Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Artemi, Ltd. v. Safe-Strap Co., Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 14, 2015

ARTEMI, LTD., and PAUL ARTEMI, Plaintiffs,
v.
SAFE-STRAP CO., INC., Defendant

For Plaintiff: MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP, Joseph P. Lasala, Esq., Morristown, New Jersey and PAZUNIAK LAW OFFICE, George Pazuniak, Esq., Wilmington, Delaware.

For Defendant: MULLEN & REYNOLDS, LLC, Eugene G. Reynolds, Esq., Morris Plains, New Jersey and OSTRELENK FABER LLP, Louis C. Dujmich, Esq., New York, New York.

OPINION

Page 661

Joseph E. Irenas, Senior United States District Judge.

This is the fourth opinion in this patent infringement suit. Presently before the Court is Defendant Safe-Strap's Motion for Summary Judgment on its invalidity affirmative defense. The Court holds that the reissued patent does not " enlarge[e] the scope of the claims of the original patent," 35 U.S.C. § 251(d). Thus, Safe-Strap's motion will be denied.

I.

The prior opinions in this case, Artemi Ltd. v. Safe-Strap Co., 947 F.Supp.2d 473 (D.N.J. 2013); Artemi Ltd. v. Safe-Strap Co., (D.N.J. Dec. 27, 2013); and Artemi Ltd. v. Safe-Strap Co., (D.N.J. July 7, 2014) provide the factual and procedural background for the instant motion.

Most relevant to the issue presented here-- whether the reissued patent (the RE'568 patent) is broader than the original patent (the '455 patent) -- is the Court's most recent opinion, which construed the disputed terms of the RE'568 patent.

In particular, the Court discussed the parties' dispute as to the RE'568 patent:

In construing the disputed terms, it is helpful to begin with a basic understanding of the patented device as a whole. The Summary of the Invention discloses two 'parts' of the device: a 'first part' which is 'made of rigid plastics material; ' and a 'second part' 'comprising a loop' formed by a 'strap' made of 'flexible webbing.' The parties do not dispute that the second part is 'attached to the first part through the ring.' (RE'568 patent claim 2)
The parties, however, do dispute whether the 'ring' means the 'hole' in the device, or whether the 'ring' means the plastic material surrounding and defining the hole. At the Markman hearing,

Page 662

the Court used a doughnut analogy: Artemi argues that 'the ring' is the doughnut, while Safe-Strap argues that 'the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.