ACE
DuraFlo® Wins Motion for Summary Judgment
of Noninfringement in Patent Dispute
LOS ANGELES--, Feb. 01, 2007 (BUSINESS
WIRE)--ACE DuraFlo® Systems,
LLC (ACE) announced today that the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California
granted ACE’s motion for summary judgment,
ruling that ACE has not infringed, induced
others to infringe or contributed to the infringement
of United States Patent No. 5,707,702 (the “702
patent”). The ’702 patent generally
involves a method for manufacturing an epoxy
pipelining composition. The ‘702 patent,
owned by the US, is licensed to American Pipe
Lining Inc. (APL) and sublicensed to Nu Flow
America, Inc. ACE had sought a declaration
of noninfringement as part of an ongoing dispute
with APL, Nu Flow America, Inc, Nu Flow 2000,
Bill Howe Plumbing and others. In granting
summary judgment, the court found that APL
had not presented any evidence from which a
reasonable fact-finder could find that ACE
infringed the ‘702 patent. APL failed
to provide any evidence of infringement.
Larry Gillanders, CEO, Chief Technology Officer
for ACE, commented, “APL thought it could
bully ACE and its licensees into paying royalties
even though there was no infringement. APL’s
assertions were so baseless that APL could
not and did not provide any evidence whatever
of infringement. Even the ‘702 patent
owner, the US Government, distanced itself
from APL’s baseless allegations. It would
appear that APL was reckless in bringing this
infringement case against us. Therefore, we
intend to file a motion asking the Court to
require APL to pay ACE’s attorneys’ fees
incurred in defending this baseless claim.
In August 2005, ACE was threatened with patent
infringement claims by APL. APL refused to
provide any evidence of infringement. To clear
the matter, ACE filed a lawsuit against APL
in the United States District Court seeking
a declaration that ACE had not infringed, induced
others to infringe or contributed to the infringement
of the ‘702 patent (U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, Case No. SACV05-1039
DDP (CTx)). ACE, right from the onset of APL’s
allegations always contended it did not infringe
for several reasons. In September 2006, ACE
filed for a Motion of Summary Judgment of noninfringement.
The US District Court’s January 31, 2007
ruling resolves this issue in favor of ACE.
Contacts
LF |PR
8935 Research Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
zaynabb@lucidfusion.com
949-502-7750 x.202 |
