Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Harel v. KGM - MSJ Brief

Harel v. KGM - MSJ Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by slburstein
Harel v. KGM - MSJ Brief
Harel v. KGM - MSJ Brief

More info:

Published by: slburstein on Nov 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
# 2489428 v1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA0:12-cv-61669 WPD-LSS
YIGAL COHEN HAREL, an individual;INTEGRAL LOGISTICS, LLC, a Floridalimited liability company,Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants,v.KGM INDUSTRIES CO., INC., a Californiacorporation, JOHN DOES 1-10 and XYZCORPORATIONS 1-10,Defendants-Counterclaimants.))))))))))))) _____________________________________ )AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. )) _____________________________________ )
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
Case 0:12-cv-61669-WPD Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 1 of 26
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.
- i -
# 2489428 v1
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................4A. Asserted Patents.......................................................................................................4B. The Thunderbird 2 ...................................................................................................4C. Prior Litigation.........................................................................................................6III. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................7A. Legal Standard.........................................................................................................71. Summary Judgment .....................................................................................72. Design Patent Infringement .........................................................................8B. The Prior Art is Crowded.........................................................................................8C. The Ignition Tower Designs of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs’Patents are Not Substantially the Same .................................................................10D. The Push-Button Designs of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs’Patents are Not Substantially the Same .................................................................13E. The Lever Hinges of the Thunderbird 2 and Plaintiffs’ Patents areDissimilar...............................................................................................................16F. The Parties’ Designs as a Whole are Not Substantially the Same.........................18IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................19
Case 0:12-cv-61669-WPD Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 2 of 26
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage No(s).
- ii -
# 2489428 v1
 Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc.
,439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................13, 16
 Applied Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.
,448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................7
Chef’n Corp. v. Trudeau Corp.
,C08-1135 MJP, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47013(W.D. Wash. June 4, 2009)..................................................................................................7
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.
,948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................................7
 Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.
,543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................... passim
Great Neck Saw Mfrs., Inc. v. Star Asia U.S.A. LLC 
,727 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (W.D. Wash. 2010)...........................................................................7
 Harel v. K.K. Int’l Trading Corp
.,C.A. 12-cv-04527-BMC (E.D.N.Y.)..............................................................................6, 15
 Keurig, Inc. v. JBR, Inc.
, No. 11-11941-FDS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73845(D. Mass. May 24, 2013).....................................................................................................7
 L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co.
,988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1993)....................................................................................13, 16
 Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp.,
728 F.2d 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984)..........................................................................................10
 In re Mann
,861 F.2d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988)........................................................................................2, 9
 Minka Lighting, Inc. v. Maxim Lighting Int’l 
, No. 3:06-CV-995-K, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20948(N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2009).......................................................................................7, 12, 19
OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys
,122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................7, 8
 Petersen Mfg. Co. v. Central Purchasing, Inc.
,740 F.2d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1984)............................................................................................7
Case 0:12-cv-61669-WPD Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2013 Page 3 of 26

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->