Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,: Plaintiff : : v. : Civil No. AMD 01-3855 : : UNIVERSAL SECURITY : INSTRUMENTS, INC., et al., : Defendants : ...o0o... ORDER For the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is this 19th day of February, 2004, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED (1) That the motions for summary judgment (Paper Nos. 75,76,77,78,80,83) are

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED (2) That defendants' liability for patent infringement accrued on December 11,

2001, as the '894 patent was indefinite and therefore unenforceable prior to that date; (3) (4) That the '894 patent is not invalid on the ground of double patenting; That the `894 patent is not invalid on the ground of anticipation as there is no

basis in fact for a reasonable juror so to conclude; (5) (6) That the '894 patent is not invalid on the ground of statutory obviousness; That the `894 patent is not unenforceable on the ground of inequitable conduct

(apart from the issue of on-sale bar) as there is no basis in fact for a reasonable juror so to

conclude; (7) That the `894 patent is not unenforceable on the ground of patent misuse as

there is no basis in fact for a reasonable juror so to conclude; (8) That genuine disputes of material fact exists as to whether the '894 patent is

unenforceable due to an on-sale bar; (9) patent; (10) That the motion for an order to show cause why sanctions should not be That, as a matter of law, the accused device infringes on the claims of the '894

imposed (Paper No. 93) is DENIED; (11) That the motion to compel (Paper No. 107) is DENIED.

/s/ ANDRE M. DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-



Download Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc. (Order).

Maryland Law