GeoDynamics, Incorporated v. DynaEnergetics US, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00371 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2018)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

In this patent case, the Court now considers Dynaenergetics US, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the ’394 Patent as Lacking Proper Written Description [Dkt. # 109]. After considering the parties’ briefs on th e issue1 and the controlling case law, the Court concludes that a reasonable factfinder could determine that the written description requirement was met, so the Court will DENY this Motion. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff GEODynamics, Inc. (“GEOD”) owns U.S. Patent No. 8,220,394 (“’394 Patent”). Compl. [Dkt. #1].