`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
`NORTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`AUTOLIV ASP, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HYUNDAI MOBIS CO., LTD, and
`MOBIS ALABAMA, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:13-CV-141-WKW
` [WO]
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ORDER
`
`On February 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation on the
`
`pending motions. (Doc. # 291.) Plaintiff filed objections (Doc. # 294), as did
`
`Defendants (Doc. # 295). Each side also responded to the other side’s objections.
`
`(Docs. # 298, 300.) Based upon a de novo review of those portions of the
`
`Recommendation to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and having reviewed
`
`the record, the court finds no error. The parties’ objections largely are restatements
`
`of prior arguments made in the summary judgment briefing and are correctly
`
`addressed by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
`
`(1) The parties’ objections (Docs. # 294, 295) are OVERRULED;
`
`(2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 291) is ADOPTED;
`
`(3)
`
`Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. # 200) is
`
`GRANTED as follows:
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00141-WKW-SMD Document 303 Filed 08/05/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`(a) The accused products infringe the Base End Closure Element, as
`
`found in claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450;
`
`
`
`(b) The terms “a region” and “such that the gas rapidly exits” as
`
`found in U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 are not indefinite;
`
`
`
`(c) U.S. Patent No. 7,347,450 is not obvious, as prior art directed to
`
`parachute references is not analogous art;
`
`
`
`(d) The asserted patents are not obvious on any ground upon which
`
`Defendants failed to identify a motivation to combine, as identified in Autoliv’s
`
`Memorandum (Doc. # 206-1, at 32–38; see also Doc. # 200-1, at 2 (Proposed
`
`Judgment));
`
`
`
`(e) Because Defendants failed to articulate a reasonable expectation
`
`of success in combining the prior art, the asserted patents are not obvious; and
`
`
`
`(f) Claims 26–27, 35–37, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653 are
`
`not obvious or anticipated.1
`
`
`1 Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment contains a cursory reference to Rule
`54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Doc. # 200, at 1.) However, Plaintiff neither
`has moved for Rule 54(b) certification nor has it shown that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate.
`See Lloyd Noland Found., Inc. v. Tenet Health Care Corp., 483 F.3d 773, 777 (11th Cir. 2007)
`(explaining that, under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, first, “the court’s
`decision must be final in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered
`in the course of a multiple claims action, and a judgment in the sense that it is a decision upon a
`cognizable claim for relief” and second, “the district court must then determine that there is no just
`reason for delay in certifying it as final and immediately appealable” (citations and internal
`quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, a Rule 54(b) judgment does not accompany this Order.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00141-WKW-SMD Document 303 Filed 08/05/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`(4) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and no
`
`enhanced damages (Doc. # 201) is GRANTED on dependent claims 26 and 27 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653, which both refer to claim 20; the motion (Doc. # 201) is
`
`DENIED as moot as to the withdrawn claims; and the motion (Doc. # 201) otherwise
`
`is DENIED.
`
`This action proceeds to trial on Claims 1–2, 6, 8–10, and 20 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,347,450 and on Claims 35–37 and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,653.
`
`DONE this 5th day of August, 2021.
`
`
`
`/s/ W. Keith Watkins
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
