United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Timothy E. Grimsrud, Esq., Kenneth A. Liebman, Esq., Lauren M.W. Steinhaeuser, Esq., Linzey A. Erickson, Esq., and Kevin P. Wagner, Esq., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, counsel for Plaintiff.
William J. Cass, Esq., Nicholas A. Geiger, Esq., Tasia E. Hansen, Esq., and Herbert M. Bedingfield, Esq., Cantor Colburn LLP; and Mark J. Burns, Esq., Haugen Law Firm PLLP, counsel for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Microboards Technology, LLC, d/b/a Afinia's ("Afinia") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 46.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Defendant's motion without prejudice.
Plaintiff Stratasys, Inc. ("Stratasys") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. (Doc. No. 34, Ex. 5.) Defendant Afinia is a Minnesota company with its principal place of business in Chanhassen, Minnesota. (Doc. No. 60, Ex. 6.) Both Stratasys and Afinia develop, manufacture, and sell three-dimensional ("3D") printers. (Doc. No. 34, Ex. 5.) Stratasys also owns a number of patents that relate to 3D printing, including U.S. Patent No. 5, 653, 925 ("'925 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5, 866, 058 ("'058 Patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6, 004, 124 ("'124 Patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 8, 349, 239 ("'239 Patent"). (Doc. No. 60, Ex. 3.)
On November 25, 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia for patent infringement. (Doc. No. 1 ("Compl.").) In its complaint, Stratasys asserts the following four claims against Afinia:
(1) infringement of the '925 Patent; (2) infringement of the '058 Patent; (3) infringement of the '124 Patent; and (4) infringement of the '239 Patent. ( Id. ¶¶ 22-66.) Afinia filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the patents were invalid and not infringed by Afinia's 3-D printer products. (Doc. No. 15.) Afinia now moves for summary judgment on Stratasys' claim for infringement of the '124 Patent. (Doc. No. 46.)
I. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate 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.P. 56(a). Courts must view the evidence, and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Weitz Co. v. Lloyd's of London, 574 F.3d 885, 892 (8th Cir. 2009). However, "[s]ummary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.'" Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 1).
The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Enter. Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party must demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record that create a genuine issue for trial. Krenik v. Cnty. of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but ...