Asics America Corporation v. Akeva L.L.C.Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement or InvalidityM.D.N.C.February 3, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASICS AMERICA CORPORATION, Declaratory-Judgment Plaintiff and Counterclaim- Defendant, v. AKEVA L.L.C., Declaratory-Judgment Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. NIKE, INC.; and ADIDAS AMERICA, INC.; Counterclaim-Defendants Civil Action No.: 1:09-CV-135 DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OR INVALIDITY NOW COME Counterclaim-Defendants ASICS America Corporation, NIKE, Inc., and adidas America, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through counsel, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 56.1, and the Court’s Order following the December 14, 2016 hearing (ECF No. 302), hereby file this Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement or Invalidity against Plaintiff Akeva L.L.C. (“Akeva”) and request that summary judgment be entered against Akeva on Akeva’s claims of patent infringement, (ECF No. 19, 114, Counts I-II, VIII, X, XII) and in favor of Defendants’ affirmative defenses of Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 304 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 7 2 noninfringement and invalidity (ECF Nos. 120, 122, 123). In support of this Motion, Defendants respectfully show unto the Court as follows: 1. In this matter, Akeva contends that Defendants infringed five of Akeva’s patents and thirty claims: Claims 25, 27, and 31 of U.S. Patent No. 5,560,126 (the “’126 patent”), Claims 6 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,966,130 (the “’130 patent”), Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,114,269 (the “’269 patent”), Claims 26, 31, 116-118, 120, 127, 158, 180, 232, and 259 of U.S. Patent No. 7,380,350 (the “’350 patent”), and Claims 1, 5, 15, 19, 70, 74, 76, 87, 277, 281, 308, 324, and 325 of U.S. Patent No. 7,540,099 (the “’099 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), which are all related to athletic footwear. 2. The parties filed opening and responsive claim construction briefing on July 11, 2016, and August 11, 2016, respectively. (ECF Nos. 292-295.) 3. On October 21, 2016, Defendants submitted their initial Motion for Preliminary Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement or Invalidity (ECF No. 298) along with their supporting brief (ECF No. 299). Akeva, in turn, filed its responsive brief on November 18, 2016 (ECF No. 300), and Defendants replied on December 2, 2016 (ECF No. 301). As set forth in Defendants’ summary judgment briefing (ECF Nos. 299, 301), summary judgment in Defendants’ favor is appropriate for the following reasons: Under the Defendants’ construction of the “rear sole” related terms, which properly accounts for the specification disclaimer of permanently fixed rear soles in each of the Asserted Patents, summary judgment of non- infringement is appropriate because there is no dispute that all of Defendants’ products have permanently fixed rear soles and therefore none of Defendants’ products infringe the claims of the Asserted Patents; Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 304 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 7 3 Even if the Court adopts Akeva’s improper construction of the “rear sole” terms, the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement of Section 112 ¶ 1 of the Patent Act because, in view of this Court’s and the Federal Circuit’s prior, binding ruling, the Asserted Patents claim, but do not disclose, permanently fixed rear soles; and Alternatively, even if the Court adopts Akeva’s improper claim construction of the “rear sole” related terms, and even if the Court further determines that the Continuation Patents disclose permanently fixed rear soles, the asserted claims of the Continuation Patents are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by their parent ‘126 Patent. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to support summary judgment as a matter of law in Defendants’ favor. 4. On December 14, 2016, the parties appeared before the Honorable Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake in Winston-Salem, North Carolina for a hearing on claim construction and on Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Summary Judgment of Non- Infringement or Invalidity. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Peake invited the parties to provide supplemental summary judgment briefing on a hypothetical in which the Court determines that: (i) the ’126 patent does not disclose or claim permanently fixed rear soles; but (ii) the Continuation Patents disclose and claim permanently fixed rear soles. 5. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Defendants file this Motion as a supplement to the previously filed Motion for Preliminary Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement or Invalidity. Under the Court’s proposed hypothetical, Defendants respectfully submit that summary judgment in Defendants’ favor is appropriate for the following reasons: Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 304 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 7 4 The asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) because, under the Court’s hypothetical, Akeva impermissibly amended the disclosures of the Continuation Patents to add and claim new matter that was not present in the disclosures as originally filed; Even if the Court’s hypothetical incorrectly assumes that Akeva complied with 35 U.S.C. § 132(a), the asserted claims are invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the disclosure of the Continuation Patents, as originally filed, does not support the subject matter of the asserted claims under Akeva’s proposed constructions; and Even if the Court’s hypothetical incorrectly assumes that Akeva’s applications for the Continuation Patents were actually proper continuations-in-part, which they are not, the asserted claims are still invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the asserted claims would have priority dates in 2003 and 2004, and NIKE sold accused shoes more than one year before those priority dates. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to support summary judgment as a matter of law in Defendants’ favor under the Court’s hypothetical. 6. Accordingly, even under the Court’s proposed hypothetical, Defendants are nevertheless entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Preliminary Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement or Invalidity and this Supplemental Motion for Preliminary Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement or Invalidity, and Dismiss Akeva’s Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 304 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 7 5 Dated: February 3, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael R. Friscia . Jennifer K. Van Zant North Carolina State Bar No. 21280 BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP 2000 Renaissance Plaza Post Office Box 26000 Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 (336) 373-8850 jvanzant@brookspierce.com Of Counsel: Michael R. Friscia Jonathan Short Mark H. Anania McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 (973) 622-4444 mfriscia@mccarter.com jshort@mccarter.com manania@mccarter.com Brian R. Lemon McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Renaissance Centre 405 N. King St., 8th Flr. Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 984-6300 blemon@mccarter.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant ASICS America Corporation /s/ H. Brent Helms . H. Brent Helms N.C. Bar No. 19068 ROBINSON & LAWING, L.L.P. 101 North Cherry Street, Suite 720 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101-4035 Telephone: (336) 631-8500 Facsimile: (336) 631-6999 bhelms@robinsonlawing.com Of Counsel: Christopher J. Renk Janice V. Mitrius Michael J. Harris Aaron P. Bowling BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. Ten South Wacker Drive, Ste. 3000 Chicago, Ill. 60606 Telephone: (312) 463-5408 Facsimile: (312) 463-5001 Email: crenk@bannerwitcoff.com jmitrius@bannerwitcoff.com mharris@bannerwitcoff.com abowling@bannerwitcoff.com Attorneys for Nike, Inc. Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 304 Filed 02/03/17 Page 5 of 7 6 /s/ Matias Ferrario . Mitchell G. Stockwell KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 Telephone: (404) 815-6500 Facsimile: (404) 815-6555 MStockwell@ KilpatrickTownsend.com Matias Ferrario KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1001 West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 Telephone: (336) 607-7300 Facsimile: (336) 607-7500 mferrario@KilpatrickTownsend.com Attorneys for adidas America, Inc. Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 304 Filed 02/03/17 Page 6 of 7 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE As counsel for NIKE, Inc., I hereby certify that on this day I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which sends notification of such filing to all counsel of record so registered for this case. Dated: February 3, 2017 s/ H. Brent Helms Case 1:09-cv-00135-JAB-JEP Document 304 Filed 02/03/17 Page 7 of 7
