Magna Elecs., Inc. v. TRW Auto. Holdings Corp.

Magna Elecs., Inc. v. TRW Auto. Holdings Corp.

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING

This matter is before the Court on TRW's motion for partial summary judgment as [*4]  to claim 41 of the '149 patent. (ECF No. 583 in 1:12-cv-654; ECF No. 518 in 1:13-cv-324). TRW argues that the claim is invalid under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. (Id.)

Legal Framework: Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Tucker v. Tennessee, 539 F.3d 526, 531 (6th Cir. 2008). The burden is on the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, but that burden may be discharged by pointing out the absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 817 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325).

The facts, and the inferences drawn from them, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986)). Once the moving party has carried its burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts, supported by evidence in the record, showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. The question is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-252; see Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 519 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that [*5]  "conclusory statements, subjective beliefs, or intuition cannot defeat" a summary judgment motion). The function of the district court "is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Resolution Trust Corp. v. Myers, 9 F.3d 1548 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249).

Legal Framework: Double Patenting

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.