CSB-SYSTEM INTERNATIONAL INC. v. SAP AMERICA, INC., 10-2156. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120511a34
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 10, 2012
Latest Update: May 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior Judge. AND NOW, this 9 th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff CSB-System International Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct and No Unclean Hands (Docket No. 87), Defendant SAP America, Inc.'s Response (Docket No. 99), Plaintiff's Combined Motion to Strike and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 118), Defendant's Opposition to CSB's Motion to Strike (Docket No. 123), and Plaintiff's Reply i
Summary: ORDER RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior Judge. AND NOW, this 9 th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff CSB-System International Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct and No Unclean Hands (Docket No. 87), Defendant SAP America, Inc.'s Response (Docket No. 99), Plaintiff's Combined Motion to Strike and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 118), Defendant's Opposition to CSB's Motion to Strike (Docket No. 123), and Plaintiff's Reply in..
More
ORDER
RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, Senior Judge.
AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff CSB-System International Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct and No Unclean Hands (Docket No. 87), Defendant SAP America, Inc.'s Response (Docket No. 99), Plaintiff's Combined Motion to Strike and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 118), Defendant's Opposition to CSB's Motion to Strike (Docket No. 123), and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Strike (Docket No. 126), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Unclean Hands is DENIED AS MOOT in light of Defendant's withdrawal of this defense. Defendant shall be precluded from relying on this defense at trial in this action, but this ruling shall have no preclusive effect beyond the confines of this case.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct is GRANTED both as to (1) Defendant's theory of inequitable conduct based on the actions of Gottfried Thomas, Ulrich Mergemann, Peter Schimitzek, and Michael Striker; and (2) Defendant's theory of inequitable conduct based on the actions of Peter Haussingen.
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT.
Source: Leagle
