Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100329_0000441.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-04-26 11:50:20
Document Index: 528648756

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 282', '§ 3', '§ 102', '§ 3']

ORDER DENYING INVALIDITY OF CLAIMS 1, 5, 6 AND 8 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102 AND/OR § 103 AS ANTICIPATED AND/OR AS OBVIOUS DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF [Docket No. 470]
This matter comes before the Court on Signet's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103 as anticipated and/or obvious. The Zeiss parties have filed an opposition and Signet has filed a reply.
To prevail on a motion for summary judgment alleging patent invalidity, the moving party must overcome the statutory presumption that the patent is valid. See 35 U.S.C. § 282; IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1381. This is not an easy task. Indeed, the moving party can only overcome the presumption with "clear and convincing evidence" of patent invalidity. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). Consistent with the burden-shifting procedure for summary judgment, if the moving party, or challenger, provides evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie showing on an issue, the burden of production of evidence shifts to the patent owner. If the patent owner provides some contradictory evidence, then the trier of fact must resolve the conflict with the challenger, as noted, bearing the burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence. 1 Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents § 3.04[1][b][v] (2005).
Here, Defendant asserts claims 1, 5, 6 and 8 of the '713 Patent are invalid as anticipated and obvious. "Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means lack of novelty, and is a question of fact." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Determining whether a claim is anticipated involves two steps: (1) construing the claims, and (2) comparing the properly construed claims to the prior art. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). See also 1 Chisum, supra, § 3.02[1][g] (quoting Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) ("'First is construing the claim, a question of law for the court, followed by . . . a comparison of the construed claim to the prior art.'") "To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim." Brown, 265 F.3d at 1351 (citations omitted). See also IPXL, 430 F.3d at 1381 (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001)) (same). This is the same test for determining infringement, i.e., "'[t]hat which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.'" Brown, 265 F.3d at 1351 (quoting Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Based on this Court's review of the briefs and evidence submitted in support thereof, there is a genuine issue of material fact about whether claims 1, 5, 6 and 8 of the '713 Patent are invalid as anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment on these issues is denied.