Opinion ID: 676015
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Content of the prior art

Text: 10 Matsushita asserts that the district court erroneously resolved factual differences against it based on the court's statement that Comair and Matsushita differ on the content of the prior art. Matsushita's spin on the district court's statement is disingenuous at best. In a footnote immediately following the quoted statement, the district court noted that the content dispute centered around whether certain prior art could be considered based on Comair's assertion that the art was not timely presented. That issue was resolved in favor of Matsushita necessarily defeating Matsushita's argument here that a factual issue was resolved against it precluding summary judgment. 11 Matsushita also asserts that the district court improperly granted summary judgment because Japanese laid-open patent application No. 56-10066 (the '066 JLOPA) does not teach true nulls. We disagree. There is no factual dispute created by the assertion of an inference for which there is no basis in the evidence. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986). As found previously by this court, the '066 JLOPA does not teach the use of true nulls, Matsushita's arguments notwithstanding. Thus, there was no genuinely disputed material issue with regard to the content of the '066 JLOPA. 12 With regard to the Sunbeam motor, Matsushita asserts that the district court improperly decided the factual issue of whether Sunbeam intended or appreciated the significance of the true nulls disclosed there. However, this does not raise a material factual dispute because regardless of whether the necessity of true nulls was taught by the Sunbeam motor, the district court determined that true nulls were in fact taught. Importantly, the district court found that the Sunbeam motor teaches nothing about an integral magnet with commutation portion all in one-piece because the Sunbeam motor is a brush motor. 13 We similarly find that the district court did not determine any disputed material factual issues with regard to either the EM article or the Takahashi patent. Matsushita's bare assertion that the EM article teaches the concept of true nulls using different words is untenable and does not raise a disputed issue. Additionally, Matsushita's recognition in the district court that the Takahashi patent does not teach true nulls in the field portion negates its assertion here of a material dispute regarding an express disclosure of the purpose of true nulls in the Takahashi patent. 14