The Court refused to consider a motion for summary judgment, holding that there are genuine issues which need to be examined at trial.

The defendant brought its motion for summary judgment on the basis of anticipation and obviousness. However, the Court held that these are two separate legal issues which need to be addressed separately. Furthermore, before anticipation and obviousness can be considered, the Court needs to construe the patent and no expert evidence on construction was provided. In addition, the parties presented contradictory evidence on these issues. Thus, as the Court must assess and weigh the opinions of all the experts and as cross-examination is an essential feature in these cases, the motion for summary judgment ought not to proceed.

The Court also considered whether this was a case for summary trial. The Court held that a summary trial could be efficient in a patent case. However, in this case, based on the amount of time required to prepare the summary trial, the proximity of the actual trial date and the lack of independent expert evidence, allowing the motion to proceed would not be in the interest of justice.