Kreative Power, LLC v. Monoprice, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-cv-02991-SI |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | KREATIVE POWER, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MONOPRICE, INC., Defendant. |
On February 13, 2015, the Court held a hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of plaintiff's '097 utility patent; noninfringement and invalidity of plaintiff's D'215 design patent; and noninfringement of plaintiff's copyright. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Plaintiff Kreative Power, LLC ("Kreative") and defendant Monoprice, Inc. ("Monoprice") are both in the consumer electronics industry, and offer electrical power outlet and surge protector devices as part of their product lines. Compl. ¶¶ 15-16. On July 12, 2005, Kreative filed a utility patent application for a surge protector that would later issue as U.S. Patent No. 7,112,097 ("the '097 patent"). Id. ¶ 13. Six years later, on April 19, 2011, Kreative filed a design patent application for a surge protector that issued as U.S. Patent No. D653,215 ("the D'215 patent"). Id. ¶ 14. Three years after that, on June 4, 2014, Kreative registered a visual work consisting of the packaging design to contain its surge protector device, POWRAMID, with the U.S. Copyright Office and secured Registration No. VA 0001908609 ("Kreative's copyright"). Id. ¶¶ 17-18.
Kreative filed this action on June 26, 2014, asserting claims for direct and indirectinfringement of the . . claims relating to unfair competition were dismissed by stipulated order. Dkt. 35. In the Joint Case Management Statement filed on October 10, 2014, Monoprice stated that several of the disputed issues were legal, not factual, in nature and appropriate for early determination without significant fact discovery. Dkt 24, 8:21-24. Monoprice also proposed an early dispositive motion for summary judgment limited to the legal issues regarding the asserted intellectual property rights raised by Kreative. Id. 9:6-9. Monoprice stated that such a motion would not require significant discovery and would be filed by January 30, 2015. Id.
On December 9, 2014, Kreative served requests for production, requests for admission, and interrogatories. Opp. 3:14-16. Monoprice served written responses on January 12, 2015. Id. As of January 20, 2015, Monoprice had not initiated any discovery or sought any depositions. Id. 3:26-27. The parties have yet to engage in any substantive claim construction for the 215 patent, and Kreative's copyright; Monoprice also moves for summary judgment of invalidity of the D'215 patent. Dkt. 31.
Summary judgment is proper if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rosenbaum v. Washoe Cnty., 663 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2011); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The moving party, however, has no burden to disprove matters on which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial.The moving party need only demonstrate to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Id. at 325.
Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to "set out 'specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 324 . To carry this burden, the non-moving party must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
In deciding a summary judgment motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Id. at 255. "Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Id. However, conclusory, speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ'g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979). The evidence the parties present must be admissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2).
Monoprice argues that its sole accused product, the 6 Outlet Desktop Hub ("Monoprice Hub"), does not infringe the '097 patent, the design claimed by the D'215 patent, or the Kreative copyright as a matter of law. Motion 1:8-18. Monoprice also argues that the D'215 patent is invalid as a matter of law because the design is functional and/or anticipated by the '097 patent and Kreative's prior public use. Id. In response, Kreative contends that Monoprice's motion is premature, and should be denied without prejudice to refiling after the Court has construed the '097 patent claim terms at issue. Opp. 6:3-6. Alternatively, if the Court declines to find Monoprice's motion premature, Kreative maintains that material disputed facts exist which preclude an order of summary judgment at this time. Id. 7:10-12.
Summary judgment of noninfringement involves a two-step process. First, the patent claims are construed to determine their scope, and second, a determination is made as to whether the properly construed claims read on the accused product. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). To infringe, the accused product must embody each claim limitation, either literally or equivalently. Sofamor Danek Grp., Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The accused infringer seeking summary judgment of noninfringment may meet its burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact either by (1) providing evidence that would preclude a finding of infringement, or (2) showing that the evidence on file fails to establish a material issue of fact essential to the patentee's case. Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Summary judgment of noninfringment may only be granted if, "after viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and drawing all justifiable inferences in the nonmovant's favor, there is no genuine issue whether the accused device is encompassed by the patent claims." Id.
Literal infringement exists when every limitation recited in the patent claim is found in the accused product, i.e., when the properly construed claim reads on the accused device exactly. Strattec Sec. Corp. v. Gen. Auto. Specialty Co., 126 F.3d 1411, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As an initial matter, Kreative argues that Monoprice's motion is premature because the parties have yet to exchange or submit to the Court their respective claim constructions for the '097 patent and because the Court has not yet conducted its claim construction or held a Markman hearing. Opp. 5:9-11. Kreative maintains that it "should not be forced to offer its claim construction prematurely," because "Kreative has not yet engaged any expert to assist with its claim construction and has thus not completed its claim construction fully." Opp. 7:24-8:2; Wolf Decl. ¶ 5.
Monoprice disagrees, arguing that the lack of a prior claim construction hearing does notpreclude summary judgment. Monoprice argues that the claim terms at issue, "circular" and "hingedly attached," are readily understandable and should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Reply 2:13-26. Pointing to intrinsic evidence, Monoprice argues that the claim terms "circular" and "hingedly attached" are not explicitly defined by the '097 patent as having any definition other than their plain and ordinary meaning. Motion 13-16. In addition, Monoprice argues that the use of the terms "circular" and "hingedly attached" in the '097 patent is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. Id. At the hearing on this matter, counsel for Kreative provided its proposed claim constructions, construing the term "circular" to mean "like a circle, round" and construing the term "hingedly attached" to mean "where one member is utilized to join two other members." Dkt. 47 at 9:22-3 ("hingedly attached"), 12:21-22 ("circular").
District courts have broad discretion to deny related discovery because claim construction is an issue of law. See Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Engg, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (). Here, the Court will evaluate whether the Monoprice Hub...
To continue reading
Request your trial