11
Mar
By Barry Herman
On March 9, 2009, ALJ E. James Gildea issued the public version of his February 23, 2009 Order No. 22 in Certain Laser Imageable Lithographic Printing Plates (337-TA-636).  In the Order, ALJ Gildea denied respondents VIM Technologies, Ltd., Hanita Coatings RCA, Ltd., AteCe Canada, Guaranteed Service & Supplies, Inc., Recognition Systems, Inc., and Spicers Paper, Inc.’s (Respondents’) motion for summary determination that (i) claims 1 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 5,339,737 are invalid as anticipated over a prior art reference by Nechiporenko et al.; (ii) claim 10 of the ‘737 patent is invalid as obvious over the Nechiporenko reference in combination with U.S. Patent No. 4,132,168; (iii) the accused lithographic printing plates do not infringe claims 1, 10, and 27 of the ‘737 patent; and (iv) the accused plates do not infringe claims 20, 21, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,487,338.

Complainant Presstek, Inc. and the Staff opposed Respondents’ motion.  They argued that there are disputed issues of fact relating to what is actually disclosed and enabled by the Nechiporenko reference, and that therefore summary determination of invalidity of any claims as anticipated by Nechiporenko or obvious over Nechiporenko (in combination with the ‘168 patent) would be inappropriate.  Further, they argued that since Respondents’ noninfringement position relied on disputed claim terms that still required construction, summary determination on that issue was premature.  The Staff also argued that there was a disputed issue of fact relating to the operation of the accused lithographic printing plates, which also made summary determination of noninfringement inappropriate.

After reviewing the motion papers and responses, ALJ Gildea denied Respondents’ motion, finding simply that “genuine material issues of fact remain, and that good cause does not exist to grant the motion in lieu of a trial of all issues on the merits.”
Share