![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
October 9, 2018, Decided; October 9, 2018, Filed
No. 15 C 8178
[*812] MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals L.P. ("Sunoco") is the holder of five patents covering a system and method for blending butane into gasoline immediately before the mixture is distributed to the tanker trucks that supply retail gas stations. Sunoco [**2] sued Defendant U.S. Venture, Inc. and its subsidiary, U.S. Oil Co. (together, "Venture"), for infringing Sunoco's patents at six of Venture's fuel terminals. (Am. and Supp. Compl. for Patent Infringement  ("Sunoco's Am. Compl."), 4.) Venture filed numerous counterclaims in response, seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability based on the inventors' allegedly inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trade Office ("PTO") during the patents' prosecution. (Venture's Answer, Aff. Defenses, and Countercls. to Pl.'s Am. Compl.  ("Venture's Am. Answer"), 52-89.) In a previous opinion, this court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Sunoco on several of its infringement claims. Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., No. 15 C 8178, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159109, 2017 WL 4283946, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2017) ("Sunoco SJ Opinion I").
The parties have now filed additional, opposing motions for summary judgment. Venture seeks summary judgment of non-infringement, a declaration of invalidity of certain claims in Sunoco's patents, and a ruling barring an award of lost profits damages. (Venture's SJ Mot. , 1-2.) Sunoco's cross-motion for summary judgment does not seek further rulings on the question of infringement, but does ask the court to dismiss certain [**3] of Venture's counterclaims before trial. To this end, Sunoco moves for an order declaring that (1) three [*813] references identified by Venture are not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and (2) Sunoco's patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. (Sunoco's SJ Mot. , 1.) For the reasons stated below, Sunoco's motion is granted and Venture's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
339 F. Supp. 3d 803 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173626 **; 2018 WL 4898946
SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P., Plaintiff, v. U.S. VENTURE, INC., U.S. OIL, and TECHNICS, INC., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Reversed by, in part, Affirmed by, in part, Remanded by Sunoco Partners & Mktg. Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11662 (Fed. Cir., Apr. 29, 2022)
Prior History: Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65787, 2017 WL 1550188 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 28, 2017)
blending, butane, patents, gasoline, vapor pressure, inventors, invention, infringing, experimental, invalidity, argues, tank, ratio, summary judgment, testing, inequitable conduct, references, prior art, reasonable jury, terminal, signal, installation, declaration, specific intent, documents, disclose, deceive, deposition, measuring, clear and convincing evidence