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.

Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. v. BI Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

December 19, 2013

ALCOHOL MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC., a Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
BI INCORPORATED, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, and GEO CARE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendant

Page 1185

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1186

For Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc., Plaintiff, Counter Claimant: Allen Justin Poplin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lathrop & Gage, LLP-Overland Park, Overland Park, KS; Phillip S. Lorenzo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Aaron P. Bradford, James Espy Dallner, Thomas D. Leland, Lathrop & Gage, LLP-Denver, Denver, CO; Michael G. Martin, Hamil Martin LLC, Denver, CO.

For BI Incorporated, a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, Counter Claimant, Counter Defendant: Donald A. Degnan, Timothy Paul Getzoff, Holland & Hart, LLP-Boulder, Boulder, CO; Mher Hartoonian, Holland & Hart, LLP-Denver, Denver, CO.

For GEO Care, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Counter Defendant: Timothy Paul Getzoff, Holland & Hart, LLP-Boulder, Boulder, CO.

For Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc., Counter Defendant, Counter Claimant: Allen Justin Poplin, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lathrop & Gage, LLP-Overland Park, Overland Park, KS; Phillip S. Lorenzo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Aaron P. Bradford, James Espy Dallner, Lathrop & Gage, LLP-Denver, Denver, CO; Michael G. Martin, Hamil Martin LLC, Denver, CO.

OPINION

Page 1187

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PATENTS '149 AND '611 AND GRANTING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON VALIDITY OF THE '149 PATENT

David M. Ebel, U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE.

This order addresses two matters pending before the Court: (1) Defendants BI Incorporated and Geo Care, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Doc. 136) (the " Summary Judgment Motion" ); and (2) Plaintiff Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Validity Regarding the '149 Patent (Doc. 135) (the " Validity Motion" ), both of which have been thoroughly briefed by the parties.

For the reasons discussed below, and exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 and 1338(a), the Court GRANTS defendants' Summary Judgment Motion and plaintiff's Validity Motion.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Currently before the Court are the claims of Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. (" AMS" ) that the BI Incorporated (" BI" ) BI TAD system infringes AMS's patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,462,149 (" '149" ), 7,641,611

Page 1188

(" '611" ).[1] AMS's patents both describe devices that attach to a person's leg to detect alcohol consumption as indicated by the person's transdermal emissions, along with the associated networks through which such data are transmitted, analyzed, and reported. BI answered, claiming various affirmative defenses including that the '149 patent was invalid.

At the June 7-8, 2012 Markman [2] hearing,

Page 1189

the Court heard argument regarding claim construction of the '149 and '611 patents. The Court entered an order construing the claims on June 20, 2012 (the " Markman Order," Doc. 117). On August 2, 2013, defendants filed the Summary Judgment Motion and AMS filed the Validity Motion.

The Court now rules on the Summary Judgment Motion and the Validity Motion, having reviewed the record and the applicable law, and having considered the arguments made in the parties' briefs.

II. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Defendants argue that, under the undisputed material facts on the record, the BI TAD system does not infringe the AMS '149 or '611 patents. As explained below, the Court agrees that summary judgment is warranted based on non-infringement.

A. Legal standards

i. Summary judgment

" The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a). Parties must " cit[e] to particular parts in the record," including affidavits or admissions, in order to show the absence or presence of a genuine dispute of fact. Id. 56(c)(1)(A); see also id. 56(c)(3) (" The Court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." ). " The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Only admissible evidence is considered on motions for summary judgment. Adams v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 233 F.3d 1242, 1246 (10th Cir. 2000).

ii. Patent infringement

Two methods of patent infringement are relevant in this case: literal infringement and infringement ...


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.