Digest of Yufa v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 2014-1256 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2014) (non- precedential). On appeal from C.D. Cal. Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto (per curiam).

Procedural Posture: Patent holder, Mr. Yufa, appealed summary judgment of non-infringement. CAFC affirmed.

  • Literal Infringement: CAFC held that the patent holder’s arguments failed to create a genuine evidentiary dispute and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. In the proceedings before the district court, defendant Lockheed provided numerous declarations distinguishing five of its allegedly infringing products over the asserted particle detection method from Mr. Yufa’s patents. Lockheed moved for summary judgment and demonstrated that the evidence failed to establish a material issue of fact essential to Mr. Yufa’s case. The CAFC found that Mr. Yufa’s responses introduced no evidence contrary to the declarations submitted by Lockheed and held that a patent holder must prove that there is evidence—not argument—that a reasonable jury could find sufficient for infringement. Therefore, the patent holder’s arguments were deemed “bare allegations and denials”, which are insufficient to create a genuine evidentiary dispute.