Sig Sauer v. Freed Designs

2017 DNH 045

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: March 9, 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 045 Freed Designs, Inc., Defendant

O R D E R

The patentee, Freed Designs, Inc., has filed a motion for

partial summary judgment declaring that the accused products

literally infringe the patent-in-suit (U.S. Patent No. 6,928,764

(the “‘764 Patent”). Disputed terms have been construed

(document no. 58), and the parties now differ with respect to

the application of the claims to the accused devices.

Because infringement (or non-infringement) is an issue of

fact, a trial court must approach a motion for summary judgment

“with a degree of care proportional to the likelihood of its

being inappropriate.” SRI International v. Matsushita Electric

Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Summary

judgment on the issue of literal infringement “is proper when no

1 reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a

properly construed claim either is or is not found in the

accused device.” PC Connector Solutions LLC v. SmartDisk Corp.,

406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Here, several common barriers to the entry of partial

summary judgment in the patentee’s favor present themselves.

First and foremost, a reasonable jury could find non-

infringement should it conclude that the accused device does not

have, inter alia, “at least one pair” of “opposed ribs,” or ribs

“oriented inward from the interior side walls,” or ribs with a

“bottom shoulder,” or “a bottom shoulder distanced above the

tangs.” Neither party has yet provided (properly disclosed)

expert opinion evidence regarding the comparative nature or

characteristic features in the patented and accused device, in

the context of the construed claims, and the record as it stands

is inadequate to establish either that no genuine disputes of

material fact exist, or that the patentee is entitled to partial

summary judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

As genuine issues of material fact exist and the patentee

has not shown entitlement to partial summary judgment as a

matter of law, and a reasonable jury on this record could find

2 that every limitation recited in the construed claims is not

found in the accused device, the patentee’s motion for partial

summary judgment with respect to literal infringement (document

no. 63) is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

March 9, 2017

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