Sig Sauer, et al. v. Freed Designs (Doc. No. 83)

2017 DNH 189

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 14, 2017
• Docket: 14-cv-461-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sig Sauer, Inc.; Check-Mate Industries, Inc.; Check-Mate International Products, Inc.; Nordon, Inc.; and Thomas Pierce d/b/a Pierce Designs, Plaintiffs

v. Case No. 14-cv-461-SM Opinion No. 2017 DNH 189 Freed Designs, Inc., Defendant

O R D E R

Patentee’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing

the affirmative defense of anticipation with respect to Claims 1

and 4 of the patent in suit (document no. 83), is denied.

Invalidity due to anticipation is a question of fact. IPXL

Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir.

2005). Although a question of fact, anticipation may still be

resolved on summary judgment if the record reveals no genuine

dispute of material fact, and if no reasonable jury could find

that the patent is anticipated. Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp

Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

1 Here, the alleged infringer has proffered sufficient

evidence in the nature of relevant prior art and expert opinion

testimony, that, if believed by a jury, would permit a finding

by clear and convincing evidence that the claims at issue are

invalid. At the very least, the alleged infringer has plainly

identified material facts that are genuinely disputed, thereby

rendering summary judgment with respect to the anticipation

defense unavailable. “A [prior] reference may anticipate

inherently if a claim limitation that is not expressly disclosed

is necessarily present, or inherent, in the single anticipating

reference. In re Hugh Edward Montgomery, et al., 677 F.3d 1375,

1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotation

omitted). Mr. Wood, plaintiff’s expert, an apparent person of

ordinary skill in the relevant art, has opined that a number of

prior references anticipate the claims at issue, and it cannot

be said on this record that there are no material facts

genuinely disputed or that the patentee is entitled to relief as

a matter of law with respect to the anticipation defense.

Conclusion

The motion for partial summary judgment (document no. 83)

is necessarily denied.

2 SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

September 14, 2017

cc: Laura L. Carroll, Esq. Zachary R. Gates, Esq. Neal E. Friedman, Esq. Michael J. Bujold, Esq.