Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00894-8/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 - 07cv0894

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL

GMBH and CARL ZEISS VISION INC.,,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv0894 DMS (POR)

ORDER (1) DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

LITERAL INFRINGEMENT OF

CLAIMS 1 AND 6 AND (2)

DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OF

NONINFRINGEMENT OF

CLAIMS 1, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 OF THE

‘713 PATENT

[Docket Nos. 473, 479]

vs.

SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of literal

infringement of claims 1 and 6, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement

of claims 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The parties have filed opposition and reply briefs for each motion.

“Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

430 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “A material issue of fact is one

that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties’ differing versions

of the truth.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 656 Filed 03/29/10 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 - 07cv0894

The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is proper.

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). To meet this burden, the moving party must

identify the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, or other evidence that it “believes demonstrates the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If

the moving party satisfies this initial burden, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that

summary judgment is not appropriate. Id. at 324. The opposing party’s evidence is to be believed,

and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 255 (1986). See also IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1380 (quoting Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v.

Cardinal Indus., 145 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (stating “‘evidence must be viewed in the light

most favorable to the party opposing the motion, with doubts resolved in favor of the opponent.’”)

However, to avoid summary judgment, the opposing party cannot rest solely on conclusory

allegations. Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, it must designate specific

facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. More than a “metaphysical doubt” is required to

establish a genuine issue of material fact.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the Court finds there are genuine issues of material fact on

the issue of infringement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of literal

infringement of claims 1 and 6 is denied, as is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of

noninfringement of claims 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 29, 2010

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00894-DMS-DHB Document 656 Filed 03/29/10 Page 2 of 2