Lift-U, a Division of Hogan MFG., Inc. v. Ricon Corp. et al

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING 57 motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on lack of written description and lack of enablement; DENYING 59 motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 10/28/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

LIFT-U, A DIVISION OF HOGAN MFG.,
INC., a California corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
RICON CORP., a California corporation, and
)
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE
)
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION dba
)
VAPOR BUS INTERNATIONAL, a Delaware )
corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY;
DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

Now before the Court are Defendants Ricon Corp. and Westinghouse Air Brake

18

Technologies’ (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (“Non-

19

Infringement Motion”), ECF No. 59, and motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on lack

20

of written description and lack of enablement (“Invalidity Motion”). ECF No. 57. After

21

considering the parties’ briefing and hearing oral argument, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion

22

for summary judgment of non-infringement and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary

23

judgment of invalidity for the reasons described below.

24
25

I. Background
Lift-U designs, develops, manufactures and sells, among other things, fold-out ramps that

26

facilitate handicapped access to public buses. One of Lift-U’s products, the “Fold Out Plus,”

27

generally lies stowed against the bus floor and is flipped outward through the bus doorway to

28

1
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

deploy, similar to a flip-top cellular phone. Such ramps are very stable when stowed or deployed,

2

because gravity holds the flippable portion of the ramp in place. When the ramp is flipped between

3

these two positions, gravity first pulls the ramp towards its starting position, making the flipping

4

hard to start. Midway through the flip, the ramp becomes momentarily balanced, before tipping

5

past its center of gravity and being pulled towards its final, post-flip position.

6

The invention at issue makes flipping the ramp easier, by providing a “counterbalance”

7

force that pushes against gravity. See ’433 Patent col. 1:40-53; 2:7-10; 10:15-47; 12:65-13:8. The

8

counterbalance force is provided by a spring or springs. These springs are rigged so that when the

9

ramp is vertical, balanced at its center of gravity, they do not push the ramp in either direction. Id.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In contrast, as the ramp tips towards a horizontal position – stowed or deployed – the springs

11

become compressed and push back against the force of gravity. Id.

12

The ramp counterbalance invention is claimed in a family of four patents assigned to Lift-

13

U: a parent, United States Patent No. 7,681,272 (“the ’272 patent”), and three continuations, United

14

States Patent Nos. 7,533,432 (“the ’432 patent”), 7,533,433 (“the ’433 patent”), and 7,533,434

15

(“the ’434 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). These patents share a common

16

specification. This specification describes an embodiment in which each spring is held between

17

two spring fittings with a rigid rod extending through the spring’s center (forming a “spring

18

assembly”). See ’433 Patent col. 11:16-54. Each end of the rigid rod is attached to one end of a

19

drive chain. See id. col. 11:16-22. Drive chain segments and the spring assemblies are linked in a

20

series to form an “endless loop,” and the ramp is attached to this loop, so that movement of the

21

ramp moves the loop. See id. col. 11:11-15; 12:23-41. A rigid paddle structure sticks into the path

22

of the endless loop. See id. col. 12:1-4. The drive chain slides through a hole in this structure, but

23

the spring fitting cannot. See id. col. 12:3-10. When the spring fitting catches against this

24

immobile “end stop” (a “restraint”), the spring begins compressing, creating a backwards force

25

away from the end stop. See id. col. 12:41-65. This backwards force pushes against the drive

26

chain and against the forces of gravity pulling the ramp. See id. col. 12:54-65. Because the drive

27

chain is narrow, it does not push against the spring directly, and the force from the spring does not

28

2
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

push back directly against the drive chain. Instead, the actual compressing of the spring towards

2

the restraint is done by a wider “cylindrical bushing” (a “biasing element”) attached to the drive

3

chain. See id. col. 11:34-46; 12:41-53. Certain claims, including claims 10 and 17 of the ’433

4

Patent, achieve the same effect by permanently fixing one spring end to the restraint (rather than to

5

the spring fitting), while leaving the biasing element free until it moves into contact with the free

6

end of the spring and initiates compression. See id. col. 19:14-32; 20:11-32.

7

Lift-U filed for reexamination of the patents-in-suit, after emergence of a prior art

8

reference, the Wittwer Patent, which raised a substantial new question of patentability. See, e.g.,

9

Non-Infringement Mot., ECF No. 59, Ex. 11 (Request for Reexamination of the ’433 Patent). Each

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

patent was amended during reexamination, and the USPTO issued a Certificate of Reexamination

11

for each patent. See Lift-U Claim Construction Br., ECF No. 56, Exs. I-L (Ex Parte Reexamination

12

Certificates for the Patents in Suit).

13

In a separate order, the Court adopted Lift-U’s proposed construction of the disputed terms.

14

Defendants conceded at the September 19, 2011 technology tutorial that their motion for summary

15

judgment of non-infringement would be rendered moot if the Court adopted Lift-U’s proposed

16

constructions. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is

17

DENIED as MOOT.

18
19
20

II. Legal Standard
A. Summary Judgment
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment as to “all

21

or any part” of a claim “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

22

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

23

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

24

of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), (c). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the

25

case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material

26

fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the

27

nonmoving party.” See id. “[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge must view

28

3
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.” Id. at 254. The

2

question is “whether a jury could reasonably find either that the [moving party] proved his case by

3

the quality and quantity of evidence required by the governing law or that he did not.” Id. “[A]ll

4

justifiable inferences must be drawn in [the nonmovant’s] favor.” See United Steelworkers of Am.

5

v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (citing Liberty Lobby, 477

6

U.S. at 255).

7

The moving party bears the initial responsibility for informing the district court of the basis

8

for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, interrogatory answers,

9

admissions and affidavits, if any, that it contends demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A party opposing a properly

11

supported motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of

12

[that] party’s pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

13

trial.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see also Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250. The opposing party need

14

not show the issue will be resolved conclusively in its favor. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248–

15

49. All that is necessary is submission of sufficient evidence to create a material factual dispute,

16

thereby requiring a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions at trial. See id.

17
18

B. Invalidity
Patents are presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282 (2006). Accordingly, to prevail on an

19

invalidity defense to infringement, an accused infringer must prove that the asserted claims of the

20

patent are invalid by clear and convincing evidence. SIBIA Neuroscis., Inc. v. Cadus Pharm.

21

Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

22

Patent claims are invalid if they lack sufficient written description or if the written

23

specification does not enable one skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention without undue

24

experimentation. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. The requirements of sufficient written description and

25

enablement are distinct. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F. 3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.

26

2010) (en banc).

27
28

1. Written Description.
4
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

“[T]he test for sufficiency [of written description] is whether the disclosure of the

2

application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had

3

possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. “An applicant complies with the

4

written description requirement by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not [by

5

describing] that which makes [the invention] obvious.” Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,

6

119 F.3d 1559, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, “it is unnecessary to spell out every detail of the

7

invention in the specification; only enough must be included to convince a person of skill in the art

8

that the inventor possessed the invention.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc., 424 F. 3d

9

1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “The written description requirement does not demand either

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

examples or an actual reduction to practice”; however, even actual reduction to practice cannot

11

satisfy the written description requirement if the specification fails to demonstrate possession of the

12

claimed subject matter. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. The adequacy of disclosure depends upon “the

13

state of the art and the nature and breadth of” the description of the patented invention. See Hynix

14

Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1352 (2011). The adequacy of written

15

description is a question of fact. See Martek Bioscis. Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1369

16

(Fed. Cir. 2009).

17
18

2. Enablement.
Enablement requires that “one skilled in the art, after reading the specification, could

19

practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” See Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.

20

BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Among the factors a court may

21

consider in determining the need for undue experimentation are, “(1) the quantity of

22

experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or

23

absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the

24

relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the

25

breadth of the claims.” In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In contrast to written

26

description, the adequacy of enablement is a question of law, although like claim constructions,

27

enablement findings may have factual underpinnings. Martek Bioscis. Corp., 579 F.3d at 1378.

28

5
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

III. Discussion

2

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses Lift-U’s argument that Defendants’ invalidity

3

motion is not ripe because it is not contingent on claim construction per the Court’s February 9,

4

2011 order and because expert discovery has not been completed. Plaintiff’s Invalidity Opp’n,

5

ECF No. 63, at 1-2 (Invalidity Opp’n). The Court finds that claim construction is dispositive of the

6

issue of invalidity. Therefore, the Court’s February 9, 2011 order authorizing “summary judgment

7

motions on issues for which claim construction will be dispositive” authorized Defendants’

8

invalidity motion. The Court also disagrees that pending expert discovery somehow makes this

9

motion not ripe. Lift-U does not suggest what type of evidence might emerge to support its

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

opposition. Moreover, Lift-U was able to submit the declaration of its inventor, David Johnson, as

11

an attachment to its opposition to Defendants’ invalidity motion. Thus, Lift-U had the opportunity

12

to address the issues raised in Defendants’ invalidity motion in this declaration. Accordingly, the

13

Court finds that Defendants’ invalidity motion is ripe for a decision on the merits.

14

Defendants argue that claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 of the ’433 Patent are invalid for

15

lack of sufficient written description and for lack of enablement. Because, as explained below, the

16

Court finds these claims invalid for lack of sufficient written description, it need not reach

17

Defendants’ arguments that the ’433 Patent is invalid for lack of enablement. See Ariad, 598 F.3d

18

at 1351 (noting that enablement and written description are distinct requirements).

19

A. Written Description

20

In its separate claim construction order, the Court construed “spring” and “compression

21

spring” to include gas springs. 1 In addition, the Court construed “endless loop,” “coupler,” “force

22

transmission element,” and “line” such that the spring can be offset from the endless loop / coupler

23

/ force transmission element / line (“offset spring”). Thus, as construed by the Court, the patent

24

claims an invention that includes gas springs or offset springs. Defendants argue that the written

25
26
27
28

1

In its Claim Construction Order, the Court found that Lift-U had not unambiguously disclaimed
gas springs when it distinguished prior art references that used gas struts that did not provide a
counterbalancing force. See Claim Construction Order 7-8.
6
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

description in the ’433 Patent would not convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had

2

possession of a design of the invention that included gas springs or offset springs.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1. Gas Springs.
The parties dispute whether the following paragraph in the specification conveys possession
of gas springs:
It should be understood that various known spring configurations providing linear or
non-linear reactive force can be included in the counterbalance assembly 100
without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. In addition,
alternate systems can be used to provide a resistive force, such as pneumatic
systems, hydraulic systems, and other systems known in the art.
’433 Patent col. 13:25-31 (emphasis added). The issue is whether the disclosure of “pneumatic

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

systems” in the specification is sufficient to convey to those skilled in the art that the “compression

11

springs” described in the specification, see, e.g., id. col. 12:45-47, included gas springs, and that

12

the inventor had possession of a design of the invention that used gas springs.

13

Defendants submit a declaration of their retained expert, Fred Smith, asserting that persons

14

having ordinary skill in the art understand pneumatic systems to be active systems that pump gas to

15

provide resistive force, but not passive resistance systems like gas springs. See Invalidity Mot. 12

16

(citing Ex. 3 (Smith Decl.) ¶ 13). Smith analogizes “pneumatic systems” to “hydraulic systems”

17

which he asserts are incapable of storing energy because fluids cannot be compressed. See id.

18

Lift-U, on the other hand, submits a declaration from one of the patent’s inventors, David

19

Johnson, asserting that pneumatic systems are a broad class of systems that include active systems,

20

such as those described in paragraph 13 of the Smith Declaration, and passive systems, which

21

include gas springs. See Johnson Decl. in Support of Opp’n to Invalidity Mot., ECF No. 64

22

(Johnson Decl.) ¶ 4.E. Mr. Johnson stated that “[o]ne type of ‘pneumatic system’ that is well

23

known to mechanical engineers is a pneumatic spring (alternatively referred to as a ‘gas spring’).”

24

Id. Mr. Johnson testified that a “spring is a very well defined mechanical element” that mechanical

25

engineers “study . . . in school” and learn about how “[springs] store energy” and “provide a force

26

in response to deflection.” Allen Decl. in Support of Lift-U’s Claim Construction Br. Ex. P

27
28

7
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

(Johnson Depo.), at 210:12-15. He also testified that when a gas spring is compressed, “the energy

2

is stored and you can recover that energy if you let [the gas spring] expand.” Id. at 139:23-140:2.

3

The Court finds that the parties’ experts’ dueling testimony creates a material factual

4

dispute as to whether the use of “pneumatic system” and “compression spring” in the 2007

5

specification 2 disclosed to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had invented

6

counterbalances that use gas springs. Moreover, Mr. Johnson’s conclusion that the specification

7

sufficiently describes a gas spring is further supported by Defendants’ own engineers’ description

8

of certain “compression springs” as “pneumatic” in their international patent application. Johnson

9

Decl., Ex. C. (Int’l Patent App. No. WO 2009/134975), at R001978 ¶ 8. This description

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

contradicts the declaration of Defendants’ expert, Mr. Smith, which stated that pneumatic systems

11

do not include compression springs. See Invalidity Mot. 12 (citing Ex. 3 (Smith Decl.) ¶ 13). As

12

Mr. Johnson testified, “pneumatic springs” are alternatively referred to as “gas springs” and can be

13

compressed. See Johnson Decl. in Support of Opp’n to Invalidity Mot., ECF No. 64 (Johnson

14

Decl.) ¶ 4.E. Thus, although Defendants’ international patent application post-dates Lift-U’s patent

15

applications by two years, Defendants’ engineers’ understanding that the term “compression

16

spring” includes pneumatic springs or gas springs is consistent with what Mr. Johnson testified

17

mechanical engineers learn in school.

18

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lift-U, a reasonable jury could find

19

that the ’433 Patent’s disclosure of “pneumatic [resistance] systems” conveys to those skilled in the

20

art that the inventor had possession of a design using gas springs at the time of the invention.

21

Therefore, the Court cannot grant summary judgment of invalidity of any claim solely on the

22

ground that the claim encompasses a “gas spring.”

23

2. Offset Springs.

24

Defendants argue that the written description of the ’433 Patent also does not convey to

25

those skilled in the art that the inventors possessed designs with springs offset from the endless

26

2

27
28

The record before the Court includes only the specification as originally filed and currently shared
by the patents-in-suit. The parties failed to provide the claims as initially submitted with the
specification to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
8
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

loop at the time of the invention. See Invalidity Mot. at 16. Lift-U counters that if the written

2

description discloses gas springs, then it necessarily discloses offset spring designs because one of

3

ordinary skill in the art would know that to practice the invention using a gas spring would require

4

offsetting the gas spring from the endless loop.

5

The Court agrees with Defendants that the written description does not adequately disclose

6

offset spring designs. The specification makes no reference to the possibility of designs with offset

7

springs. Id. at 17. Furthermore, all of Lift-U’s evidence discloses only springs in line with the

8

endless loop. Lift-U’s brief recognized that the preferred embodiment of the invention “depicted in

9

the Patents’ figures and described in detail in the Patents’ common specification . . . contains coiled

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

wire compression springs wrapped around a rod that is connected in line with the endless loop of

11

the chain.” Lift-U Br. at 4 (emphasis added). One of the inventors of the patent admitted that, as

12

designed, the spring is “wrapped around a rod that’s part of the endless loop.” See Invalidity Mot.,

13

Ex. 6 (Morris Dep. 28:21-29:3) (emphasis added).

14

Moreover, Defendants have submitted expert evidence that a person having ordinary skill in

15

the art would not understand the written description to indicate that the inventors possessed a

16

design in which a gas spring is offset from the endless loop. See Smith Decl. ¶ 14-16. Defendants’

17

expert, Mr. Smith, stated that “if the spring is moved off the centerline of the loop, it puts a

18

moment in the chain that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to resist. The patents,

19

however, disclose a force in line with the loop and do not disclose how to account for the off-line

20

moment of [sic] spring.” Id. at 16. The Court finds that the absence of any disclosure of offset

21

spring designs, coupled with Defendants’ expert evidence, constitute clear and convincing

22

evidence of lack of written description.

23

Lift-U has failed to submit any evidence to rebut Defendants’ evidence and raise an issue of

24

material fact. Lift-U argues that an offset spring design would be obvious and would not require

25

undue experimentation. Invalidity Opp’n 5-6. However, obviousness is not the standard for

26

adequate written description; neither is the ability to practice the claimed embodiment without

27

undue experimentation. See ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F. 3d 1368, 1379 (Fed.

28

9
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

Cir. 2009) (citing Regents of Univ. of Cal., 119 F.3d at 1566); Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352. Although

2

undue experimentation is the standard for finding invalidity due to lack of enablement, “the test for

3

sufficiency [of written description] is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon

4

reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed

5

subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.

6

Lift-U further argues that by disclosing a gas spring, the specification disclosed an offset

7

spring because the gas spring necessarily would have to be offset from the endless loop in order to

8

practice the invention using a gas spring rather than a coiled wire spring. The Court is not

9

persuaded. As Lift-U’s own expert, Mr. Johnson, stated, gas springs do not necessarily need to be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

offset from the endless loop to practice the invention. Mr. Johnson explained that the preferred

11

embodiment could easily be modified by a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a

12

gas spring by reshaping the guide rod into a tube “so that it goes around the gas spring,” leaving the

13

spring in line with endless loop. See Johnson Decl. ¶ 4.F.

14

Thus, even though the specification provides a written description sufficient to convey to

15

one skilled in the art that the inventor possessed a design of the invention using an in-line gas

16

spring, Lift-U has pointed to no evidence from the original claims, the specification, or the prior

17

art, that would convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor possessed any design using an

18

offset spring.

19

This deficiency is not remedied by the fact that mechanical engineering is a predictable art

20

in which inventions may be enabled with relative ease. At oral argument, Lift-U admitted that

21

enablement and written description are not entirely equivalent. Lift-U argued, however, that a

22

showing of enablement is sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement for an invention

23

in the predictable arts, citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the

24

written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the

25

complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”). In support of its position, Lift-U

26

pointed to dicta explaining that “[p]erhaps there is little difference in some fields between

27

describing an invention and enabling one to make and use it” and that “written description and

28

10
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

enablement often rise and fall together.” Id. at 1352. These dicta stand for nothing more than the

2

unremarkable proposition that in some cases, particularly in predictable arts, the written description

3

and enablement requirements will often both be met. The Federal Circuit made clear, however,

4

that “requiring a written description of the invention plays a vital role in curtailing claims that do

5

not require undue experimentation to make and use, and thus satisfy enablement, but that have not

6

been invented, and thus cannot be described.” Id. Here, there is no description of offset springs,

7

and Lift-U has pointed to no evidence that would convey to persons having ordinary skill in the art

8

that Lift-U had actually invented offset spring counterbalances as of the ’433 Patent’s filing date.

9

Under the claim construction adopted by the Court, the claims at issue in Defendants’

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

motion for invalidity, claims 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 of the ’433 Patent, encompass

11

counterbalances with springs offset from the endless loop. Given that Defendants have submitted

12

clear and convincing evidence that the specification would be insufficient to convey to those

13

skilled in the art that Lift-U had possession of offset spring designs at the time of the invention, and

14

Lift-U has failed to submit any evidence to rebut Defendants’ evidence, there is no genuine issue of

15

material fact as to the invalidity of these claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

16

motion for summary judgment of invalidity.

17
18
19

IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
of non-infringement and GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of invalidity.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: October 28, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

11
Case No.: 10-CV-01850-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
NON-INFRINGEMENT