Geomatrix Systems, LLC v. Eljen Corporation
3:20-cv-01900
D. Conn.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Geomatrix Systems, LLC sued Eljen Corporation for patent infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,174,863, relating to septic leach field technology.
- Eljen counterclaimed, asserting the patent is invalid based on prior art references and arguing non-infringement.
- The Court initially granted summary judgment in part for Geomatrix (finding Eljen’s products infringed) and ruled that some of Eljen’s prior art references weren’t admissible due to hearsay or not being "printed publications" or "in public use or on sale" before the critical date.
- Eljen moved for reconsideration, arguing the exclusion of these references was erroneous and based on hearsay grounds not previously raised by Geomatrix.
- Eljen produced new declarations and argued it could provide admissible evidence at trial to support admissibility of the disputed references.
- The Court vacated its prior order and granted Eljen’s motion for reconsideration, agreeing that the evidence should not have been excluded at summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearsay exclusion of expert’s evidence | Mr. Lombardo lacked personal knowledge; never raised hearsay directly | Court should have not excluded as hearsay because objection not raised; could cure with declarations | Exclusion was error; hearsay objection waived; evidence could be admitted if reduced to admissible form |
| Whether prior art references are admissible | Not sufficiently public/distributed; expert lacks qualifying knowledge | References were publicly available; can prove admissibility at trial | Evidence could be reasonably reduced to admissible form at trial |
| Application of FRE 702/703 to expert testimony | Expert opinion not admissible on "public availability"; insufficient technical basis | No immediate FRE 702/703 challenge; issue premature; other admissible evidence available | Deferred; parties may file Daubert motions if needed |
| Use of interrogatory responses at summary judgment | Not addressed | Can support admissibility of Mini/Max reference via testimony and records | Interrogatory responses can be used to support summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment evidence need not be in admissible form so long as content could be admitted at trial)
- Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49 (strict standard for motions for reconsideration)
- Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155 (reconsideration proper only for clear error, new evidence, change in law)
- Analytical Survs., Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (motions for reconsideration are not for new arguments or rehashing old ones)
- Bellard v. Gautreaux, 675 F.3d 454 (court discretion to consider unobjected-to evidence)