Philippi-Hagenbuch Inc et al v. Western Technology Services International Inc

Filing 308

ORDER & OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 4/8/2015: IT IS ORDERED that for the reasons set forth IN THE FULL WRITTEN ORDER & OPINION, as well as during the April 1, 2015, hearing, Defendants' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions o f Plaintiffs' Technical Expert Frederick Smith 210 is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Damages Expert Michael E. Tate 200 is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Preclude Defe ndants from Rearguing Claim Construction 183 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants' Motion to Strike and Bar Plaintiffs' New Infringement Theories 146 is RESERVED. The Court will contact counsel to schedule this matter for phone conference to report on the status of settlement efforts. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER AND OPINION.)(JRK, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 08 April, 2015 03:20:58 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

PHILIPPI-HAGENBUCH, INC., and
LEROY HAGENBUCH,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WESTERN TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and WOTCO,
INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-1099

ORDER
This case was before the Court on April 1, 2015, for a Daubert Hearing on two pending
Daubert motions, as well as two other motions concerning expert testimony. Rule 702 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence governs the admissibility of expert testimony.
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form
of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) testimony is based upon
sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable
principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the
principles and methods reliably to the facts of this case.
The Court’s role in determining the admissibility of expert testimony is that of a
gatekeeper. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512, 517 (1997); Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). In performing this role, the Court
must determine whether the expert testimony in question meets two essential requirements: (1) it
must be based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge and (2) it must assist the

trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Daubert, 509 U.S. at
592; Fed. R. Evid. 702. In other words, the opinion must be reliable and relevant. Daubert, 509
U.S. at 597.
Daubert provides a list of four factors to be considered in determining the soundness of
the expert’s methodology:
(1) whether the proffered conclusion lends itself to verification by
the scientific method through testing; (2) whether it has been
subjected to peer review; (3) whether it has been evaluated in light
of the potential rate of error of the scientific technique; and (4)
whether it is consistent with the generally accepted method for
gathering the relevant scientific evidence.
Cummins v. Lyle Industries, 93 F.3d 362, 368 (7th Cir. 1996), citing Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594-95.
However, these factors are non-exclusive and do not constitute a definitive checklist. Kumho
Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999). The key concern is that the expert “employs
in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in
the relevant field.” Id., at 152. Ultimately, the trial judge is vested with considerable discretion
in deciding whether particular expert testimony is reliable. Ammons v. Aramark Unif. Servs.,
Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 816 (7th Cir. 2004).
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Technical
Expert Frederick Smith [210]

Defendants do not challenge Smith’s qualifications as a technical expert. Rather, they
argue that his opinions should be excluded primarily because there is no evidence to support
them. The particular opinions challenged are:
•
•

There are no acceptable, non-infringing alternatives to designing a truck body using the
Load Profiling Patents.
Truck bodies designed using the Load Profiling Patents are better than other truck bodies.

2

•

•
•
•
•

Westech is using multiple angles of repose in its payload models (e.g., that a single angle
on a form represents multiple angles that were measured from the front, rear, and sides of
actual payload, but all happen to be identical.)
Smith’s interpretation of claim terms attempts to contradict or rewrite the actual language
of the claims.
Defendants copied the alleged inventions of the Load Profiling and Water Tank Patents.
Smith cannot give opinions on non-technical advertising issues.
Smith cannot give opinions concerning legal and evidentiary issues.
The first two opinions are implicated in Smith’s testimony offered to establish the basis

for Plaintiffs’ claim for lost-profit damages. The parties agree that establishing lost-profit
damages must satisfy the Panduit factors as discussed in Rite Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co, Inc., 56
F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
To recover lost profits damages, the patentee must show a
reasonable probability that, “but for” the infringement, it would
have made the sales that were made by the infringer.
Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F. 1152 (6th
Cir. 1978), articulated a four-factor test that has since been
accepted as a useful, but non-exclusive, way for a patentee to
prove entitlement to lost profits damages. The Panduit test
requires that a patentee establish: (1) demand for the patented
product; (2) absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes; (3)
manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the demand; and
(4) the amount of profit it would have made. A showing under
Panduit permits a court to reasonably infer that the lost profits
claimed were in fact caused by the infringing sales, thus
establishing a patentee’s prima facie case with respect to “but for”
causation. A patentee need not negate every possibility that the
purchaser might not have purchased a product other than its own,
absent the infringement. The patentee need only show that there
was a reasonable probability that the sales would have been made
“but for” the infringement. When the patentee establishes the
reasonableness of this inference, e.g., by satisfying the
Panduit test, it has sustained the burden of proving entitlement to
lost profits due to the infringing sales. The burden then shifts to
the infringer to show that the inference is unreasonable for some or
all of the lost sales.
Smith’s testimony with respect to acceptable alternatives and the superiority of the patented
inventions are an attempt to satisfy the first two factors under Panduit.
3

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot make this showing because even if Westech was
removed from the market, there are 13 other competitors making these truck bodies, and there
are no allegations that these other competitors are infringing Plaintiffs’ patents or that customers
find their truck bodies unacceptable; in fact, Tate (Plaintiffs’ damages expert) summarizes sales
from four of these competitors who sold 371 truck bodies as compared to Plaintiffs’ nine sales
during the same period. These other competitors are much larger producers of truck bodies than
Plaintiffs, and it is the end user/purchaser who determines what is acceptable, not Smith
assessing the situation from a technical perspective where he has not done the studies necessary
to support his opinion. While Defendants have identified several inconsistencies or weaknesses
in Smith’s testimony, these inconsistencies go to weight rather than admissibility and can be
addressed through rigorous cross-examination.
Defendants also challenge Smith’s opinion that Westech is collecting multiple angles of
repose (all of which happen to be the same), as opposed to a single angle, in designing its
payload models. The truck body profile form completed by the customer asks only for a single
angle of repose, and even Plaintiffs’ own research shows that front, side, and rear angles of
repose are invariably different in the field. It is clear that the patent requires multiple angles of
repose – that is part of the way this was distinguished from prior art in the field. As Smith
clearly indicates that multiple angles of repose are required, which is consistent with the patent
claims, his opinion that building truck bodies based on the single angle requested on Defendants’
forms infringes on the patent because all of these angles happen to be identical is not excludable
if there is evidentiary support for this opinion.
Defendants ask the Court to bar Smith from giving opinions about the application of
certain terms in the claims that would amount to re-writing the claim language to cover
4

something completely different. Specifically, Defendants challenge: (1) Smith’s explanation of
the “adjusting step” as contradictory to the claim itself in the Load Profiling patents; (2) Smith’s
definition of “door” as either a doorway or door closure in the Water Tank patents; and (3)
Smith’s opinion that the Water Tank Maintenance claims require multiple hatches that promote
cross ventilation. The Court previously found that these claim terms are to be given their plain
and ordinary meaning. During the Daubert hearing, the Court accepted Smith’s definition of
“door” and ruled that the patent required only the opening of a single hatch; other terminology
will be defined in this Order.
Smith gives the opinion that Westech copied the inventions of the Load Profiling and
Water Tank Patents based on Westech’s possession of Hagenbuch’s 2000 article from the SAE
describing his invention, a 2011 article quoting Westech’s CEO as saying that Westech
reinvented itself in 2004, and a 2008 article entitled “Westech Tailors Its Truck Bodies to Meet
the Fleet.” However slim it may be, this is some evidentiary support for Smith’s opinion.
Although subject to substantial cross-examination, the objection goes to weight rather than
admissibility, and the opinion will not be barred.
Defendants contend that Smith’s opinions regarding advertising issues should not be
allowed, as Smith is a technical expert with no expertise in advertising, and that he is not
allowed to give opinion on legal and evidentiary issues. Westech concedes that Smith is
qualified to opine on whether a particular advertisement is technically accurate by comparing the
advertisement to federal regulations within his knowledge. Plaintiffs indicate that Smith is a
technical expert, not an advertising expert, and that his opinion is being offered on false
advertising issues solely to assist the jury in understanding the technical accuracy or inaccuracy

5

reflected in the advertising. Plaintiffs also confirmed that Smith is not a legal expert and will not
be offering legal opinions in this case.
Accordingly, for these reasons, as well as those stated during the April 1, 2015, hearing,
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Technical Expert Frederick
Smith is denied.

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs’
Damages Expert Michael E. Tate [200]

Tate is offered as a damages expert. His qualifications to testify as an expert are not
challenged. Plaintiffs seek both lost profits and reasonable royalty damages on the Load
Profiling patents and only reasonable royalty damages on the Water Tank patents.
Defendants argue that Tate’s loft profits opinion must be excluded because in applying
the Panduit factors, Tate relies on the challenged opinions of Smith (that there is demand for the
patented truck bodies and that there are no acceptable, non-infringing options), and that without
Smith’s opinions, Tate’s opinions have no basis. Plaintiffs respond that there is nothing wrong
with Smith’s opinions and that Tate can reasonably rely on the opinion of another expert in that
expert’s area of expertise. Defendants also claim that Tate conflates demand for custom truck
bodies with demand for truck bodies designed using Plaintiffs patented process in rendering his
damages opinion. Plaintiffs point to testimony from the head of Defendants’ sales department
that customers purchase the custom truck bodies over generic bodies because they are designed
to meet the customer’s specifications, carry a particular load, and “max out” the trucks
performance; these benefits make the additional cost worthwhile to the customer. Having denied

6

the request to exclude Smith’s opinions, the Court finds that the remaining challenges to Tate’s
opinions go to weight rather than admissibility.
Tate’s reasonable royalty opinions are challenged for failure to apportion reasonable
royalty damages between the patented and non-patented features of the patents as required by
VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Garretson v. Clark,
111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884). The basis for this argument is the assertion that reasonable royalty
damages cannot be calculated based on the market value of the entire product, but rather must be
based on the smallest salable component that practices the invention; calculations based on the
entire product market value are only appropriate where the patented feature creates the demand
for the product. As Tate did no investigation or analysis on the demand for truck bodies
designed using the patented process, Defendants maintain that he has no basis for using the
entire product value in his calculations.
The Federal Circuit has established that royalty awards are based on “the smallest salable
patent-practicing unit.” LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Plaintiffs maintain that their patented design process creates a truck body or water
tank; there is no smaller, salable unit that can be separated or apportioned out for purposes of
calculation. The patented inventions (even as licensed by Plaintiffs) are the entire water tank
and the process for creating an entire truck body, whereas the relief sought by Defendants
applies only where the patented invention/process is part of a larger, multi-component product
that combines the patented invention/process along with other non-patented inventions/
processes. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs were required to show that the patented features create a
demand for the entire product, they argue that the emphasis on the benefits of the patented
features in Westech’s own advertising would make such a showing.
7

For the reasons set forth in this Order, as well as those stated during the April 1, 2015
hearing, Defendants’ challeges to Tate’s reasonable royalty opinions also go to weight rather
than admissibility. The Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Damages
Expert Michael E. Tate is denied.

III.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Preclude Defendants from Rearguing Claim
Construction [183]

Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike the claim construction arguments in the expert reports of
Dr. Daniel D. Frey as incorrect and inconsistent with the Court’s Order on Claim Construction.
They argue that expert testimony on claim construction is irrelevant and that experts should not
be allowed to construe terms that are to be given their plain meanings, citing Cook Inc. v.
Endologix, Inc., 2012 WL 3886204, at *4 (S.D.Ind. Sept. 6, 2012), for the proposition that where
the Court concludes that a term requires no construction, “it does not invite the parties to present
their arguments about that term’s meaning to the jury.”
Defendants respond that the Court did not construe the terms at the Markman hearing.
This is incorrect, as the Court did construe the terms by determining that no further construction
was necessary and directing that they be given their ordinary and customary meaning. Not
surprisingly, the parties now disagree over the scope of the ordinary and customary meaning of
these terms. Dr. Frye conducted his own independent investigation into the plain and ordinary
meaning of the claim terms at issue. Defendants urge the Court to review Dr. Frey’s analysis, as
well as the evidence he relied on, and decide for itself whether his opinions are correct. They
cite O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), for the

8

proposition that where the ordinary meaning of a term does not resolve the parties’ dispute, the
Court must determine what claim scope is appropriate in the context of the patents-in-suit.
The Court previously issued a preliminary determination that certain identified terms in
the patents should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, namely the meaning a person
of ordinary skill in the art in question would attach to the term. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, following discovery, the parties now dispute the
scope of these terms and what the ordinary and customary meanings are in the context of the
patents at issue. As the direction to use the terms’ ordinary meanings did not resolve the parties’
dispute, the Court finds that it has an obligation to resolve the dispute. Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). If intrinsic evidence (the patent itself,
including its claims, specification, and complete prosecution history) does not resolve the
dispute, extrinsic evidence, including credibility determinations among factual interpretations by
expert witnesses, may be considered to resolve the factual dispute. The terms in dispute are as
follows:

Terms Related to the Water Tank Patents
The first term in dispute is “pivotal baffle.” While there is no dispute that the term
baffle means “an interior wall in a water tank,” adding the word “pivotal” to the term has created
much disagreement. Plaintiffs take the position that the ordinary and customary meaning of this
term is “A portion of a baffle that pivots, such as a door in a baffle.” Defendants respond that
the ordinary and customary meaning is “a baffle that pivots.” In reviewing the figures (e.g., Fig
3) and claims 22-24, 36, and 60 of the ‘091 Patent, it is clear that the so-called pivotal baffles
refer to the baffle doors that can pivot on the hinges attached to the walls to open or closed
9

positions and match up with the lateral, C-shaped ribs to form the lateral baffle system
supporting the two side sections of the tank. The Court finds that the testimony of Plaintiff’s
Expert Smith is more credible on this point and adopts Plaintiff’s scope of the ordinary and
customary meaning of this term being “a portion of a baffle that pivots, such as a door in a
baffle.”
The next term is “door.” Plaintiffs argue that a door in the context of these patents is “an
opening and/or a closure for an opening.” Defendants respond that a door is “a movable closure
for an opening.” The Detailed Description of the Invention for the ‘091 Patent (col. 5, line 59 col. 6, line 40) describes doors as being on hinges so they can move between open and closed
positions. The Independent Claim 1 of the ‘507 Patent refers to doors as openings sized to allow
a person to walk between compartments. Dependent Claims 5 and 8 refer to doors as closures
that can seal the opening or being hinged to the tank for pivoting between open and closed
positions. Given the lack of reference to closing in Claim 1, the Court finds that the term door
could refer to both an opening and a closure for the opening. The testimony of Plaintiff’s Expert
Smith is more credible in this respect, and the Court adopts Plaintiff’s scope of the ordinary and
customary meaning of this term being “an opening and/or a closure for an opening.”
The final claim dispute with respect to the water tank patents involves “unfastening and
opening a hatch of one or more access openings.” The parties dispute whether the water tank
patents require opening more than one hatch. Claim 35 of the ‘507 Patent references opening the
hatch of one or more access openings on an exterior surface of the tank; there is also a reference
to access openings being positioned on the exterior of the tank to promote circulation of air into
the interior of the tank when the hatch is opened. There are two different concepts at play here,
namely the positioning of access openings on the exterior of the tank and the number of hatches
10

to these access openings that must be opened. Clearly, Claim 35 contemplates the existence of
multiple access openings, yet it also plainly allows for the possibility that the hatch of only one
of these access openings will be opened in performing tank maintenance. While Claim 35
allows multiple hatches to be opened, nothing in the claim requires it. Accordingly, the Court
finds that the plain and ordinary meaning of this phrase encompasses opening at least one hatch
to promote the circulation of air. Any other construction would render the word “one” in Claim
35 meaningless. Whether this would provide effective circulation of air is not for this Court to
decide.

Terms Related to the Truck Body Patents
The Truck Body Patents claim a process for designing a custom truck body for specific
field operating environments by taking into consideration actual field conditions through the use
of three-dimensional modeling of the loads to be hauled. As these patents describe a process,
many of the contested terms are inter-related, overlap, and build upon each other to culminate in
the actual production of the custom truck body. Accordingly, determinations of the meaning and
scope of these terms must be considered in the context of the patented process itself.
As set forth in the patents, the process begins with gathering information in the field to
determine the heaping characteristics of the material to be hauled. At a minimum, this
information must include angles of material repose in three dimensions, namely front, rear, and
side angles. This information is then used to develop a three-dimensional model of the load to
be hauled in the truck body. This three-dimensional load model is then compared to a
predetermined load center of gravity for the chassis to arrive at a set of design parameters. If the
center of gravity of the three-dimensional model aligns closely with the predetermined location
11

on the chassis, the design is complete, and the body is produced in accordance with the design
parameters. If the center of gravity for the three-dimensional model does not align closely with
the predetermined location on the chassis, then the design parameters for the truck body must be
adjusted until the center of gravity for the three-dimensional model is in alignment with the
predetermined location on the chassis. Then, the body will be produced in accordance with the
adjusted design parameters.
A central term in the truck body patents is “angles of repose.” It is undisputed that the
plain and ordinary meaning of “angles of repose” is plural. The process begins by determining
the heaping characteristics of the actual load to be hauled by collecting data/information about
the load. Plaintiffs assert that the ordinary and customary meaning of collecting angles/
information/data can encompass receiving a single angle of repose (actual or theoretical) from a
customer, such as what is obtained on Defendants’ information sheets, while Defendants insist
that at a minimum, the scope of these terms requires obtaining photographs of a heap of material
in a dump body at a mine site that can be used to measure the multiple angles of repose of the
heaped load of material.
Claim 1 of the ‘357 Patent refers to determining heaping characteristics at the anticipated
point of use including at least angles of material repose in three dimensions, wherein angles of
material repose include front, rear and side angles. Claim 20 requires developing a three
dimensional model, where the model incorporates angles of material repose in three dimensions
for an actual load at an anticipated point of use. Claim 46 in the ‘357 Patent provides:

(a) collecting data describing a three-dimensional shape of an
actual heap of the material, where the shape is affected by the

12

particular characteristics of the material and the data includes
angles of repose for the heaped material;
(b) determining a set of design parameters for the body from the
collected data . . .
Claim 55 likewise requires collecting data describing angles of repose of heaped material in
three dimensions, where the data is from a working environment and the material is a particular
material whose characteristics affect the angles of repose.
Considered in the context of the claims, the Court finds that the scope of the term
“angles of repose” must encompass more than one angle in three (front, back, and sides)
dimensions. A fair reading of the claims in context also reveals that the scope of
data/information to be collected in the “collecting multiple angles of repose/collecting
data/collecting information” terms must include, at a minimum, angles of repose in three
dimensions, which would then mean that the design parameters referenced in the “determining
a set of design parameters” terms necessarily include at least the angles of repose in three
dimensions, as well. While the scope of the patent claims has minimum requirements as set
forth above, the claims do not specify an exhaustive list of the data/information that must be
collected. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ position that the scope of these terms encompasses “any data
from a customer that could be incorporated into a payload model” is feasible, so long as the data
includes the angles of repose in three dimensions.
The next issue involves how this data/information is to be collected. Defendants assert
that the terms require “at a minimum, obtaining photographs of a heap of material in a dump
body at a mine site that can be used to measure the multiple angles of repose of the heaped load
of material.”

13

Claim 1 of the ‘978 Patent refers to developing a three dimensional volumetric model
using data collected from an anticipated point of use. Claim 35 of the ‘357 Patent requires
collecting information describing a three dimensional shape of a heaped load at an anticipated
point of use. Claim 60 of the ‘357 patent adds that the three dimensional data should be obtained
by observing either the particular material to be hauled or different material having substantially
the same heaping characteristics.
These “collecting data” terms clearly contemplate obtaining actual data regarding the
material at the mine site or a substantially similar material, either of which would include
a minimum of angles of repose in three dimensions. However, nothing in the claims requires
the data/information to be derived from photographs or prohibits the data/information from
being collected and provided by the customer.
The angles/data/information collected is then used to develop a three-dimensional
model of the load to be carried by the truck body. Plaintiffs advocate that the scope of this term
encompasses a payload model that includes four corner voids. Defendants counter that the scope
refers to a payload model that incorporates at least the multiple angles of repose and two or more
corner voids.
Claim 1 of the ‘978 Patent refers to “developing a three dimensional volumetric model of
a load to be carried in the body on a chassis using data collected from an anticipated point of
use.” The Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment, Figures 8, 8A, 9, 10a, 10b, 12, 13,
and Claims 1, 20, 35, 55, and 60 of the ‘357 Patent clearly reference using the heaping
characteristics of the material in three dimensions by incorporating the angles of repose in three
dimensions (front, back and sides) in order to determine a payload model.

14

Accordingly, the Court adopts “a payload model that incorporates at least the angles
of repose in three dimensions” as the scope of the ordinary and customary meaning of the
“three-dimensional model” terms.
The shape of the three-dimensional model is also in dispute. The patent claims contain
various descriptions incorporating the term “conical.” Plaintiffs claim that this term references
a payload model that is a cone or modified cone. Defendants counter that the term requires a
payload model that has multiple angles of repose that have been blended to transform a pyramid
shape into a shape that appears more conical. The plain language of the claims themselves is
instructive. Claim 3 of the ‘978 Patent references the three dimensional volumetric model of the
load as “substantially conical.” Claims 20, 40, and 61 of the ‘357 Patent refer to the “conical
shape” or “generally rounded-off conical shape” of the three dimensional model of the actual
load. By contrast, Claims 11, 12, 28, 34 and 50 of the ‘357 Patent require an incremental
blending of the respective side angles of repose to the front angle of material repose and an
incremental blending of the respective side angles of repose to the rear angle of material repose.
The express references to this blending process in some claims and not others promotes the
inference that the blending process is not required in the claims where it is not mentioned.
Accordingly, Defendants attempt to graft the requirement of an incremental blending process
onto Claims 20, 40, and 61 of the ‘357 Patent and Claim 3 of the ‘978 Patent is not credible.
Accordingly, the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ position on the scope of the “conical” terms being “a
payload model that is a cone or modified cone.”
This brings us to the so-called “adjusting step.” The parties’ dispute centers on whether
the adjusting step requires calculating a desired location before adjusting the design of the truck
body or merely identifying the desired location after the design is complete. Plaintiffs claim that
15

the “desired location” is adjusted until a desired weight distribution is achieved and the center of
gravity of the payload model will be located in the “desired location.” Defendants argue that the
“desired location” on the chassis is determined and then the design of the truck body is adjusted
until the center of gravity for the payload model lines up with that location.
In Claim 1 of the ‘978 Patent, the process is undeniably set forth in sequential order.
Determining a desired location for the load center of gravity comes before the adjusting step,
which refers back to the desired location. This implies that the location is determined first and
then the design is adjusted. Although the claims in the ‘357 Patent are not quite this clearly
phrased, the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiment makes clear that the there is a
center of gravity location contemplated by the chassis design that exists prior to the completion
of the 3-D model of the load. (Col. 8, lines 50-60). Col. 9, lines 5-20 describes the adjusting
step that must occur if the center of gravity contemplated by the 3-D model of the load is not
close enough to the desired location on the chassis, where the data is used to adjust the
parameters of the dump body to reach the proximity required. As explained by the Detailed
Descriptions and read in connection with the claims, the desired location (i.e., the center of
gravity contemplated by the chassis design) must logically exist before the design is adjusted to
relocate the center of gravity of the payload. Defendant Expert Frye’s position is more credible
on this point, and the Court finds that in the context of the Patents, the “desired location” on
the chassis is determined prior to the adjusting step that brings the center of gravity of the
payload model into alignment with the “desired location.”

16

IV.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike and Bar Plaintiffs’ New Infringement
Theories [146]

The schedule in this case required all infringement theories to be disclosed in Final
Infringement Contentions on January 29, 2013, with discovery closing on July 31, 2014, and
expert reports being served on September 8 and October 14, 2014. In his report, Plaintiff’s
technical expert, Fred Smith, allegedly disclosed four new theories of infringement that had not
been previously disclosed. Defendants move to strike and bar Plaintiffs from pursuing these
theories based on lack of timely notice, as Plaintiffs made no attempt to seek leave to amend
their final non-infringement contentions as required under Local Patent Rule 3.4: “[E]ach party
must provide a final statement of its contentions on relevant issues, which the party may
thereafter amend only ‘upon a showing of good cause and absence of unfair prejudice, made in
timely fashion following discovery of the basis for the amendment.’”
The four infringement theories challenged as being “fundamentally new” are:
(1) direct infringement of claims 35-38 (method of performing maintenance of water tank) of the
‘507 Patent under 35 USC § 271(a); (2) infringement of all claims of the patents-in-suit under
the doctrine of equivalents; (3) infringement of claims 35-38 of the ‘507 Patent based on the
assertion that the fill hole/stairway access opening of the accused water tanks constitutes a
“hatch of one or more access openings” within the meaning of claim 35; and (4) willful
infringement based on allegations that Westech copied Plaintiffs’ inventions. Defendants ask the
Court to strike these new theories pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority to enforce the rules
and deadlines of the case, as well as Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c) for failure to timely disclose the theories.
They cite Pactiv Corp v. Multisorb Techs, Inc., 2013 WL 2384249, at *1, 3-4 (N.D.Ill. May 29,
2013), for the proposition that allowing an expert to go beyond the party’s final invalidity
17

contentions “would render them useless and ignore the specificity requirements of the Local
Patent Rule 2.3." See also, Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 2014 WL
4477932 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 10, 2014) (striking portions of expert report that did not conform with
final infringement contentions.)
This Motion was only addressed to the extent that Plaintiffs confirmed that theories (2)
and (4) are not presently being pursued, but were raised only in anticipation of arguments to be
made in rebuttal at trial. The remainder of this Motion will be addressed, if necessary, upon
conclusion of the parties’ discussions regarding the possibility of resolving this case prior to
trial.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, as well as during the April 1, 2015, hearing, Defendants’
Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Technical Expert Frederick Smith [210] is
DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Damages
Expert Michael E. Tate [200] is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Preclude
Defendants from Rearguing Claim Construction [183] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. Defendants' Motion to Strike and Bar Plaintiffs' New Infringement Theories [146] is
RESERVED. The Court will contact counsel to schedule this matter for phone conference to
report on the status of settlement efforts.
ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2015.

s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge

18