Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
February 23, 2016, Decided
Civil No. 11-cv-392-JL
This patent infringement action relates to tilt and vibration sensors. Defendants Tien-Ming Chou, OncQue Corporation, and defendant and counter-claimant Bravotronics Corporation, have moved for summary judgment that the patents asserted in this action by plaintiff and counter-claim defendant SignalQuest, Inc.,1 are invalid and that Bravotronics does not infringe them. Specifically, the defendants contend that SignalQuest's patents are invalid because, during a recently concluded ex parte reexamination, SignalQuest cancelled a dependent [*2] claim related to the shape of the embodiment of one part of the invention, thus -- defendants contend -- disclaiming that particular embodiment and invaliding the patent to the extent SignalQuest contends the reissued claims cover that embodiment. And even if the patents are valid, the defendants argue, defendants do not infringe because they do not sell any of the accused products in the United States.
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338 (patents) and 1331 (federal question). After hearing oral argument, the court denies the defendants' motion. As discussed more fully below, SignalQuest has submitted evidence sufficient to raise a question of material fact as to whether the defendants have made offers to sell the accused infringing devices within the United States. And the defendants have not demonstrated that they are entitled to judgment of invalidity as a matter of law.
I. Applicable legal standard
Summary judgment is appropriate where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The movant bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue [*3] of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The opposing party may defeat such a motion by presenting competent evidence of record demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). The court views the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Id. at 255. But the court need not countenance "conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation."
Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21749 *; 2016 DNH 035
SignalQuest, Inc. v. Tien-Ming Chou, OneQue Corporation, and Bravotronics Corporation
Subsequent History: Reconsideration denied by SignalQuest, Inc. v. Tien-Ming Chou, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76571 (D.N.H., 2016)
Prior History: SignalQuest, Inc. v. Tien-Ming Chou & Oncque Corp., 284 F.R.D. 45, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70998 (2012)
patents, quotation, infringing, reissued, invalidity, summary judgment, defendants', products, offers, material fact, reexamination, offer to sell, embodiment, cancelled, Reply, summary judgment motion, original claim, recipient, sensor