Opinion ID: 211812
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Adhesive”

Text: On appeal, PPG argues that the Gallagher testimony satisfactorily established a genuine issue of material fact whether Lockformer’s accused device contained an adhesive as required by the claims of the ’916 patent. It alleges that his statements that the desiccant matrix “stuck” to the substrate when he shook the IGU spacers were sufficient to require the court to submit the issue to a jury. PPG contends that the district court failed to draw inferences in its favor as nonmovant by rejecting that testimony and thus committed error by granting summary judgment of noninfringement based on the alleged lack of an adhesive in Lockformer’s accused device. 03-1459, -1542 7 Lockformer responds that Gallagher testified merely that the desiccant matrix did not rattle when the spacer was shaken. It contends that he did not state that the desiccant was adhesive or that it adhered to the spacer frame. Instead, Lockformer argues, PPG failed to meet its burden of proof because Gallagher did not testify that the RL-50 matrix remained “stuck” throughout the process of shaping the flat strip with the bead of adhesive into spacer stock and fixing glass to the spacer frame. Lockformer alleges that the court’s decision to grant summary judgment was properly based on the fact that Gallagher did not provide any testimony as to when or how the matrix “stuck” to the spacer frame. We agree with Lockformer that the court properly granted summary judgment of noninfringement because PPG failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact whether RL-50 was an adhesive that adhered to the spacer. The district court properly relied on declarations from several witnesses—namely, Randy Runyan, Louis Ferri, Gary Dickinson, and Kevin Zuege—that the TruSeal RL-50 desiccant matrix used in Lockformer’s IGUs was not an adhesive and does not stick to the metal substrate. The witnesses stated unequivocally in their declarations that the RL-50 desiccant did not stick to the metal frame and was thus not an adhesive. On the other hand, Gallagher’s deposition testimony does not create a genuine issue of material fact because it does not dispute that RL-50 is not an adhesive. At the Markman hearing, Gallagher testified during cross-examination as follows: Q: The desiccant that you observed being used on the Lockformer machine at the March 2000 inspection, did that adhere to the spacer frame which you saw? .... A: No, it did not. .... 03-1459, -1542 8 A: Excuse me, just for – you know, you had mentioned before about if there was some clarity needed. I need to have that question asked again. Would you mind repeating the question again? .... A: Did the matrix being used, did it adhere to the spacer? Yes. I need to correct myself on that. Q: So your first answer was incorrect? A: Yes, it did adhere. Q: And what do you mean when you say that it did adhere? A: That the matrix stuck to the metal substrate. Q: What do you mean when you say it stuck? A: That, in picking up the spacer and shaking it, it did not rattle around inside the spacer. (JA 1675-66) Thus, Gallagher testified simply that the RL-50 “stuck” to the spacer frame, or, in other words, was rendered physically immobile inside the frame. Although the Gallagher testimony may demonstrate that “RL-50 performed the function of the adhesive claimed by the ’916 patent,” Appellants’ Opening Br. at 42, Gallagher never states that RL-50 is, in fact, an adhesive. Gallagher’s mere observation that the desiccant matrix “did not rattle around inside the spacer” cannot be construed to be an assertion that the desiccant is an adhesive or that it adheres to the spacer frame. In sum, the district court acknowledged that PPG was “entitled to all reasonable inferences in its favor,” Summary Judgment Order, slip op. at 8, and properly concluded that PPG nevertheless did not present sufficient evidence to meet its