Twin Rivers Engineering, Inc. v. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc.

Filing 463

JUDGMENT by Judge Marilyn L. Huff. Accordingly, pursuant to the jurys findings, the Court enters judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiffs claim for infringement of claim 7 of the 993 patent.The Court previously issued an or der on the parties cross-motions for summary judgment on April 24, 2018. (Doc. No. 368.) In the order: 1. the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff with respect to: (1) Plaintiffs claim for false marking under 35 U.S.C. Section 292; (2) Plaintiffs claim for unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; and (3) Plaintiffs antitrust claim for per se unlawful concerted refusal to deal under 15 U.S.C. Section 1; 2. the Court granted summary adjudicat ion in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiffs claim for infringement of claims 2, 3, 6, and 9 of the 993 patent; and 3. the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant CHY on CHYs breach of contract counterclaim. (Id. at 37.) In addition, on June 5, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant CHY on CHYs promissory estoppel and quantum meruit counterclaims. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (shb)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TWIN RIVERS ENGINEERING, INC.,

Case No.: 2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx)

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

JUDGMENT

v.
FIELDPIECE INSTRUMENTS, INC.;
and CHY FIREMATE CO., LTD.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

On May 29, 2018, the action came before the Court for a jury trial with the

20

Honorable Marilyn L. Huff presiding. (Doc. No. 446.) L. Peter Farkas and Lawrence

21

Harbin appeared for Plaintiff Twin Rivers Engineering, Inc. Kenneth P. Kula, Niky B.

22

Bagley, and Christopher M. Joe appeared for Defendants Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc. and

23

CHY Firemate Co., Ltd.
The jury issues have been tried, and on June 1, 2018, the jury rendered its unanimous

24
25

verdict on the following questions:

26

///

27

///

28

///
1
2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx)

1
2

FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
A. Direct Infringement

3

1. Has plaintiff proven that it is more likely than not that every requirement of claim

4

7 of its patent is included in the accused products?

5

The jury answered: No.

6

B. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

7

2. Has plaintiff proven that it is more likely than not that the accused products

8

include parts that are identical or equivalent to every requirement of claim 7 of

9

plaintiffs patent? In other words, for any requirement that is not literally found in

10

the accused products, do each of the accused products have an equivalent part to that

11

requirement?

12

The jury answered: No.

13

E. Willful Infringement

14

3. Has the plaintiff proven that it is more likely than not that the defendants actually

15

knew, or it was so obvious that defendants should have known, that its actions

16

constituted infringement of a valid and enforceable patent at the time when

17

infringement began?

18

The jury answered: No.

19
20

FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY DEFENSES
A. Obviousness

21

4. Do you find that Fieldpiece or CHY have proven, by clear and convincing

22

evidence, that Claim 7 of the ’993 Patent is invalid because the claimed invention as

23

a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art?

24

The jury answered: No.

25

B. Written Description Requirement

26

5. Do you find that Fieldpiece or CHY have proven by clear and convincing

27

evidence that Claim 7 of the ’993 Patent is invalid for lack of an adequate written

28

description?
2
2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx)

1
2

The jury answered: No.
(Doc. No. 457, 459.)

3

Accordingly, pursuant to the jury’s findings, the Court enters judgment in favor of

4

Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim for infringement of claim 7 of the ’993

5

patent.

6
7

The Court previously issued an order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment on April 24, 2018. (Doc. No. 368.) In the order:

8

1.

the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against

9

Plaintiff with respect to: (1) Plaintiff’s claim for false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292; (2)

10

Plaintiff’s claim for unfair competition under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; and (3)

11

Plaintiff’s antitrust claim for per se unlawful concerted refusal to deal under 15 U.S.C. §

12

1;

13

2.

the Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendants and against

14

Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim for infringement of claims 2, 3, 6, and 9 of the ’993 patent;

15

and

16

3.

the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against

17

Defendant CHY on CHY’s breach of contract counterclaim. (Id. at 37.) In addition, on

18

June 5, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant CHY

19

on CHY’s promissory estoppel and quantum meruit counterclaims.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 5, 2018

22

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

2:16-cv-04502-MLH (MRWx)