United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
Elizabeth A. Wolford United States District Judge
Steuben Foods, Inc. ("Plaintiff) has sued Defendants GEA
Process Engineering and GEA Procomac S.p.A. (collectively
"Defendants") for patent infringement under 35
U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiffs
complaint, filed on September 24, 2012, alleges, among other
things, that Defendants have infringed United States Patent
No. 6, 209, 591 (the '"591 Patent").
(Id. at ¶¶ 65-71). The '591 Patent
issued on April 3, 2001, and is entitled "Apparatus and
Method for Providing Container Filling in an Aseptic
Processing Apparatus." (Id. at ¶ 23).
case was initially assigned to the Honorable William M.
Skretny, United States District Judge. On December 20, 2013,
Judge Skretny entered an order referring this matter to the
Honorable Jeremiah J. McCarthy, United States Magistrate
Judge, for hearing and disposition of all non-dispositive
motions or applications, supervision of discovery, and to
hear and report upon dispositive motions pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(1)(B) and (C). (Dkt. 89).
filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of
the '591 Patent on November 18, 2015. (Dkt. 227). On
April 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended that
this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's
motion. (Dkt. 292). With the Magistrate Judge's leave
(Dkt. 295), Defendants filed an amended motion for summary
judgment on April 15, 2016. (Dkt. 300). Magistrate Judge
McCarthy filed a second Report and Recommendation on August
26, 2016, this time recommending that the Court grant
Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment of
non-infringement of the '591 Patent. (Dkt. 356).
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs objections to the
second Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 366).
Court has reviewed the second Report and Recommendation (Dkt.
356); the objections, response, and reply (Dkts. 366, 380,
388); the amended summary judgment motion and briefing papers
(Dkts. 300, 308, 315, 321-22, 339-41); the transcript of the
oral argument on the amended summary judgment motion, and the
parties' accompanying argument outlines (Dkts. 327, 328,
331); the first Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 292); and the
original summary judgment motion and briefing papers (Dkts.
227-28; 246-48; 254; 266-70). For the reasons stated below,
the Court denies Plaintiffs objections, adopts the second
Report and Recommendation in whole, and grants
Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
300). Defendants' initial motion for summary judgment
(Dkt. 227) is denied as moot.
factual and procedural background of this case is set forth
in detail in the two Reports and Recommendations.
(See Dkt. 292 at 1-6; Dkt. 356 at 1-2). Familiarity
with the Reports and Recommendations is assumed for purposes
of this Decision and Order.
Standard of Review
district court reviews any specific objections to a report
and recommendation under a de novo standard.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) ("A judge of the court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made."). To trigger the de novo
review standard, objections must "specifically identify
the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to
which objection is made and the basis for each
objection." L.R. Civ. P. 72(b); see, e.g., Molefe v.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F.Supp.2d 485, 487
(S.D.N.Y.2009). Following review of the report and
recommendation, the district judge "may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiffs Objections Lack Merit
has made the following objections to the second Report and
Recommendation (the "R&R"): (1) the R&R
improperly narrows the meaning of the word "into";
(2) the R&R fails to resolve the parties' dispute
regarding the definition of the first and second sterile
regions; (3) the R&R improperly construes the claim by
reference to the accused device; (4) the R&R improperly
rejects Plaintiffs infringement theory under its own
construction of the word "into"; (5) the R&R
improperly relies on Plaintiffs infringement contentions and
annotated demonstratives; and (6) the R&R improperly
failed to consider and approve Plaintiffs request for
additional discovery. The Court has considered each of these
objections and, for the reasons set forth below, finds them
to be without merit.
The R&R Properly Construes the Word