Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Tarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 10-63-LPS (D. Del. June 14, 2012).

Tarkus Imaging, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 10-63-LPS (D. Del. June 14, 2012).

Ratings: (0)|Views: 692|Likes:
Published by Alfred Reyes

More info:

Categories:Topics, Art & Design
Published by: Alfred Reyes on Jun 22, 2012
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

07/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
T
ARK.
US IMAGING, INC.Plaintiff,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC.;CANON U.S.A., INC.;NIKON AMERICAS INC.; andNIKON, INC.Defendants,C.A. No. 10-63-LPS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Henry
E.
Gallagher, Jr. and Chad S.C. Stover, CONNOLLY
BOVE
LODGE
&
HUTZ
LLP,Wilmington, DE; Frederick A. Lorig, Steven M. Anderson, Richard H. Doss, Michael W. Gray,QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
&
SULLIVAN, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.Attorneys for Plaintiff.Douglas
E.
McCann, FISH
&
RICHARDSON P .C., Wilmington, DE; Frank E. Scherkenbach,Thomas A. Brown, FISH
&
RICHARDSON P.C., Boston, MA; Robert J. Kent, FISH
&
RICHARDSON P.C., Redwood City, CA.Attorneys for Defendant Adobe Systems, Inc.Richard
L.
Horwitz and David E. Moore,
POTTER
ANDERSON
&
CORROON LLP,Wilmington, DE; Christopher E. Chalsen, Christopher
J.
Gaspar, Nathaniel T. Browand,MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY
&
McCLOY LLP,
New
York, NY.Attorneys for Defendant Canon U.S.A., Inc.June 14, 2012Wilmington, Delaware
 
Pending before the Court are: (1)
Canon's
Motion for Summary Judgment
ofNon-
Infringement (D.I. 214); (2)
Canon's
Motion for Summary Judgment
oflnvalidity
(D.I. 217);(3)
Adobe's
Motion for Summary Judgment
ofNon-lnfringement
(D.I. 220); and (4)
Adobe's
Motion for Summary Judgment
ofNo
Indirect Infringement (D.I. 222).
1
For
the reasonsdiscussed below, each
of
these motions will
be
denied.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Tarkus Imaging, Inc. ("Tarkus") initiated the instant patent infringement actionagainst Adobe Systems, Inc. ("Adobe") and Canon U.S.A., Inc. ("Canon") (collectively,"Defendants")
on
January 26, 2010. (D.I. 1) Tarkus alleges that Defendants infringe U.S. PatentNo. 6,628,823 (the
"'823
patent"
or
"the patent-in-suit"). (Jd.) Details about the patent-in-suitand more extensive background are provided
in
the
Court's
Memorandum Opinion regardingclaim construction.
(See
D.I. 367)The Court heard argument on the pending summary
judgment
motions at the pretrialconference on June
1,
2012.
See
Pretrial Conference
Hr'g
Tr., June
1,
2012 (hereinafter "Tr.")(D.I. 432).
At
the pretrial conference, the Court informed the parties that
it
was inclined to denythe pending summary
judgment
motions. (Tr. at 155) Having reviewed the briefing, expertreports, and other documentary evidence submitted
in
support thereof, the Court concludes thatsummary judgment is not appropriate at this time. In large part, the portions
of
this case at issuein the pending summary
judgment
motions present a "battle
of
the experts" that is not amenable'Various other motions remain pending
in
this case, which this Memorandum Opiniondoes not address.
1
 
 
to resolution prior to the presentation
of
evidence, including testimony.
See generally TransonicSys., Inc.
v.
Non-Invasive Med. Techs. Corp.,
143 Fed. Appx.
320,330
(Fed. Cir. July 25, 2005)(finding "expert testimony sufficient to raise a genuine issue
of
material fact");
Goldman
v.
Standard Ins. Co.,
341
F.3d 1023, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying summary judgment becausedetermination
of"who
is correct in this battle
of
experts is not for [the Court] to decide");
Rockwell Int'l Corp.
v.
United States,
147 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming denial
of
summary judgment, given that "summary judgment papers [were] not sufficient to resolve thedifferences in expert opinion").
II.
LEGALSTANDARDS
"The court shall grant summary judgment
if
the movant shows that there is no genuinedispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
oflaw."
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
56( a). The moving party bears the burden
of
demonstrating the absence
of
a genuineissue
of
material fact.
See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
v.
Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574,586 n.lO (1986).
An
assertion that a fact cannot
be-
or, alternatively,
is-
genuinely disputedmust be supported either by citing to "particular parts
of
materials in the record, includingdepositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations(including those made for the purposes
of
the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, orother materials," or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence
of
a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support thefact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(l)(A)
&
(B).
If
the moving party has carried its burden, thenonmovant must then "come forward with specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue
for
trial." Matsushita,
475 U.S. at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).2

You're Reading a Free Preview

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