District Court Should Have Granted Discovery, Not Summary Judgment

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Bancorp Services, L.L.C. [2007-1312 ] (June 2, 2008) [DYK, Mayer, Moore] The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of non-infringement even though it found that the district court correctly construed the claim term in dispute, because the court erred in denying additional discovery and that, even on the present record, there were genuine issues of material fact as to the issue of infringement.
BRIEF: The district court provided no explanation for why it did not allow any period for discovery as to defendant’s infringement action, but instead denied the Rule 56(f) motion on the basis that Bancorp had not proven that MetLife’s witnesses would testify contrary to their declarations. When, as here, there has been no adequate initial opportunity for discovery, a strict showing of necessity and diligence that is otherwise required for a Rule 56(f) request for additional discovery does not apply. The Federal Circuit concluded that that the district court erred both in denying Bancorp’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and in entering summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of MetLife.