Fill and Sign the Form 16b 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE _________ DISTRICT OF ______________ (Name of State) _______________ (Name of Division) Plaintiff’s Pretrial Memorandum TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page _____ INTRODUCTION Page _____ STATEMENT OF THE CASE Page _____ ARGUMENT Page _____ A. The Determination of Infringement is a Two-Step Process. B. The First Step is to Construe the Meaning and Scope of the Claims. C. The "Tool" Claims (Claim 36 of the ____________ Patent and Claim 24 of the ____________ Patent) are Directly Infringed by the Thick paper Disc Manufactured and Sold by __________________ (Name). CONCLUSION Page _____ EXHIBITS Exhibit A Identification of Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits 1–22, Contained in a Separate Volume Exhibit B Identification of Plaintiff’s Witnesses Exhibit C Stipulated Facts Exhibit D Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law INTRODUCTION The sole issue in this case is whether the Defendant’s manufacture and sale of a triangular piece of thick paper specifically shaped to fit on the end of a polisher
Constitute a violation of (name of defendant) patent c. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant has infringed the asserted claims pursuant to 35 § 271(b)(1), 35 § 271(b)(2), and 35 § 271(b)(3) b“ "commingling" between the thick disc and the plastic handle of the defendant's polisher. The district court found that: (1) plaintiff has not shown any evidence of actual infringement and, thus, that the claim is improperly raised; (2) the asserted claims were not necessarily found to have been infringed; and, therefore, that the asserted claims are improperly limited in scope; (3) because the thin sheet of the defendant's polisher is not a “combiner" as defined in 35 § 271(b)(3) and because plaintiff does not allege that the defendant has “filed for an injunction against any particular infringement of these claims,” the asserted claims are not infringed according to the standard in 35 § 271(b)(2) and are not infringed pursuant to 35 § 271(b)(3); (4) it is undisputed that the defendant sold the thick piece of paper which was clearly shaped and had sufficient weight to support use on a plastic handle of a polisher; and (5) the existence of the defendant's sale of the paper does not support plaintiff's use of the term “combiner." accordingly, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's request for declaration, in dismissing the non-infringement count, or in rejecting plaintiff's other allegations (see ¶ 7). ¶ 34 the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are correct and support summary judgment in the favor of the defendant. The court accepts defendants' submission that it has not infringed plaintiff's claimed claims “solely due to the defendant's alleged inadvertent infringement” (§ (b)(1)(ii)). In support, defendants rely on a recent supreme court case involving a case brought by a patent applicant who sought reversal of a lower court's denial of a patent's patent ability due to the fact that the patentee did nothing to prevent the infringed from obtaining the patent. In re grubbins, 556 (2009). In grubbins, the plaintiff alleged that.