Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number CASE NO. 4:02-CV-34 CONSOLIDATED WITH 4:03-CV-49 Motions Motion to strike : Denied Plaintiff Motion for partial summary judgment : Denied Defendant Motion for summary judgment : Denied Attorney(S) Roy William Hardin, Kristen Renee Paris, Monty Lee Ross, Stephen David Wilson, Locke Liddell Sapp, Dallas, TX, for Retractable Technologies Stephen David Wilson, Locke Liddell Sapp Dallas, TX, for Thomas Shaw Peter Kerr Munson, Munson, Munson, Cardwell Keese, Sherman, TX, for Defendants David P. Irmscher, Baker Daniels, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendants Shiv Ghuman O'Neill, Stacy L Prall, Nancy G. Tinsley, Baker Daniels, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants John T. Cox, III, Lynn, Tillotson Pinker, LLP Dallas, TX, for St. Paul Erdocs, PA Judges Leonard E. Davis Acts Patents — Patentability Of Inventions — Patentability Of Inventions And Grant Of Patents — Conditions For Patentability; Novelty See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES Plaintiff V. NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES Defendant ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge Defendant New Medical Technologies ("NMT") has filed Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of Claims 1 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,385,551 (Docket No. 67) and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,090,077 (Docket No. 86) based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Despite the fact that claim construction is the first step in an anticipation analysis, Key Pharms. V. Hercon Labs. Corp., NMT filed its motions before the Court's claim construction. 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE NMT's motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 67 and 86) as premature. The Court also DENIES the related Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Surreply Regarding Claims 1 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 5,385,551 (Docket No. 79) and Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,090,077 in Excess of Page Limitation (Docket No. 97) as moot.