Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Swimways Corp. v. Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division

June 30, 2017

SWIMWAYS CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AQUA-LEISURE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ROBERT G. DOUMAR JUDGE

         On June 29, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for a final pretrial conference. During the hearing, the Court addressed several pending matters, including Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Amended Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"). ECF No. 117. For the reasons stated at the hearing and for those set forth below, Defendant's Motion is DENIED.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On June 9, 2017, Defendant filed an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting memorandum ("Def. Br.").[1] ECF Nos. 117, 118. In the Motion, Defendant asks the Court to enter an order (1) barring Plaintiffs from asserting claims based on direct import sales by Greyland Trading Limited ("Greyland") to retail store customers or attributing those sales to Defendant ("Issue One"); (2) dismissing all claims of infringement against the Hex Chair ("Issue Two"); (3) dismissing all claims of infringement against the 2-in-l recliner ("Issue Three"); (4) dismissing all claims against the current version of the recliner ("Issue Four"); (5) declaring Claims 21 and 23 of the '540 Patent to be invalid ("Issue Five"); and (6) dismissing all claims against the "Mesh Lounge" style products ("Issue Six"). ECF No. 118 at 29-30. On June 23, 2017, Plaintiffs Swimways Corporation and Kelsyus LLC ("Plaintiffs") filed a response in opposition to Defendant's Motion ("Response"). ECF No. 163. On June 27, 2017, Defendant filed a rebuttal memorandum. ECF No. 217.

         On June 29, 2017, the parties appeared for a final pretrial conference. See ECF No. 229. During the conference, the Court advised the parties that it had decided every issue raised in Defendant's Motion except for Issue Five. Accordingly, the Court heard argument from both parties only on that issue and took Defendant's Motion with respect to same under advisement.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 56(c)"). Rule 56(c) provides that granting summary judgment is appropriate where the record demonstrates "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party bears the burden of informing the court of "the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "The party opposing the motion must point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record; mere denials or conclusory statements are insufficient." SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

         In reviewing a summary judgment motion, a court "must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." United States v. Carolina Transformer Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson v. Liberty. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). However, a mere scintilla of evidence will not preclude summary judgment. Anderson. 477 U.S. at 251 (citation omitted). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.. 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In turn, an issue is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to decide in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The court "does not assess the credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whether there is a genuine factual issue for trial." House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 559-60 (2006).

         With respect to patent litigation, the Federal Circuit has explained that "[s]ummary judgment of non-infringement requires a two-step analytical approach." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.. 182 F.3d 1298, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1999). First, the patent claims must be construed to determine their scope, which is a question of law. Id. (citing Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Svs.. Inc.. 15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, "a determination must be made as to whether the properly construed claims read on the accused device, " which is a question of fact. Id. "Because . . . infringement is itself a fact issue, a district court must approach a motion for summary judgment of infringement or non-infringement with a care proportioned to the likelihood of its being inappropriate." SRI Int'l, 775 F.2d at 1116.

         III. DISCUSSION

         A. Bench Rulings

         As stated from the bench on June 29, 2017, the Court DENIED Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the following issues:

         Issue One

         Defendant asks the Court to dismiss any claims concerning sales by third-party Greyland in this case. ECF No. 118 at 14. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' expert improperly included "direct import sales" by Greyland in her damages report because Defendant did not make those sales nor did it profit from those sales. Id. at 12. Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs did not bring a claim against Greyland and that it should therefore be barred from doing so "through any indirect means." Id. The Court finds that there is a dispute of material fact with respect to the connection, if any, between Defendant and Greyland's sales of accused products. Therefore, whether any of Greyland's sales are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.