Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Lenovo International et al, No. 1:2005cv00064 - Document 1442 (D. Utah 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 1067 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 7/30/2010. (las)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Lenovo International et al Doc. 1442 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOC. L.L.C, A Utah Limited Liability Co., Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY OF 002 AND 222 PATENTS vs. WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORP., et al., Case No. 1:05-CV-64 TS Defendants. Former Defendant Sony filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the 002, 222 and 767 Patents on the ground that it was anticipated by a detector program developed by NEC Corporation (NEC program). Sony filed the Motion on behalf of itself, Winbond, ASUS, and MSI. MSI subsequently filed a joinder in the Motion.1 All claims between Sony and Plaintiff have been dismissed and all claims regarding the 767 patent have been withdrawn from this case. 1 Docket No. 1081. 1 Dockets.Justia.com The Court, having considered the entire record on this motion, finds that there are material issues of fact. Therefore summary judgment must be denied. The Court notes that in one sentence on the last page of Plaintiff s Opposition, it purports to seek summary judgment that the NEC program is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. ยง 102. 2 Such a single sentence buried in an Opposition brief is insufficient to constitute a motion. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Motion Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the 002, 222, and 767 Patents (Docket No. 1067) is DENIED as to the 002 and 222 Patents and MOOT as to the 767 Patent. DATED July 30, 2010. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 2 Docket No. 1158, at 14. 2
]]>
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.
