Opinion ID: 208849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary judgment of infringement of claim 22

Text: Because Contour offered no opposition, the district court granted Revolution's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to claims 6 and 34. [1] Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., No. 02-CV-01087, slip op. at 6 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 7, 2003) ( SJ Order of Non-infringement of Claims 6 and 34 ). The court, however, denied the motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 22. Id. at 11-19. Later, Contour filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of claim 22. Revolution conceded in its initial brief that its primary frames included all of the elements of claim 22 except that a top-mounted auxiliary frame would not be stably supported. However, in its supplemental brief, Revolution abandoned the argument that claim 22 included a stable support limitation. Therefore, the court found that Revolution's primary frames literally infringed claim 22 and granted Contour's motion. Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., No. 02-CV-01087 (C.D.Cal. Apr. 30, 2007) ( SJ Order of Infringement of Claim 22 ).