Opinion ID: 781032
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Liability of the Secondary Defendants

Text: 65 We reach a different conclusion with respect to the issue of the alleged absence of liability of defendants Airboss of America Corp., Magnuson and Mediavilla. The district court ruled that the defendants were not entitled to a trial on the lack of responsibility of one or more of the defendants for the acts of infringement, because this affirmative defense[] was not raised in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Order at 2-3. While the district court judge incorrectly classified the alleged non-liability of the secondary, defendants as an affirmative defense, he was nonetheless correct that failure to raise the issue resulted in waiver. 66 The defendants argue that this issue was not presented by the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, because it failed to separately discuss the infringement liability of defendants other than Airboss Railway Products, Inc. or offer specific evidence as to the liability of each defendant. We disagree. The plaintiffs' motion specifically sought a finding of infringement as to all defendants: the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court ... enter[ ] judgment of infringement against the Defendants and in favor of the Plaintiffs on claim 3 of the '046 patent. (Suggestions of Pls. In Support of Their Mot. for Summ. J. of Aug. 31, 2001, at 20.) The individual defendants and Airboss of America Corp. were obligated to oppose this motion with their arguments as to the secondary defendants' non-liability for infringement. As the Eleventh Circuit has observed, there is no onus on the district court to distill any possible argument which could be made based on the materials before the court. Presenting such arguments in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is the responsibility of the non-moving party, not the court. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Weitz, 913 F.2d 1544, 1550 (11th Cir.1990) (holding that whether or not change of circumstances is viewed as an affirmative defense to an ERISA civil enforcement action, it must be raised by the non-movant in response to a motion for summary judgment, or it is waived). Just as an affirmative defense must be raised in response to a summary judgment motion, or it is waived, Diversey Lever, Inc. v. Ecolab, Inc., 191 F.3d 1350, 1353, 52 USPQ2d 1062, 1064 (Fed.Cir.1999), so also the defendants' arguments as to the nonliability of the secondary defendants was waived when it was not raised in response to the motion for summary judgment. 4