Arctic Cat Inc. v. Polaris Industries IncMOTION for Summary JudgmentD. Minn.June 23, 201788151923.1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Arctic Cat Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Polaris Industries Inc., Defendant. Case No.: 0:16-cv-00009 POLARIS’S CASE-DISPOSITIVE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY DUE TO INDEFINITENESS TO: Plaintiff and its attorneys, Niall MacLeod, Diane L. Peterson, Aaron A. Myers; Kutak Rock LLP, 60 S. 6th Street, Suite 3400, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”) hereby moves the Court for summary judgment that all asserted claims (claims 1–4, 6) of the only patent-at-issue (U.S. Pat. No. 7,669,678) are invalid due to the indefiniteness of the terms “positionable adjacent the leg of the rider in a frequent rider contact zone of the vehicle” and “a location of frequent rider leg contact.” The Court’s Order Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule for claim construction allowed Polaris to file this early summary-judgment motion, which Polaris brings without prejudice as to other summary-judgment motions it may urge later on other issues. See D.I. 100 ¶ 1.b. This Motion will be based upon all the files and proceedings herein, including Polaris’s Brief, the Rule 7.1 Certification, and the Declaration of undersigned counsel, with exhibits, submitted herewith. The Brief supporting this motion is Polaris’s claim- construction brief, as required by the Court. See D.I. 100 ¶ 1.b. That claim-construction brief also concerns terms other than those subject to this motion. CASE 0:16-cv-00009-WMW-HB Document 114 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 2 2 88151923.1 A proposed order will follow, in compliance with Local Rule 7.1. DATED: June 23, 2017 ROBINS KAPLAN LLP By: s/ Cyrus A. Morton Cyrus A. Morton (287325) Andrew D. Hedden (0390342) Ryan E. Dornberger (0396444) Alyssa N. Lawson(0397193) 800 LaSalle Avenue Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612 349 8500 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC. CASE 0:16-cv-00009-WMW-HB Document 114 Filed 06/23/17 Page 2 of 2
