Certusview Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC
| Decision Date | 07 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:13cv346 |
| Parties | CERTUSVIEW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. S&N LOCATING SERVICES, LLC, and S&N COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 341, filed by CertusView Technologies, LLC, ("Plaintiff"). In such motion, Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on inequitable conduct counterclaims that S&N Locating Services, LLC, and S&N Communications, Inc., (collectively "Defendants" or "S&N") have asserted against Plaintiff. Prior to the submission of the briefing on Plaintiff's motion, the Court had scheduled a hearing for August 14, 2015. However, now that the matter is ripe for disposition, after examining the briefs and the record, the Court determines that oral argument is unnecessary because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loc. R. 7(J).
This case began as a patent infringement action in which Plaintiff asserted that Defendants had infringed five patents that involve technology for the prevention of damage to underground infrastructure: U.S. Patent No. 8,290,204 ("the '204 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8,407,001 ("the '001 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8,340,359 ("the '359 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8,265,344 ("the '344 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 8,532,341 (). Thereafter, Defendants asserted inequitable conduct counterclaims against Plaintiff. On January 21, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and held that each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were invalid because they did not claim patent-eligible subject matter. Opinion and Order, ECF No. 250. On that same date, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff's infringement claims. Judgment, ECF No. 251. Thus, only Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims remain in this action.
After the Court granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff's infringement claims, Plaintiff initiated a two-fold challenge to Defendants' First Amended Answer. Plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge's Order granting Defendants leave to amend their answer and Plaintiff also moved to dismiss Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims. See Pl.'s Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order, ECF No. 256; Pl.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 260.
While Plaintiff contested the sufficiency of Defendants' First Amended Answer in this Court, Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the Court's judgment on Plaintiff's infringement claims. Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 267. However, on May 15, 2015, the Federal Circuit stayed Plaintiff's appeal pending the Court's resolution of its challenges to Defendants' First Amended Answer. CertusView Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC, Nos. 2015-1404, -1571 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2015) ().
On May 22, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order overruling Plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's January 16, 2015 Order and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendants' First Amended Answer and Counterclaims. ECF No. 325. That same day, the Court directed the parties to submit status reports regarding how theCourt should proceed to resolve Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims. Order, ECF No. 326.
In its status report, Plaintiff requested that the Court either stay the case and certify the issue of Section 101 validity for interlocutory appeal or dismiss Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims without prejudice to refiling once the Federal Circuit issued its mandate in Plaintiff's appeal. In the alternative, Plaintiff requested that the Court permit Plaintiff to immediately move for summary judgment on Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims. Regarding summary judgment, Plaintiff made the following representation to the Court:
While the Court concluded that S&N's pleading states a claim under Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009), S&N cannot prove inequitable conduct under the heightened standard of Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) or when a full set of undisputed facts are presented rather than the allegations in the amended answer. . . .
Pl.'s Status Report at 5 n.4, ECF No. 328.
On June 30, 2015, the Court declined to certify an interlocutory appeal in this matter, but, pursuant to Local Rule 56(C), the Court found good cause to permit Plaintiff to move for summary judgment on Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims. Order, ECF No. 339. The Court set an expeditedbriefing schedule and set the matter for a hearing on August 14, 2015.2
On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims. In its brief in support of its motion, Plaintiff devotes roughly one double-spaced page to its statement of undisputed facts. Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 2-3, ECF No. 342. In such statement of undisputed facts, Plaintiff describes, in broad terms, its patents and aspects of their prosecution history and states that "[t]rue and correct testimony" of Curtis Chambers, Jeffrey Farr, Joseph Teja, Jr., David Crawford, and Gregory Block is attached to Plaintiff's brief. Id. Plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts omitted any facts responsive to Defendants' inequitable conduct allegations. Id. After a brief description of the summary judgment and inequitable conduct standard of review, Plaintiff dedicates the remainder of its brief to argue the merits of Defendants' inequitable conduct counterclaims—complete with citations to facts in the record pertaining to such counterclaims. See id. at 4-30.
On July 29, 2015, Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motion. In their response, Defendants contend that the Courtshould deny Plaintiff's motion or, in the alternative, disregard all facts not stated in Plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts because such statement did not comply with Local Rule 56(B). Defs.' Mem. Opp'n Mot. for Summ. J. at 2-3, ECF No. 343. Specifically, Defendants note that Plaintiff's brief "is replete with factual citations (from which it argues) that are absent from its 'Undisputed Facts'" and contend that Plaintiff cannot satisfy Local Rule 56(B) by attempting to incorporate, in their entirety, deposition transcripts from Messrs. Chambers, Farr, Teja, Crawford, and Block. Id. at 3.
On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed its reply. Plaintiff dedicates the totality of its reply to argument regarding the merits of Defendants' counterclaims. As with Plaintiff's opening brief, such reply includes citations to facts absent from Plaintiff's statement of undisputed facts. In its reply, however, Plaintiff does not address Defendants' contention regarding Local Rule 56(B). Indeed, Plaintiff does not, in any way, explain its apparent disregard for the Court's Local Rules.
Through the Rules Enabling Act, Congress and the President have granted the Supreme Court "the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure . . . for cases in the United States district courts . . . ." 28 U.S. C. § 2072(a); see alsoid. § 2071(a). Pursuant to such authority, the Supreme Court has established the following rule:
After giving public notice and an opportunity for comment, a district court, acting by a majority of its district judges, may adopt and amend rules governing its practice. A local rule must be consistent with—but not duplicate—federal statutes and rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072 and 2075, and must conform to any uniform numbering system prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States. A local rule takes effect on the date specified by the district court and remains in effect unless amended by the court or abrogated by the judicial council of the circuit. Copies of rules and amendments must, on their adoption, be furnished to the judicial council and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and be made available to the public.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a) (1). In accordance with such rule, a majority of the district judges of this Court has adopted Local Rules. Local Rule 56(B) concerns summary judgment and provides:
Each brief in support of a motion for summary judgment shall include a specifically captioned section listing all material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and citing the parts of the record relied on to support the listed facts as alleged to be undisputed. A brief in response to such a motion shall include a specifically captioned section listing all material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated and citing the parts of the record relied on to support the facts alleged to be in dispute. In determining a motion for summary judgment, the Court may assume that facts identified by the moving party in its listing of material facts are admitted, unless such a fact is controverted in the statement of genuine issues filed in opposition to the motion.
E.D. Va. Loc. R. 56(B) (emphasis added). In short, a party who moves for summary judgment without "includ[ing] a specificallycaptioned section listing all material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and citing the parts of the record relied on to support the listed facts as alleged to be undisputed" has violated the Court's Local Rules. Id.
A court's response to a violation of the Local Rules generally varies in proportion to the seriousness of the violation. In response to a movant's blatant violation of Local Rule 56(B), the Court may deny a motion for summary judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial