Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation
Filing
552
MEMORANDUM ORDER regarding unresolved issues after the pretrial conference (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/7/2014. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
INVENTIO AG,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 08-874-RGA
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The Court now takes up the two issues that remained unresolved after the pretrial
conference: (1) the clarification ofthe Court's holding regarding "advance selector" and (2) the
Defendant's Third Motion In Limine.
(1) "The best mode inquiry is directed to what the applicant regards as the invention,
which in turn is measured by the claims. Unclaimed subject matter is not subject to the
disclosure requirements of§ 112; the reasons are pragmatic: the disclosure would be
boundless, and the pitfalls endless." Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Furthermore, "As in enablement, the 'invention' referred to in the
best mode requirement is the invention defined by the claims." Bayer AG v. Schein
Pharm., Inc., 301 F.3d 1306, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, the invention, as defined by
the Court's construction of the asserted claims, does not include an "advance selector."
The Defendant is therefore precluded from arguing that any aspect of the asserted claims
can be invalidated for failure to describe the best mode of an "advance selector."
(2) "[C]opying requires the replication of a specific product. This may be demonstrated
either through internal documents; direct evidence such as disassembling a patented
prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a
virtually identical replica; or access to, and substantial similarity to, the patented product
(as opposed to the patent)." Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d
1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). Thus, it is required that the thing
being copied must be shown to embody the relevant patent. Therefore, in order for a
party to bring forth evidence of copying, the party must first make a showing that the
thing being copied is in fact an embodiment of the relevant patent. The Court is unaware
of any evidence remaining in the case from which Plaintiff may show that the copied
elevators embody the patents-in-suit. The Court therefore GRANTS the relevant portion
of Defendant's Third Motion in Limine, but will reconsider the matter if the Plaintiff puts
on evidence that shows the Avenue of the Americas elevator modernization is an
embodiment of the asserted patent claims.
,(.
Entered this ?day of February, 2014.
United States
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?