Intex Recreation Corporation v. Team Worldwide Corporation

District of Columbia, dcd-1:2004-cv-01785

ORDER granting {{212}} plaintiff Intex Recreation Corporation's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement; denying {{211}} defendant Team Worldwide Corporation's motion for summary judgment of infringement; judgment is entered for Intex o n Claim I of Intex's amended complaint; judgment is entered for Intex on Claim I of Team Worldwide Corporation's counterclaim; and Intex shall show cause on or before March 28, 2014 as to why Claim II (patent invalidity) of Intex's amended complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 10, 2014.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________) INTEX RECREATION CORPORATION,)) Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,)) v.) Civil Action No. 04-1785 (PLF)) TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION,)) Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.) ___________________________________) ORDER For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that [212] plaintiff Intex Recreation Corporation's ("Intex") Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement is GRANTED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that [211] defendant Team Worldwide Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement is DENIED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered for Intex on Claim I of Intex's Amended Complaint; it is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered for Intex on Claim I of Team Worldwide Corporation's Counterclaim; it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DECLARES that Intex's products containing or incorporating pumps with pump model numbers 619RW and 619RL and pumps of like structure DO NOT INFRINGE Claims 14 through 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,793,469 B2; it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DECLARES that Intex's products containing or incorporating pumps with pump model numbers AP619, 639, and 626R and pumps of like structure DO NOT INFRINGE Claims 14 through 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,793,469 B2; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 28, 2014, Intex shall show cause as to why Claim II (patent invalidity) of Intex's Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. /s/_______________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN DATE: March 10, 2014 United States District Judge 2