Patent Holder, LLC. v. Lone Wolf Distributors, Inc et al

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Lone Wolfs Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 50 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
PATENT HOLDER, LLC,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00452-DCN
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
LONE WOLF DISTRIBUTORS, INC.
and LONE WOLF R&D, LLC,
Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION
On December 13, 2018, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order
addressing numerous motions filed by the parties in this case. Dkt. 68. Most notably, the
Court denied Defendants Lone Wolf Distributors, Inc, and Lone Wolf R&D, LLC’s
(collectively “Lone Wolf”) first Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 40) and reserved
ruling on Lone Wolf’s second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 50).1 Dkt. 68, at 1920.
The Court withheld ruling on Lone Wolf’s second Motion for Summary Judgment
in light of information—discussed in more detail below—that arose on the day of the
hearing. To afford both sides an opportunity to fully respond to this information, the

1

In the Court’s “ORDER” section of its Decision it erroneously indicated that the motions for summary
judgment were filed by Plaintiff Patent Holder. Dkt. 68, at 19-20. This was simply a typo. Both motions
for summary judgment were in fact filed by Lone Wolf.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Court allowed each side to file additional briefing on the topic. The Court has received
and reviewed the parties’ supplemental briefs and finds that the issue remains unsettled.
Considering the continued discrepancy—this “disputed material fact”—the Court cannot
rule as a matter of law in favor of Lone Wolf. Discovery must be conducted before a
decision can be rendered on this issue.
II. DISCUSSION
To review: along with its “doctrines of equivalents” theory in support of summary
judgment, Lone Wolf contends that its product—specifically its 342 device—does not
infringe on Claim 1 of the ‘700 patent because one of the angles is outside the specified
range.
Claim 1 of the ‘700 patent requires that the “first connector leg [have] a
disconnector tab (228) at a third predetermined angle (“C”) approximately between 81
degrees and 91 degrees with respect to said first connector leg (226).” Dkt. 40-4 at 4:5962. Angle “C” is at the top of the device (highlighted) below.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

According to Lone Wolf, the 342 device’s “third predetermined angle (“C”)” is
ninety-seven (97) degrees. Because 97 degrees does not fall within the 81 to 91-degree
range as required in the ‘700 patent, Lone Wolf alleges that the 342 device does not
infringe on the ‘700 patent. Conversely, Patent Holder claims that the third predetermined
angle of the 342 device is actually 89 degrees and therefore does fall within the
specifications of the ‘700 patent.
Immediately preceding oral argument, the parties conferred and discovered the
reason behind the inconsistent results. Apparently, when measuring angle C, Lone Wolf
measured the inside, or interior space, of angle C, while Patent Holder measured the outer
surface, or back side, of angle C.
The parties’ supplemental briefs do not fully resolve this discrepancy. Although
both sides are adamant in the accuracy of their own measurements, each side casts doubt
on the other’s measurements and methods. Most importantly, however, the question as to
exactly where the angle should be measured—on the inside or the outside surface of the
angle—remains unanswered.
Although the illustrations (notably figure 3) within the ‘700 patent seem to
indicate angle C is the interior space of this predetermined angle, there is no language
within the patent itself actually stating this. As both sides correctly note in their briefs,
these competing opinions and measurements raise an issue of fact that precludes
summary judgment at this time. The parties must engage in discovery to flesh out these
matters—specifically, the crucial question of exactly where the angle is to be measured.
///
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

III. ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Lone Wolf’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 50) is DENIED.

DATED: March 6, 2019
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4