-DN Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, No. 1:2008cv00010 - Document 65 (D. Utah 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Infringement. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/18/2011. (las)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT vs. FISHER-PRICE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and EXPRESSO FITNESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:08-CV-10 TS Defendants. The Court has before it Plaintiff ICON Health & Fitness Corporation s ( ICON ) Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Infringement.1 Although the Motion was filed on January of 2010, no opposition has yet been filed. In this Court, [f]ailure to respond timely to a motion may result in the court s granting the motion without further notice. 2 Pursuant to this rule, and in light of the foregoing, the Court will grant ICON s Motion. 1 Docket No. 37. 2 DuCivR 7-1(c). 1 I. BACKGROUND ICON manufactures, markets, and sells fitness equipment. In July 2008, ICON filed its first amended complaint adding Expresso Fitness Corporation ( Expresso ) as a defendant. Therein, ICON alleges, among other claims, that Expresso s line of exercise cycles, including models numbers S2r, S2u, S3r, S3u, and S3y (collectively, Accused Products ), infringe upon claims 1, 23, 43, and 46 of its United States Patent No. 6,447,424 ( 424 Patent ). On January 19, 2010, ICON moved for summary judgment on these claims. In November 2009, Expresso filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the Northern District of California. The bankruptcy case was closed in December 2009. Around the time of the bankruptcy, a non-party (Interactive Fitness Holdings, LLC IFH ) acquired the assets of Expresso. ICON sought to substitute IFH for Expresso as the defendant in this case, but this request was recently denied by Magistrate Judge Nuffer.3 No objection to this Order has been filed and the time to do so has expired. Shortly after this motion was denied, ICON requested to submit for decision its unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment filed on January 19, 2010.4 In its request to submit for decision, ICON notes that the Magistrate Judge found that Expresso continues in existence and is still subject to suit.5 The Court further notes that Expresso s bankruptcy has now closed and there is nothing before the Court to suggest that Expresso s bankruptcy discharged, or 3 Docket No. 61. 4 Docket No. 62. 5 See Docket No. 61, at 7-8. 2 otherwise disposed of, ICON s claims. Although Expresso is defunct, ICON desires to carry forward on its motion and asserts that there is no reason why this Court should preclude ICON from carrying its claims against Expresso to judgment. II. LEGAL STANDARD As discussed previously, when an opposing party fails to timely respond to a motion, the Court may grant the motion without further notice.6 However, federal courts have made clear that it is improper to grant a motion for a summary judgment simply because it is unopposed. 7 In such situations, the standard for summary judgment is somewhat modified.8 It is the role of the court to ascertain whether the moving party has sufficient basis for judgment as a matter of law. In so doing, the court must be certain that no undisclosed factual dispute would undermine the uncontroverted facts. 9 The Court must consider the plaintiff s . . . claim based on the record properly before the court, viewing the uncontested facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 10 6 DuCivR 7-1(c). 7 E.E.O.C. v. Lady Baltimore Foods, Inc., 643 F. Supp. 406, 407 (D. Kan. 1986) (citing Hibernia Nat l Bank v. Administracion Central Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277, 1279 (5th Cir. 1985)). 8 Thomas v. Bruce, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1163 (D. Kan. 2006). 9 Id. (citing Lady Baltimore Foods, 643 F. Supp. at 407). 10 Sanchez-Figueroa v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 527 F.3d 209 (1st Cir. 2008). 3 III. DISCUSSION ICON moves this Court for summary judgment in its favor on its claims that ICON that Expresso s Accused Products infringe upon claims 1, 23, 43, and 46 of its 424 Patent. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds that there is a sufficient basis to enter judgment in favor of ICON on its claims of infringement. The Court can find no genuine issue of material fact, disclosed or undisclosed, that precludes an entry of judgment in favor of ICON. It is therefore ORDERED that ICON s Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Infringement (Docket No. 37) is GRANTED. DATED April 18, 2011. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
