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.

Arason Enterprises, Inc. v. Cabinetbed Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

December 23, 2019

ARASON ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CABINETBED INC., Defendant.

          ORDER

          PHILIP A. BRIMMER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and for Dismissal with Prejudice of All Claims Involving Either U.S. Patent No. 6, 851, 139 or CabinetBed's Premium Bed [Docket No. 70] and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability for Patent Infringement of Claim No. 1 of the '758 Patent [Docket No. 75]. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         I. BACKGROUND[1]

         On September 6, 2016, plaintiff Arason Enterprises, Inc. filed suit against defendant CabinetBed Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging patent infringement. Docket No. 5. On December 6, 2016, the case was transferred to the District of Colorado. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff claims that defendant has infringed its U.S. Patent No. 7, 574, 758 (issued Aug. 18, 2009) (the “'758 patent”).[2] Docket No. 5 at 6. The patent relates to a so-called cabinet bed, wherein a folded mattress is contained inside a piece of furniture and can be deployed as a bed. See 758 patent, Abstract.

         The 758 patent, entitled "FOLDING CABINET BED WITH TELESCOPING SLIDE-OUT SUPPORT PLATFORM," was issued on August 18, 2009 and claimed priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/670, 170 ("the '170 provisional"). Docket No. 70 at 2, ¶ 1; Docket No. 75 at 4, ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that defendant's Standard Bed ("the accused bed") infringes upon Claim 1 of the 758 patent. Docket No. 75 at 4-5, ¶¶ 17, 22.

         (Image Omitted)

         758 patent, Fig. 5.

         Defendant's accused bed contains a drawer at its base ("the extendable drawer") that extends approximately eighteen inches from the base. Docket No. 70 at 2-3, ¶ 5. The accused bed's front wall and accompanying extension panel extend from the base to form a sleeping platform that extends approximately fifty-five inches from the bed's base. Id.

         (Image Omitted)

         Docket No. 61-1 at 44-45 (the accused bed with the Court's annotations).

         Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it is entitled to judgment on plaintiff's infringement claim on the basis that (1) defendant's accused bed does [not] infringe Claim 1, Docket No. 70 at 9; (2) Claim 1 is not entitled to priority from the '170 provisional, id. at 14; and (3) Claim 1 is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, id. at 15. Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment, in which it contends that the accused bed infringes Claim 1 of the '758 patent. Docket No. 75 at 11.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Federal Circuit reviews a district court's “grant or denial of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit.” Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Summary judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when 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.P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). A disputed fact is “material” if under the relevant substantive law it is essential to proper disposition of the claim. Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of Kan. v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001). Only disputes over material facts can create a genuine issue for trial and preclude summary judgment. Faustin v. City & Cty. of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 2005). An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997).

         Where “the moving party does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, it may satisfy its burden at the summary judgment stage by identifying a lack of evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the nonmovant's claim.” Bausman v. Interstate Brands Corp., 252 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998)). “Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial on a material matter.” Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & Cty. of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1518 (10th Cir. 1994). The nonmoving party may not rest solely on the allegations in the pleadings, but instead must designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To avoid summary judgment, the nonmovant must establish, at a minimum, an inference of the presence of each element essential to the case.” Bausman, 252 F.3d at 1115. When considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. However, where, as here, there are cross motions for summary judgment, the reasonable inferences drawn from affidavits, attached exhibits, and depositions are rendered in the light most favorable to the non-prevailing party. Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 425 (10th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, “[w]hen the parties file cross motions for summary judgment, we are entitled to assume that no evidence needs to be considered other than that filed by the parties, but summary judgment is nevertheless inappropriate if disputes remain as to material facts.” Atl. Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138, 1148 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         III. ANALYSIS

         A. ...


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.