Opinion
CASE NO. 4:12-CV-647
12-11-2015
MOTIO, INC. v. BSP SOFTWARE LLC, BRIGHTSTAR PARTNERS, INC., and AVENT, INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,285,678 (Dkt. #152). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motions should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants infringe claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,285,678 ("the '678 Patent"). The '678 Patent is titled "Continuous integration of business intelligence software." It was filed on December 30, 2010, and issued on October 9, 2012. The '678 Patent relates to methods of providing automatic version control to a business intelligence system. '678 Patent at Abstract.
On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed its complaint (Dkt. #1). Defendants filed this motion for summary judgment on September 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed a response on October 13, 2015 (Dkt. #167). Defendants filed a reply brief on November 9, 2015 (Dkt. #192). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on November 20, 2015 (Dkt. #205).
LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits "[show] that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The trial court must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment. Casey Enters., Inc. v. Am. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). The substantive law identifies which facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 247. If the movant bears the burden of proof on a claim or defense on which it is moving for summary judgment, it must come forward with evidence that establishes "beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense." Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). Where the nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge its burden by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovant's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dallas Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant must "respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating there is a genuine issue for trial." Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49). The nonmovant must adduce affirmative evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. No "mere denial of material facts nor...unsworn allegations [nor] arguments and assertions in briefs or legal memoranda" will suffice to carry this burden. Moayedi v. Compaq Computer Corp., 98 F. App'x 335, 338 (5th Cir. 2004). Rather, the Court requires "significant probative evidence" from the nonmovant in order to dismiss a request for summary judgment supported appropriately by the movant. United States v. Lawrence, 276 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 2001). The Court must consider all of the evidence, but must refrain from making any credibility determinations or weighing the evidence. See Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 343 (5th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
After a careful review of the record and the arguments presented, the Court is not convinced that Defendants have met their burden demonstrating that there is no material issue of fact entitling them to judgment as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,285,678 (Dkt. #152) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 11th day of December, 2015.
/s/_________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE