

by Defendant Kok Cheong Soo.

Background

On May 26, 2006, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing the Complaint (Doc. # 1). 

The Complaint alleges claims for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. On September 13, 2006, Defendants filed an Answer

to the Complaint and a Counterclaim (Doc. # 15). Default has since been entered against

Defendants Compact International, Inc., Lee Johnson, BA Global Sdn. Bhd, BZ Global (H.K.)

Limited and Chee Choon Chea (Docs. # 99, 110). 

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 118 Filed 11/03/08 Page 1 of 3
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 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

On July 28, 2008, Defendant Kok Cheong Soo (“Soo”) filed the Motion for Summary

Judgment. The Motion for Summary Judgment states in full:

Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims were filed on

September 13, 2006 and subsequently on May 31, 2007 the Amended Answer,

Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims were filed. 

Defendant has been hurt by this action of Plaintiffs and respectfully moves this

Court for summary judgment on all Counterclaims against Plaintiffs.

Mot. for Summary Judgment, p. 1-2. 

On September 2, 2008, Plaintiffs filed the Response in Opposition to the Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. # 113). Plaintiffs oppose the Motion for Summary Judgment on

grounds that the Motion “is completely void of support, legal or factual.” Opposition, p. 4.

Plaintiffs contend that “Soo has provided no legal support and no evidentiary support for his

motion. Soo further fails to attempt to establish any fact of record supports his claims.” Id.

at 3. Plaintiffs contend that Soo has failed to meet the initial burden of production required by

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “Soo, the movant, submitted no

evidence and, thereby, failed to meet his initial burden of production by making any showing

to the Court.” Id. at 5 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs also contend that the Motion for

Summary Judgment is lacking because “Soo has not attempted to demonstrate that there are

undisputed material facts that could justify a decision in his favor on any of his counterclaims

under the controlling law.” Id. at 5-6. 

Applicable Law

Summary judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure where the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact

and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under the governing

substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute over a material fact is genuine if “the evidence is such

that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 118 Filed 11/03/08 Page 2 of 3
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 - 06cv1147 WQH (AJB)

A party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial burden of establishing the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party

satisfies its initial burden, the nonmoving party must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own

affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(e)). 

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view all inferences drawn

from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Matsushita

Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). “Credibility

determinations [and] the weighing of evidence . . . are jury functions, not those of a judge,

[when] he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 

Ruling of the Court

Other than the vague assertion that “Defendant has been hurt,” the Motion for Summary

Judgment does not identify any basis in fact or in law, undisputed or otherwise, which would

justify granting summary judgment. Mot. for Summary Judgment, p. 2. The Court concludes

that Soo has failed to satisfy his initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue

of material fact as required by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 112) is

DENIED. 

DATED: November 3, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01147-WQH-AJB Document 118 Filed 11/03/08 Page 3 of 3