Woodway USA, Inc. v. LifeCORE Fitness, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 30, 2025
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00492
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WOODWAY USA, INC. Case No.: 3:22-cv-00492-JO-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 13 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING 14 LIFECORE FITNESS, INC. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 15 Defendant. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 17 For the reasons stated on the record at the January 30, 2025, hearing, the Court rules 18 as follows. First, based on Defendant’s stipulation at the January 23, 2025 hearing, and 19 Plaintiff’s counsel’s non-objection, the Court dismisses Defendant’s counterclaims of 20 inequitable conduct against Plaintiff. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Second, the Court 21 grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement as to call claims and 22 denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement as to all claims. Dkt. 146; 23 Dkt. 151. While the parties’ summary judgment briefing was predominately directed at 24 Plaintiff’s theory of direct infringement, the Court’s ruling regarding direct infringement 25 requires it to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s claims of 26 induced infringement as well. Dkt. 34 at 4-8; Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 27 303 F.3d 1294, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that to establish inducement, the 28 patentee must show direct infringement). Third, because the Court grants Defendant’s 1 |}motion for summary judgment in full, and it disposes of all of Plaintiff's claims as 2 || discussed above, the Court orders the Clerk of Court to CLOSE the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: January 30, 2025 Qe 6 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 7 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28