Joint Appendix One

Cas{, 2:10-cv-O7678-JFW -DTB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document 55-1
#:893
Filed 09/28/11 Page 2 of 6 Page ID
This Court, having reviewed Defendant Nanoptix's Motion for Summary
Judgment and considered all admissible evidence and argument in support,
opposition and reply thereto, issues the following decision.
Summary judgment is appropriate if "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(c). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, all of the non-
movant's evidence is to be credited, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in
the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). Appling this standard, surmnary judgment is appropriate if no reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. S.E.C.v. Pla([?)nns Wireless
Intern. Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010).
In this action, Plaintiff FutureLogic, Inc. ("FutureLogic") asserts that
Defendant Nanoptix, Inc. ("Nanoptix") is infringing on U.S. Patent No. 7,594,855
('"855 Patent"). Document No. 1. As a defense and declaratory judgment
counterclaim, Nanoptix asserts that the '855 patent is invalid under the on sale and
public use bar of 35 US.C. § 102(b) (Document No. 6, _[tl[19, 31-33), and now
moves for summary judgment on this issue. Document No. 55. Specifically,
Nanoptix contends that FutureLogic made offers for sale, sold and placed the
claimed invention in public use in 1999 and 2000 based upon a printer that
FutureLogic made for Coca-Cola. For the following reasons, the Court grants the
Motion.
Defendant's -2-
Proposed MSJ
Decision
-A0113-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I