Aspex Eyewear, Inc. et al v. Hardy Life, LLC et alRESPONSE/REPLY to 132 Response/ReplyS.D. Fla.July 2, 2010UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 09-61515-CIV-COOKE/BANDSTRA ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC. and CONTOUR OPTIK, INC., Plaintiffs, vs. HARDY LIFE, LLC, MARCHON EYEWEAR, INC., NIKE, INC., REVOLUTION EYEWEAR, INC., and GARY MARTIN ZELMAN, an individual, Defendants. ________________________________/ PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT REVOLUTION EYEWEAR, INC.’S RULE 7.5 COUNTER STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Local Rule 7.5, Plaintiffs Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) submit the following response to Revolution Eyewear, Inc.’s (“Revolution”) Counter Statement Of Material Facts. Plaintiffs’ response herein tracks the headings and numbered paragraphs of Revolution’s Counter Statement. 1. Disputed. See Ifergan Decl. ¶¶ 2-5 (describing the construction of the primary frames); Zaro Decl. ¶ 8 (at pg. 6, 8) (showing that Revolution’s auxiliary frame do satisfy the following limitation of Claim 23 of the “545 Patent: “…each of said side portions having an arm extended therefrom, each of said arms having a rearwardly directed free end for securing a magnetic member having a horizontal surface). 2. Disputed. See Ifergan Decl. ¶¶ 2-5 (describing the construction of the primary frames); Zaro Decl. ¶ 8 (at pgs. 11-14) (showing that Revolution’s products do satisfy the following limitation of Claim 23 of the ‘545 patent: “…said arms and said pair of magnetic members adapted to extend across respective portions of a primary spectacle frame…”). 3. Disputed. See Ifergan Decl. ¶¶ 2-5 (describing the construction of the primary frames); Zaro Decl. ¶ 8 (at pgs. 11-14) (showing that Revolution’s products do satisfy the following limitation of Claim 23 of the ‘545 Patent: “…so that said pair of magnetic members having a Case 0:09-cv-61515-MGC Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2010 Page 1 of 3 2 horizontal surface can vertically engage corresponding magnetic member surfaces on a primary spectacle frames…” ). 4. Disputed. The above elements are part of claim 35 and Revolution satisfies them. See 1-3 above. Dated: July 2, 2010 Respectfully submitted, By: s/Jacqueline Becerra Jacqueline Becerra BecerraJ@gtlaw.com Ericka Turk-Moore TurkMooreE@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0500 Facsimile: (305) 579-0717 and Michael A. Nicodema, Admitted Pro Hac Vice NicodemaM@gtlaw.com Barry J. Schindler, Admitted Pro Hac Vice SchindlerB@gtlaw.com Todd L. Schleifstein, Admitted Pro Hac Vice SchleifsteinT@gtlaw.com GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 200 Park Avenue Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Telephone: (973) 360-7900 Facsimile: (973) 301-8410 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. Case 0:09-cv-61515-MGC Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2010 Page 2 of 3 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of July 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/EFC or in some other manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/Jacqueline Becerra JACQUELINE BECERRA SERVICE LIST Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al., v. Hardy Life, LLC, et al., Case No. 09-61515-CIV-Cooke/ Bandstra United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Janet T. Munn jmunn@rascoklock.com Rasco Klock Reininger Perez Esquenazi Vigil & Nieto 283 Catalonia Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33134 Telephone: 305-476-7101 Facsimile: 305-476-7102 Attorneys for Defendants Hardy Way, LLC, Revolution Eyewear, Inc. and Gary Martin Zelman Steven M. Hanle, Admitted Pro Hac Vice shanle@sheppardmullin.com Jennifer A. Trusso, Admitted Pro Hac Vice jtrusso@sheppardmullin.com Aaron Fennimore, Admitted Pro Hac Vice afennimore@sheppardmulli.com Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: 714-513-5100 Facsimile: 714-513-5130 Attorneys for Defendants Revolution Eyewear, Inc. and Gary Martin Zelman W. Barry Blum bblum@gjb-law.com Martin J. Keane mkeane@gjb-law.com Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A. 100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 4400 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: 305-349-2300 Facsimile: 305-349-2310 Edgar H. Haug, Admitted Pro Hac Vice ehaug@flhlaw.com Brian S. Goncalves, Admitted Pro Hac Vice bgoncalves@flhlaw.com David Herman, Admitted Pro Hac Vice dherman@flhlaw.com Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP 745 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10151 Telephone: 212-588-0888 Facsimile: 212-588-0500 Attorneys for Defendants Marchon Eyewear, Inc. and Nike, Inc. Case 0:09-cv-61515-MGC Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/02/2010 Page 3 of 3
