UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

O R D E R

On July 9, 2009, the court denied HemCon, Inc.’s motion for

summary judgment on invalidity of the ‘245 patent. Included in

the order were determinations that HemCon was not entitled to

summary judgment on its defenses of lack of enablement and the

unpatentability of a natural product. Marine Polymer

Technologies, Inc. moved in limine to preclude HemCon from

introducing evidence of the enablement and natural product

defenses at trial on the theory that the court had granted

judgment in Marine Polymer’s favor on those defenses. The motion

was denied. Marine Polymer now moves for clarification of the

order denying its motion in limine.

Taking sentences from the order denying HemCon’s motion for

summary judgment and denying reconsideration out of context,

Marine Polymer again argues that the court granted summary

judgment in Marine Polymer’s favor on the enablement and natural

product defenses. As the court explained in the previous order,

denying Marine Polymer’s motion in limine, no affirmative relief

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 300 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 4
was granted to Marine Polymer on those defenses. Marine Polymer

did not file a cross motion for summary judgment on HemCon’s

invalidity defenses.1 

When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court

resolves all reasonable inferences and all credibility issues in

favor of the nonmoving party, which was Marine Polymer. See

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

Therefore, the court could not and did not grant Marine Polymer

affirmative relief on HemCon’s enablement and natural product

defenses by denying HemCon’s motion for summary judgment. See,

e.g., Estrada v. Rhode Island, 594 F.3d 56, 62 (1st Cir. 2010)

(“‘It is not for the court on summary judgment to weigh the

evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for

trial.’” quoting Meuser v. Fed. Express Corp., 564 F.3d 507, 515

(1st Cir. 2009)); Noonan v. Staples, Inc., 556 F.3d 20, 25 (1st

Cir. 2009) (“At summary judgment, the court’s task is not to

weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to

determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”) (internal

1In its motion seeking clarification, Marine Polymer appears

to argue for a decision on the merits of HemCon’s enablement and

natural product defenses. For example, in support of the motion

for clarification, Marine Polymer asserts that the natural

product defense is “meritless.” A motion for clarification is

not an appropriate vehicle for seeking a judgment in Marine

Polymer’s favor on HemCon’s defenses.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 300 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 4
quotation marks omitted). See also Ford Motor Co. v. United

States, 157 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[C]ourts do not make

findings of fact on summary judgment.”).

Because the sentences Marine Polymer cites are open to 

misinterpretation and have caused confusion in the case, the

court will amend the order denying summary judgment, issued on

July 9, 2009, to clarify the cited sections. On page 16, the

last sentence in the middle paragraph (“Therefore, because the

specification . . . § 112.”) is struck and replaced with: 

Therefore, a genuine issue remains for trial as to

whether the specification enables the invention of the

‘245 patent, as required by § 112. 

At the top of page 17, in the second paragraph after “HemCon’s

theory is unpersuasive,” the following statement is added:

HemCon has not shown, for purposes of summary judgment,

that the ‘245 patent claims a natural product. 

Therefore, a genuine issue remains for trial as to

whether the ‘245 is invalid because it claims a natural

product.

As the amendments to the July 9, 2009, order should make clear,

the court did not resolve the enablement and natural product

defenses in the order denying summary judgment. To the extent

the order denying reconsideration could be interpreted to suggest

a contrary conclusion, that interpretation is incorrect.

3

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 300 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 4
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Marine Polymer’s motion for

clarification (document no. 294) is denied.

The court’s order, issued on July 9, 2009, (document no.

146) is amended on pages 16 and 17 as is more fully explained in

this order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 13, 2010

cc: Julie M. Baher, Esquire

Garet K. Galster, Esquire

Daniel R. Johnson, Esquire

Heather E. Krans, Esquire

Joseph A. Kromholz, Esquire

Lynda Q. Nguyen, Esquire

Brian M. Poissant, Esquire

Daniel D. Ryan, Esquire

Ognian V. Shentov, Esquire

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esquire

Daniel E. Will, Esquire

Leigh S. Willey, Esquire

4

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 300 Filed 04/13/10 Page 4 of 4