Cognex Can't Seek Early Summary Judgment in Bar-Code Reader Case

In this suit involving bar-code reader technology, Renton-based Microscan asserts US Patent No. 6,105,869 against Cognex, an international company with US headquaters in Massachusettes. In its Complaint, Microscan alleges that Cognex has been and is infringing at least claims 1, 7, 12 and 16 of the ’869 patent by manufacturing, using, selling and/or offering for sale at least its DataMan 100X, DataMan 100Q and DataMan 700 reader products.

After denying these allegations in its answer, Cognex moved for summary judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, Cognex argued that "the evidence shows that there can be no genuine dispute that an express limitation in each of claims 1, 7, and 12 of the ’869 patent, regarding the arrangement of illumination sources in the claimed device, is not satisfied in the Cognex Accused Readers, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents."

In a minute order, Judge Martinez struck the motion, finding that it implicated claim construction and therefore would not be decided prior to a Markman hearing.

This is yet another reminder that early summary judgment motions in this District must be accompanied by a motion for leave of court, explaining why the motion does not implicate claim construction issues, or if it does, why it is appropriate to hear the motion early.