Opinion
No. 3:98-CV-2077-R.
December 8, 2000.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 1, 1998, Plaintiff, Sidiram Ragoonath, filed suit in this Court against Defendants Martin H. Vitale and Iowa American Machine Mfg. Co., Inc., for patent infringement and breach of a license agreement. Now before this Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement, filed on November 14, 2000.
For the reasons stated below, this Motion is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Sidiram Ragoonath, owns U.S. Patent Nos. 300,715 and 329,366 for the design of certain firefighting and camping tools. On December 31, 1994, Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant, Iowa American whereby Plaintiff granted the Defendant a license to manufacture and sell the patented tools. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breached this agreement in 1997. Defendants allege that the Plaintiff was released from the agreement, pursuant to a release clause contained therein. Plaintiff alleges that after the breach, the Defendants continued to manufacture and sell the tools without paying royalties to the Plaintiff, thereby infringing upon his patents. Defendants claim that they did not manufacture additional axes and that they did pay royalties to the Plaintiff.
Although Plaintiff has been represented by counsel at various times during this litigation, Plaintiff is currently without representation.
II. DISCUSSION
Summary judgement is proper when the evidence before the court shows that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgement as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In most cases, the defendant moves for summary judgement and either offers evidence which undermines one or more of the essential elements of the plaintiffs' case or simply demonstrates that the evidence in the record falls short of establishing an essential element of the plaintiffs' case. See International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986)). In such a case, the moving party — the defendant, "need not produce evidence of its own because it is the plaintiff that will bear the burden of proof at trial." Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986).
However, where the moving party bears the burden of proof, "he must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim or defense to warrant judgement in his favor." Id. In this case, the Plaintiff has completely failed to carry this burden. Not only has he failed to establish the essential elements of his claims, but he failed to even set forth those elements in his motion. instead, he merely summarized what he believes are the facts of the case, and concluded that these facts warrant an entry of judgement against the Defendants.
While it is true that the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff should be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this court cannot enter judgement against the Defendants based on the pleadings filed by this Plaintiff.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement is DENIED.