United States District Court, D. Colorado
A. BRIMMER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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”). 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.
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, ¶¶
patent, Fig. 5.
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.
No. 61-1 at 44-45 (the accused bed with the Court's
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.
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).
“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).