Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corporation

Filing 456

MOTION by Defendants Apex Tool Group, LLC, Sears Holdings Corporation, Counter Claimants Apex Tool Group, LLC, Sears Holdings Corporation for judgment as a Matter of Law (Attachments: # 1 Table of Appendices, # 2 Appendix 1, # 3 Appe ndix 2-1, # 4 Appendix 2-2, # 5 Appendix 2-3, # 6 Appendix 2-4, # 7 Appendix 2-5, # 8 Appendix 2-6, # 9 Appendix 2-7, # 10 Appendix 2-8, # 11 Appendix 2-9, # 12 Appendix 2-10, # 13 Appendix 3 - PTX 1, # 14 Appendix 3 - PTX 3, # 15 Appendix 3 - PTX 4, # 16 Appendix 3 - PTX 51, # 17 Appendix 3 - PTX 119, # 18 Appendix 3 - PTX 157, # 19 Appendix 3 - PTX 175, # 20 Appendix 3 - PTX 467, # 21 Appendix 3 - PTX 503, # 22 Appendix 4 - DTX 1, # 23 Appendix 4 - DTX 2 , # 24 Appendix 4 - DTX 3, # 25 Appendix 4 - DTX 5, # 26 Appendix 4 - DTX 7, # 27 Appendix 4 - DTX 8R, # 28 Appendix 4 - DTX 9, # 29 Appendix 4 - DTX 9R, # 30 Appendix 4 - DTX 11, # 31 Appendix 4 - DTX 11R, # 32 Appendix 4 - DTX 23, # 33 Appendix 4 - DTX 24, # 34 Appendix 4 - DTX 74, # 35 Appendix 4 - DTX 75, # 36 Appendix 4 - DTX 212, # 37 Appendix 4 - DTX 213, # 38 Appendix 5)(Sernel, Marcus)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LOGGERHEAD TOOLS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION
and APEX TOOL GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 1:12-cv-09033
Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
Honorable Maria Valdez
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS APEX AND SEARS’ MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................1

II.

Legal Standard For Judgement As A Matter Of Law....................................................3

III.

Argument ............................................................................................................................4
A.

The Court Should Enter Judgment Of No Willfulness. ...........................................4
1.
2.

B.

The Court Has Already Granted And Reaffirmed Summary
Judgment Of No Willfulness. ......................................................................6
No Reasonable Jury Could Find Willfulness Based On The
Evidence Presented At Trial. .......................................................................8

The Court Should Grant JMOL Of Non-Infringement Based On A Correct
Construction Of The “Arm Portion” Claim Term. ................................................17
1.
2.

The Current Construction Of “Arm Portion” Contradicts
LoggerHead’s Statements To The PTO During Prosecution Of The
Asserted Patents. ........................................................................................23

4.

The Current Construction Of “Arm Portion” Is Contrary To The
Specifications Of The Asserted Patents. ....................................................26

5.

The Specifications And Intrinsic Record, As Well As The Ordinary
Meaning Of “Arm Portion,” Necessitate A Construction Requiring
That The Arm Portion Project From The Body Portion. ...........................28

6.

IV.

The Court’s Construction Of “Arm Portion” Conflicts With The
Claim Language And Basic Principles Of Claim Construction.................20

3.

C.

The Law Governing Claim Construction ...................................................18

Upon Correcting The Construction Of “Arm Portion,” The Court
Should Grant Defendants JMOL Of Non-Infringement. ...........................30

If The Court Does Not Grant JMOL Of Non-Infringement, It Should Grant
JMOL Of Invalidity For All Of LoggerHead’s Asserted Claims In Light
Of The Prior Art Buchanan Reference...................................................................33

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................38

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc)................................................................... 34, 35
Agilent Techs, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................... 22
Alloc, Inc. v. Norman D. Lifton Co.,
653 F. Supp. 2d 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)............................................................................... 12
Am. Original Corp. v. Jenkins Food Corp.,
774 F.2d 459 (Fed. Cir. 1985)........................................................................................... 16
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 35
Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 22
Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp.,
212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... 31
Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................... 20, 33
Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 33
Bicon, Inc. v. The Straumann Co.,
441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................................... 22
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
489 U.S. 141 (1989) .......................................................................................................... 10
Bow Jax Inc. v. Sims Vibration Lab., Inc.,
No. 2:09-cv-0047-RMP, slip op. (E.D. Wash. June 22, 2010) ......................................... 30
Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America,
975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992)........................................................................................... 11
Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc.,
90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................. 7
Canton Bio-Med., Inc. v. Integrated Liner Tech., Inc.,
216 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... 32
ii

CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc.,
807 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................... 20
Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Inst.,
618 F. Supp. 2d 856 (N.D. Ill. 2009) .................................................................................. 3
Cohesive Tech. Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 12
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
658 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................... 33
Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,
258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 36
Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp.,
508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 26
Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,
192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................... 33
Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................... 21
Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ............... 4, 9, 16
Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp.,
64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995)........................................................................................... 22
Fujisawa Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Kapoor,
115 F.3d 1332 (7th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................ 8
Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................... 21, 33
GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 29
Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 36
Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp.,
No. 13-723-LPS, 2016 WL 7217625 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) ........................................... 9
Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ............................................................................................... passim

iii

Holden v. Deloitte and Touche LLP,
390 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2005) .................................................................................. 8
Humanscale Corp. v. Mass Engineered Design, Inc.,
No. 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD, slip op. (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2014) ................................... 30
In re Seagate Tech., LLC,
497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc)......................................................................... 11
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................... 18
Kossman v. Ne. Ill. Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp.,
211 F.3d 1031 (7th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 4
Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 21
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)............................................................................. 19
Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:06-cv-00272, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2008) ................................................... 30
Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd.,
764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................... 20, 33
Minch v. City of Chicago,
486 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 8
N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc.,
415 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 26
Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol Mfg. Co., Ltd.,
847 F.2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1988)........................................................................................... 16
NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 36
Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 25
Peters v. Active Mfg. Co.,
129 U.S. 530 (1889) .......................................................................................................... 33
Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc.,
429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................... 2, 19

iv

Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)....................................................... 18, 19, 28, 29
Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd.,
599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................... 19
Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc.,
970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992)..................................................................................... 11, 15
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
530 U.S. 133 (2000) ............................................................................................................ 4
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)......................................................................................... 19
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Cook County,
No. 05 C 1264, 2009 WL 961234 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2009)................................................. 8
Smiths Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc.,
183 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................................................... 34
Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P.,
323 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................... 12, 25, 26
State Indus. Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
751 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985)..................................................................................... 5, 10
TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.,
527 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .............................................................................. 11
Tincher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
118 F.3d 1125 (7th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................ 4
Toro Co. v. Ariens Co.,
232 F.3d 915, 2000 WL 504209 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2000) .............................................. 11
TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc.,
336 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 25
Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................... 25
Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.,
425 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 12
Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, LLC,
412 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 33

v

Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
744 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 22
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................... 19
Westvaco Corp. v. Int’l Paper Co.,
991 F.2d 735 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..................................................................................... 10, 15
Wonderland Nursery Goods Co., Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:12-cv-04052-RSWL-JCG, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013) ............................... 30
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) ................................................................................................................... 1, 4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ......................................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 17

vi

I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendants Apex Tool Group, LLC and Sears Holdings Corporation respectfully submit

this Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Federal Rule 50(b) on issues relating to
willfulness, infringement, and invalidity.1

Based on the evidence presented at trial, no

reasonable juror applying the proper legal standards could have found: (1) Defendants’ conduct
rose to the level of the “egregious” and “intentional” misconduct necessary for willful
infringement; (2) the Max Axess Locking Wrench infringed any properly-construed claim of the
asserted patents; or (3) any patent claim to be both infringed and not invalid, if they applied the
claims consistently to both the accused product and prior art.
First, JMOL should be granted on the issue of willfulness. Every single witness who
testified about Defendants’ state of mind confirmed that the Defendants attempted to design
around the patents, and subjectively believed that they had done so—the opposite of the kind of
conduct the Supreme Court has identified as “willful.” Indeed, Defendants took every reasonable
precaution to avoid infringement, including engaging outside counsel from the very beginning of
the design process, and relying on LoggerHead’s own explicit representations to the Patent
Office during prosecution about the scope of its now-asserted claims. There was no evidence to
the contrary, which is precisely why Judge Darrah previously granted summary judgment in
Defendants’ favor on this issue and reaffirmed that ruling upon reconsideration. Public policy
and longstanding Federal Circuit precedent encourages companies to try to design around patents
to spur further innovation, just as Defendants believed they did in developing the Max Axess
Locking Wrench by adding new features that merited patent protection in their own right. The
1

Defendants made their arguments pursuant to Rule 50(a) during trial. (E.g., Tr. 690-93, 1326-28,
1531-32.) Defendants hereby renew those arguments with respect to liability and willfulness issues
pursuant to Rule 50(b). Issues relating to damages, including JMOL on damages, are addressed in a
separate motion.

issue of willfulness should be governed by the existing summary judgment, and the Court should
treat the jury’s (at most advisory) verdict on this issue as a nullity; alternatively, Defendants are
entitled to JMOL on this issue pursuant to Federal Rule 50(b) based on the “full record”
presented during trial.
Second, the Court should grant Defendants JMOL on the underlying issue of patent
infringement. As an initial matter, this issue should not have reached a jury, and would not have
but for the Court’s adoption of an erroneous construction for the claim term “arm portion” that
effectively read the term out of the claims and was inconsistent with the express statements
LoggerHead made during prosecution.

The Court can and should correct this erroneous

construction, even after trial, to enter a judgment that is consistent with established claim
construction principles. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (a court may amend claim construction as “its understanding of the technology
evolves” and appreciation of the evidence and arguments comes into focus).

The Max Axess

Locking Wrench does not contain an “arm portion” under the correct interpretation of that
term—or, indeed, under any interpretation that gives it any structural meaning. Because no
reasonable jury could find that the rectangular monolithic blocks in the Max Axess product have
both an “arm portion” and “body portion,” as required by every asserted claim, the Court should
grant JMOL of non-infringement.
Third, the evidence established that no reasonable juror could find both infringement and
validity of any asserted claim, regardless of the erroneous constructions. LoggerHead obtained
its patents over the prior art by distinguishing the gripping elements of its claimed tool from
Buchanan’s solid, block-like elements.

(E.g., PTX 4 at LH-00001836-37 (“Applicant

respectfully submits that Buchanan does not have an arm portion as claimed.”); id. at
LH-00001657-58 (same).)

Having abandoned that distinction to allege patent infringement
2

against the Max Axess product in this case, LoggerHead has eviscerated the distinction it made to
the Patent Office between its patent claims and the prior art, and LoggerHead did not provide a
reasonable juror a sufficient evidentiary basis to distinguish the asserted claims from the prior art
on any other grounds. Thus, if infringement is upheld under the instructions presented to the
jury, then JMOL of invalidity should be entered.
At bottom, although the infringement claims in this case were run-of-the-mill,
LoggerHead’s trial presentation was anything but.

LoggerHead presented an emotionally-

charged case that focused more on irrelevant innuendo than actual facts relating to the alleged
patent infringement. Indeed, the jury was boldly encouraged to make a “statement” that it was
“wrong” to manufacture competitive products in a foreign country. (Tr. 373-74 (Dan Brown
testifying that “I want -- I would love to have the win here and a statement that this is wrong.”).)2
That is no basis for sustaining a legally erroneous verdict. Given this inflammatory rhetoric, it is
not surprising the jury would return a verdict that is inconsistent with a proper application of the
law to the trial record. Defendants respectfully request judgment as a matter of law.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
“Once the jury returns a verdict, the non-prevailing party may renew its Rule 50(a)

motion for judgment as a matter of law and ask the court to enter judgment in its favor
notwithstanding the verdict.” Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Inst., 618 F. Supp. 2d 856, 862 (N.D.
Ill. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)) (granting JMOL) (Pallmeyer, J.). Judgment as a matter of
law is appropriate when a party has been fully heard on an issue and “there is no legally
sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for [a] party on [an] issue.” Kossman v.
2 Citations to “Tr.” refer to the trial transcript, cited excerpts of which are included as Appendix 1 to this

motion. Complete transcripts of the deposition videos played at trial are included as Appendix 2.
Citations to “PTX” and “DTX” refer to Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ respective trial exhibits. Cited trial
exhibits are included in numerical order in Appendices 3 and 4.

3

Ne. Ill. Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp., 211 F.3d 1031, 1036 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 50) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original); see Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)). The court must
determine whether the verdict is supported by sufficient evidence. Id.; Tincher v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 118 F.3d 1125, 1129 (7th Cir. 1997).
III.

ARGUMENT
A.

The Court Should Enter Judgment Of No Willfulness.

This Court should reaffirm its summary judgment ruling by granting Defendants’
judgment as a matter of law of no willfulness. The Court has previously granted summary
judgment of no willfulness, and denied a follow-up motion to reconsider this ruling, and to this
day has neither unsettled these rulings nor identified a genuine issue of material fact to justify
consideration of the issue by a jury.

In response to LoggerHead’s second motion for

reconsideration, the Court allowed LoggerHead to present its supposed willfulness case to the
jury to develop a “full record” for appellate review, but without granting reconsideration.
(Tr. 1532-33.) Having now provided LoggerHead the opportunity to present its “full record” to
the jury, that record confirms what the Court previously determined on summary judgment—
Defendants’ conduct fell far short of the egregious, bad-faith misconduct required for a finding of
willful infringement, and non-willfulness should be found as a matter of law.
“The Supreme Court has made clear that an award of enhanced damages under
section 284 is reserved for ‘egregious cases.’” Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly &
Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 2190055, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) (Bryson, J.)
(granting Rule 50(a) motion for JMOL of no willfulness) (quoting Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse
Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932, 1934 (2016)). As the Supreme Court explained in Halo,
awards of enhanced damages “are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are
4

instead designed as a ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious infringement behavior.
The sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described in our cases as
willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—
characteristic of a pirate.” 136 S. Ct. at 1932.
The trial evidence demonstrated just the opposite of what is required for willfulness.
Every single witness who offered testimony on the topic of alleged willful patent infringement—
including Eric Broadaway, John Owen, Peng Li, Barry Pope, and Brian Reese—testified that
Sears and Apex did not intend to infringe the LoggerHead patents. (E.g., Tr. 905, 908, 918-19,
1027, 1037, 1511, 1522-23, 1561-66; App’x 2.1, P. Li Liability Trial Video Tr. 2-3, 8-9;
App’x 2.2, B. Pope Liability Trial Video Tr. 11; App’x 2.6, B. Reese Willfulness Trial Video
Tr. 4-6, 8-11; App’x 2.8, P. Li Willfulness Trial Video Tr. 1, 7; App’x 2.10, B. Pope Willfulness
Trial Video Tr. 3-4, 6-8.) The overwhelming evidence of Defendants’ good faith was further
evidenced by the actions taken by Defendants in developing the product, which included:
(1) consulting with experienced patent counsel from the outset of the design process;
(2) attempting to design around LoggerHead’s patents based on the advice of counsel; and
(3) relying on LoggerHead’s statements to the Patent Office about what its patents did not cover
in developing its product design. If a finding of willfulness is upheld under these facts, then no
competitor will ever be able to attempt to design around patents in good faith, without the risk of
a “willfulness” verdict. That result would thwart the very incentive to innovate that the patent
laws are supposed to uphold. See State Indus. Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 751 F.2d 1226, 1235-36
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (“designing new and possibly better or cheaper functional equivalents [of a
competitor’s product] is the stuff of which competition is made.”). This Court should enter
judgment of no willfulness as a matter of law.

5

1.

The Court Has Already Granted And Reaffirmed Summary
Judgment Of No Willfulness.

As an initial matter, the Court already granted summary judgment of no willfulness in this
case, finding as a matter of law under the current Halo standard that the “uncontested facts do not
show that Defendants engaged in egregiously willful misconduct.” (Dkt. 369 at 8-9.) That ruling
still stands and should remain in place, and the Court should confirm the ruling under the JMOL
legal standard. LoggerHead sought reconsideration, claiming it had not had a full opportunity to
present evidence supposedly showing Defendants’ alleged willfulness, but declining to actually
present any new evidence to the Court. (Dkt. 379.) On November 16, 2016, the Court denied
LoggerHead’s motion, noting that “[t]here was simply no evidence that either of Defendants’
conduct was egregious or willful misconduct,” as Halo requires. (Dkt. 389 at 5 (citing Halo, 136
S. Ct. at 1934).) As in the original summary judgment ruling, the Court found “there is no
genuine issue of material fact to be determined on the subject of willfulness.” (Dkt. 389 at 5.)
In reaching these decisions, the Court considered undisputed evidence from the summary
judgment record relating to the purported willfulness of Defendants’ alleged patent infringement.
This included Defendants’ uncontested evidence that Apex sought and received immediate and
ongoing advice from outside opinion counsel John Owen about how to design around the accused
product to avoid infringement of the asserted patents. (Dkt. 369 at 8; Dkt. 389 at 4-5.) It also
included evidence LoggerHead put into the record, such as: (1) an internal Apex email in which
“Defendants asked for an Apex employee to ‘please study this design and determine how
difficult it may be to make a Craftsman version of this tool with similar or better performance
that does not infringe upon LoggerHead’s patents’”; (2) deposition testimony from Apex’s Eric
Broadaway, a designer of the Max Axess Locking Wrench and a named inventor on Apex’s
corresponding patent over the tool, that reverse engineering is “taking a product apart and

6

redesigning it or replicating the design”; and (3) that “Apex conducted tests on the Bionic
Wrench and noted things such as ‘construction, operation, dimensions, max generated user
torque on different hex mandrel sizes, for what size mandrels the jaws would rotate over the
mandrel corners.’” (Dkt. 389 at 3-4 (emphasis in Court’s opinion).) Having considered all this
evidence, the Court found—not once, but twice—that summary judgment of no willfulness was
warranted. Given that LoggerHead was obligated, as the party bearing the burden of proof on
willfulness, to “wheel out all its artillery to defeat” Defendants’ summary judgment motion,
Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996)
(internal citation omitted), the Court has already decided this issue upon review of LoggerHead’s
best evidence viewed in the light most favorable to LoggerHead.
Dissatisfied with the Court’s rulings, LoggerHead sought to resurrect its meritless
allegation a second time after this case was reassigned from Judge Darrah to Judge Pallmeyer,
filing another motion for reconsideration on March 2, 2017. (Dkt. 394.) The motion did not
raise any new facts or relevant new law; the decisions LoggerHead cited involved cases in which
courts that had previously decided willfulness under the prior Seagate standard reevaluated the
issue under the Supreme Court’s 2016 Halo standard.

(Id. at 13-15.)

Those cases were

inapposite because the parties here briefed summary judgment under Halo once it issued, and the
Court’s summary judgment and reconsideration rulings both were expressly decided under Halo.
(Dkt. 369 at 8-9; Dkt. 389.) Nonetheless, in lieu of full briefing on the motion, this Court entered
and continued LoggerHead’s second motion for reconsideration and ordered a bifurcated trial
where willfulness could be presented to a jury to create a “full record” in the event the appellate
court ultimately disagreed with the decision to dispose of the issue on summary judgment.
(Tr. 1532-33; Dkt. 396.)

7

At no point did the Court grant LoggerHead’s motion for reconsideration, identify a
dispute of material fact on willfulness, or reverse the summary judgment ruling rejecting
LoggerHead’s willfulness allegations. (Tr. 1532.) Summary judgment of no willfulness thus still
stands, and was properly granted pursuant to the evidence and procedures provided by the Federal
Rules. There is no “extraordinary circumstance” that justifies disregarding this established law of the
case. Holden v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, 390 F. Supp. 2d 752, 758, 761 (N.D. Ill. 2005)

(relying on law of the case, denying motion for reconsideration of ruling by different judge on
same court for failing to satisfy requirements for overturning prior ruling) (citing Fujisawa
Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Kapoor, 115 F.3d 1332, 1339 (7th Cir. 1997) (the “second judge in a case in
which there has been a reassignment [is] to abide by the rulings of the first judge unless some
new development, such as a new appellate decision, convinces him that his predecessor’s ruling
was incorrect”)); Smith ex rel. Smith v. Cook County, No. 05 C 1264, 2009 WL 961234, at *2-4
(N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2009) (noting presumption set by law of the case, denying motion for
reconsideration where different judge on same court ruled on challenged issues prior to
assignment) (quoting Minch v. City of Chicago, 486 F.3d 294, 301 (7th Cir. 2007) (“In situations
where a different member of the same court re-examines a prior ruling, the law of the case
doctrine . . . reflects the rightful expectation of litigants that a change of judges midway through a
case will not mean going back to square one.”). Accordingly, the Court should confirm the
summary judgment of non-willfulness and find the jury verdict to be a nullity.

2.

No Reasonable Jury Could Find Willfulness Based On The Evidence
Presented At Trial.

In any event, the evidence that was presented at trial served to confirm the correctness of
the Court’s finding of no willfulness as a matter of law. Indeed, the evidence presented at trial
affirmatively established a textbook case of no willfulness. From its very inception, the accused

8

Max Axess Locking Wrench product was designed and developed specifically not to infringe the
asserted patents, based on the ongoing advice Apex sought, obtained, and followed from its
outside opinion counsel throughout the design process. Both Defendants’ internal documents
and their witnesses’ testimony are entirely consistent in their intention to avoid infringement of
LoggerHead’s patents. (E.g., Tr. 905, 908, 918-19, 1027, 1037, 1511, 1522-23, 1561-66; DTX 1;
DTX 2; DTX 3; DTX 24; PTX 157; PTX 467.) There was not a single line of testimony from
any of the Defendants’ witnesses that indicate anything other than that they subjectively intended
to avoid LoggerHead’s patents. In short, there is no legally sufficient basis to uphold the jury’s
finding of willfulness.
LoggerHead bears the burden of proving that Defendants’ infringement was not just
unlawful but egregious: “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful,
flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.”

See Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1932, 1934.

LoggerHead did not meet its burden or this high standard, and JMOL on this issue is warranted.
To the contrary, if a jury can find willfulness based on the conduct at issue here, it is hard to
imagine a case in which infringement would not be willful, despite the Supreme Court’s clear
direction otherwise. Unsurprisingly, courts applying the Halo standard have repeatedly found no
willfulness in situations like the one presented here. Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., No. 13-723LPS, 2016 WL 7217625, at *3-6 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) (applying Halo, denying motion to
vacate summary judgment of no willfulness where defendant relied on opinion of counsel and,
prior to litigation, designed accused products to avoid infringement); Erfindergemeinschaft
UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 2190055, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
May 18, 2017) (granting JMOL of no willfulness upon finding that, where both parties presented
only circumstantial evidence for and against willfulness, plaintiff could not meet its burden)
(Bryson, J.). While it was not Defendants’ burden to disprove willfulness, the evidence of record
9

did just that, and in fact demonstrated that Defendants acted reasonably in accordance with the
law and policy considerations underlying our patent system.
The law has long encouraged companies to follow the path that Defendant Apex did when
designing the MALW. Our patent system and Federal Circuit precedent seek to promote, rather
than punish, companies that attempt to design around the patents of their competitors in search of
further innovation.

State Indus. Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 751 F.2d 1226, 1235-36 (Fed.

Cir. 1985) (“designing new and possibly better or cheaper functional equivalents [of a
competitor’s product] is the stuff of which competition is made.”); Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1935
(quoting Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989) (noting
“importance of facilitating the ‘imitation and refinement through imitation’ that are ‘necessary to
invention itself and the very lifeblood of a competitive economy’”). And Apex did not just
design around, but went further to develop an improved product that earned its own patent
recognition reflecting its contribution to the market. (Tr. 926-28; DTX 74 (Apex patent for Max
Axess Locking Wrench).)
The law is clear that such design-around efforts must not be discouraged by the threat of
willful infringement liability, even if the efforts prove unsuccessful:
One of the benefits of a patent system is its so-called “negative incentive” to
“design around” a competitor’s products, even when they are patented, thus
bringing a steady flow of innovations to the marketplace. It should not be
discouraged by punitive damage awards except in cases where conduct is so
obnoxious as clearly to call for them. The world of competition is full of “fair
fights” . . . .
Westvaco Corp. v. Int’l Paper Co., 991 F.2d 735, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting State Indus., 751
F.2d at 1235-36) (reversing finding of willful infringement where design-around attempt was
unsuccessful); see also Toro Co. v. Ariens Co., 232 F.3d 915 (table, 2000 WL 504209 at *9)

10

(Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2000) (finding no willfulness as a matter of law where “Ariens worked closely
with its counsel . . . in designing the accused device”).
The undisputed evidence also established that Defendants tried to design around the
patents according to the norms of prudent practice, involving experienced patent counsel from
the outset to guide the process. (E.g., Tr. 1013-18, 1536-38.) Courts have long held that bona
fide attempts to design a competitive yet non-infringing product in consultation with counsel are
not to be derided as “copying”, but instead constitute pro-competitive activity that should be
encouraged. Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (despite fact that
patentee’s product “served as the starting point for Portec’s efforts” and “the purpose of Portec’s
design efforts was to make a device which would compete with the [patentee’s product],” the
finding of willfulness was reversed because “Portec made specific changes deemed adequate by
counsel to avoid infringement”); TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 527 F. Supp. 2d 561, 578-79 (E.D.
Tex. 2007) (granting infringer’s JMOL motion overturning jury verdict finding willful
infringement, where infringer relied upon opinion of counsel).
Although Seagate’s two-prong analysis has been overruled by Halo, its guidance
regarding reliance on advice of counsel remains: “[a]lthough an infringer’s reliance on favorable
advice of counsel . . . is not dispositive of the willfulness inquiry, it is crucial to the analysis.” In
re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). “On-going consultation
with a patent lawyer is highly probative evidence of good faith.” Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp.
of America, 975 F.2d 815, 822-24 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (reversing jury verdict of willfulness where
accused infringer had consulted opinion counsel during all stages of the design-around effort).
Indeed, like the accused infringer in Braun, Apex’s patent counsel rejected certain design options
because “they looked too much like” LoggerHead’s patented design, evidencing Defendants’
good faith. Id. at 823; Tr. 989, 1564-65.
11

The Federal Circuit has also emphasized that competitors have a right to rely on
statements made in prosecution to guide a design-around effort, and have cited reliance on such
statements to establish non-willfulness. The public has a right to rely on, and design competitive
products based on, statements made in prosecution regarding the scope of patent claims. Springs
Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Moreover,
companies that reasonably attempt to review the public record and attempt to design around
based on their understanding of the scope of a patent’s claims, even if ultimately found to have
been unsuccessful in doing so, are not guilty of willful infringement. Cohesive Tech. Inc. v.
Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming finding of no willful infringement
where defendant had “reasonable interpretation” of patent and prosecution history regarding
scope of claims, despite finding defendants’ interpretation was incorrect); Union Carbide
Chemicals & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(infringer did not engage in kind of egregious and reckless conduct necessary to justify finding of
willfulness where infringer’s chemist had read the patent and concluded that its process did not
infringe, even though this conclusion was later found to be in error). Like Defendants’ effort to
design the product based on the expired prior art Buchanan design, courts have also found no
willfulness as a matter of law where an accused infringer reasonably attempted to design around
by basing its product on an expired patent. See Alloc, Inc. v. Norman D. Lifton Co., 653 F. Supp.
2d 469, 475-76 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
The evidence of record established that Defendants’ conduct was squarely in line with
this precedent finding no willfulness as a matter of law:
•

Upon Sears’ request that Apex develop a differentiated and non-infringing
competitive product to the Bionic Wrench that Sears could commercialize under the
Craftsman brand, Apex immediately involved patent counsel, John Owen, in the
12

design process to assess whether a non-infringing design could be developed.
(Tr. 903-07, 1037, 1540-41; PTX 119; DTX 1; DTX 2; DTX 3.)
•

Mr. Owen is a patent attorney with approximately 20 years of experience, who has
rendered between 75 and 100 patent opinions analyzing infringement issues.
(Tr. 1013-18, 1536-40, 1565-66.)

•

Mr. Owen reviewed the patents and file history to render his opinion that Apex could
develop a design based on the prior art Buchanan design LoggerHead distinguished
during prosecution of its patents. (E.g., Tr. 1017-22, 1542-44, 1549-50; DTX 2;
DTX 3; PTX 157; PTX 175.)

•

Throughout the Max Axess Locking Wrench design process, Apex sought and
followed the advice of Mr. Owen, who recommended against certain intermediate
designs that moved further from the armless Buchanan gripping element that
LoggerHead distinguished during prosecution—advice Apex followed in every
instance. (E.g., Tr. 952, 989, 1021-32, 1516-17, 1553-65; DTX 1; DTX 2; DTX 3;
DTX 5; DTX 7; DTX 8R; DTX 9R; DTX 11; DTX 24.)

•

Apex kept Sears apprised through emails and at-least-weekly phone calls regarding its
efforts to design around LoggerHead’s patents. (Tr. 914-15, 1515-18; PTX 467;
DTX 9.) For example, this included Apex sending Sears drawings depicting the
difference that formed the basis of the design around relating to the gripping element
that Apex’s counsel advised:

13

(PTX 467.)
•

Patent counsel Mr. Owen was involved from the beginning through the end of the
design process, reviewing the final design drawings prior to Sears issuing any
purchase orders to Apex or Apex shipping any Max Axess Locking Wrench units.
(Tr. 903-07, 1031-32, 1037, 1518-20, 1540-41, 1553-65; PTX 119; DTX 1; DTX 2;
DTX 3; DTX 23; DTX 24.)

There simply is no basis for a reasonable juror to have found willfulness on this record, and the
Court should enter judgment as a matter of law of no willfulness.
LoggerHead offered only tangential, legally-insufficient innuendo in response to
Defendants’ substantial direct evidence of non-willfulness.

LoggerHead’s “evidence” of

Defendants’ alleged willfulness was the same at trial as it was at summary judgment: that
Defendants were aware of LoggerHead’s patents and Bionic Wrench product, and that they
analyzed and tested the product to understand it and develop a functionally similar yet
differentiated and non-infringing competitive Craftsman product. To the extent LoggerHead
added any new scope to its willfulness “evidence” at trial, it consisted of nothing more than
irrelevant documents and testimony that cannot contradict the direct evidence relating to the
product design or Defendants’ intent to develop a non-infringing product. All of LoggerHead’s

14

innuendo about Apex’s outside patent opinion counsel John Owen’s analysis of non-final designs
(Tr. 1615) is refuted by direct evidence that Mr. Owen in fact analyzed and signed off on the
final design (e.g., Tr. 1518-20; 1559-63; DTX 23; DTX 24). All of LoggerHead’s innuendo
suggesting that Defendants’ consultation with Mr. Owen was all just a sham (Tr. 1614) is refuted
by direct evidence that Mr. Owen specifically advised against certain designs and Defendants
followed that advice (e.g., Tr. 912-13, 989, 1564-65; DTX 8R; DTX 11R).
Moreover, LoggerHead’s alleged “copying” evidence was legally irrelevant and
insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

Analysis of a competitive product for “reverse

engineering” and “benchmarking” purposes is perfectly lawful, and was activity that LoggerHead
itself engaged in when developing the alleged invention it now asserts. (Tr. 437-38.) Moreover,
this design activity was done under the watchful eye of experienced patent counsel, and it is thus
irrelevant that certain features might overlap when the overall design was deemed by counsel to
be non-infringing. (Tr. 903-07, 1037, 1518-20, 1540-41, 1553-65; PTX 119; DTX 1; DTX 2;
DTX 3; DTX 23; DTX 24.) Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s caution that design-around
efforts should not be mislabeled as willful “copying,” see Westvaco, 991 F.2d at 745; Read v.
Portec, 970 F.2d at 828, the Court already found this evidence insufficient to create an issue of
fact on willfulness (Dkt. 389 at 3-4). Finally, contrary to the innuendo LoggerHead argued to the
jury at trial, the allegedly “copied” features were either irrelevant to the patent claims or related
to non-functional features of the product or packaging, or both.3

(Tr. 231 (three gripping

elements versus six); 1605 (handle width); 1608 (“They didn’t just knock the wrench off, they

3 LoggerHead’s arguments that Defendants copied the trade dress of the Bionic Wrench product and its

packaging were already disposed of on summary judgment (Dkt. 367), and cannot form the basis for a
finding that Defendants intentionally infringed LoggerHead’s patents.

15

knocked off how to promote it.”); PTX 503 (email regarding packaging design and bolt size
range).)
LoggerHead’s effort to suggest that Sears is somehow liable for willful infringement,
because it relied on its manufacturing partner Apex to investigate and analyze the issues relating
to LoggerHead’s patents, also does not justify the jury’s verdict. The law does not require each
and every alleged member of a distribution chain to independently conduct its own patent
analysis; to the contrary, the law is clear that obtaining advice of counsel is not even required at
all. See, e.g., Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol Mfg. Co., Ltd., 847 F.2d 795, 800 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(affirming finding of no willful infringement where accused infringer did not obtain an opinion
of counsel); Am. Original Corp. v. Jenkins Food Corp., 774 F.2d 459, 465 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(same); Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017
WL 2190055, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) (granting JMOL of no willfulness where defendant
did not present opinion of counsel) (Bryson, J.). Apex took responsibility for developing a noninfringing product and indemnified Sears in this regard. (Tr. 1521, 1523-24; App’x 2.6, B. Reese
Willfulness Trial Video Tr. 8; App’x 2.7, T. Arvia Willfulness Trial Video Tr. 1-2.)
Nevertheless, the undisputed evidence established that Sears was in frequent communication with
Apex regarding the patent analysis, both orally and in writing, and was specifically apprised of
the basis upon which the MALW had been designed-around LoggerHead’s patents. (Tr. 914-15,
1515-18; PTX 467; DTX 9.) Consistent with these communications, Sears’ witnesses reiterated
that it was always the goal to develop a non-infringing product to be sold under the Craftsman
brand.

(App’x 2.10, B. Pope Willfulness Trial Video Tr. 3-4, 6-8; App’x 2.7, T. Arvia

Willfulness Trial Video Tr. 1-2; App’x 2.6, B. Reese Willfulness Trial Video Tr. 9-12.)

16

LoggerHead’s effort to somehow suggest that Sears could be liable for willful infringement
where Apex would not be has no basis in law or fact and must be rejected.4
For all of these reasons, the full trial record, even when viewed in the light most favorable
to LoggerHead, cannot support the jury’s finding of willful infringement.

Defendants

respectfully request that the Court grant JMOL of non-willfulness pursuant to Rule 50(b).
B.

The Court Should Grant JMOL Of Non-Infringement Based On A Correct
Construction Of The “Arm Portion” Claim Term.

During claim construction, Defendants proposed that the claim term “arm portion” be
construed as “portion of a gripping element that projects from the body portion and to which the
force transfer element is connected.” (Dkt. 147 at 1; see Dkt. 131 at 9-13; Dkt. 145 at 2-8;
Dkt. 176 at 1-9.) That construction comes from the plain meaning of the claim language and is
corroborated by the patents’ specification and the representations that LoggerHead itself made to
the Patent Office to overcome prior art (e.g., PTX 4 at LH-00001657, LH-00001836-37). The
Court, however, adopted LoggerHead’s proposed construction, “portion of a gripping element(s)
configured to engage one of the guides and contiguous with a force transfer element,” which

4 LoggerHead did not present any legally sufficient evidence that any Sears employee intentionally

infringed the asserted patents. In the absence of evidence, LoggerHead’s argument for Sears’ putative
“willful” infringement consisted of LoggerHead’s attorney testifying in closing that Sears “doesn’t care”
(Tr. 1609) and making a spurious assertion that Sears issued a “false” press release about the litigation
(id. at 1610). But such innuendo did not provide the jury a legally sufficient basis to find willfulness.
The Court previously granted Sears summary judgment on the “false advertising” claim based on Sears’
press release (Dkt. 361 at 10-11) and excluded any evidence about that topic in limine (Dkt. 419 at 2
(granting Defendants’ MIL No. 7 regarding dismissed claims). The only other argument that
LoggerHead presented to the jury was to question why the jury did not hear from Iqbal Singh, the former
Sears engineer that reviewed the Apex design around. (Tr. 1606 (“So Pope points to Iqbal Singh.
Where is Iqbal Singh? I don’t know. He doesn’t work for Sears anymore. We have never seen him. He
is not here to tell you what he did to try to avoid infringement of the LoggerHead patents.”), 1609 (“And
the kind of pointing the fingers -- Reese says Pope. Pope says Singh. Where is Singh?”).) LoggerHead
knows the answer full well: Mr. Singh is a former employee of Sears, and LoggerHead failed to seek his
deposition during discovery. LoggerHead bears the burden of proof on willfulness and cannot discharge
that burden of proof by making insinuations premised on the fact that the relevant Sears employees no
longer work for the company.

17

parroted back the surrounding claim language (including the word “portion”), thereby
eliminating any meaning from the word “arm” in the term. (Dkt. 185 at 10.)
As demonstrated at trial, LoggerHead and its expert broadly applied the Court’s
construction to support their infringement read on the Max Axess Locking Wrench in a manner
that flatly contradicted the public statements it made to the PTO during prosecution to overcome
the PTO’s rejection based on the Buchanan prior art reference.
Defendants appreciate that Your Honor took this case over shortly before trial and long
after claim construction. However, having now presided over the trial and gained familiarity
with the asserted patents, including LoggerHead’s application of Judge Darrah’s claim
construction in a manner diametrically opposed to how LoggerHead applied the term during
prosecution to obtain these patents in the first place (Tr. 1288-90; compare DTX 212 with
DTX 213 (LoggerHead’s contrary descriptions of Buchanan during prosecution and litigation)),
Defendants respectfully request that the Court correct the construction and apply it here, which
would compel JMOL of non-infringement for Defendants. As a matter of law, the Max Axess
Locking Wrench’s monolithic, block-like gripping element cannot satisfy the “arm portion”
claim limitation under Defendants’ construction (or any proper construction consistent with the
plain meaning and LoggerHead’s statements during prosecution).
1.

The Law Governing Claim Construction

The construction for “arm portion” that was presented at trial is inconsistent with basic
principles of claim construction set forth in Federal Circuit precedent. “It is a ‘bedrock principle’
of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the
right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed.
Cir. 2004)). Therefore, courts begin their claim construction analysis with the words of the
18

claim. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The words of
the claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Id. The ordinary and
customary meaning of a claim term “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The
person of ordinary skill in the art views the claim term in the light of the entire intrinsic
record. See id. Thus, the claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
part.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc). The
specification is “always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis” and has been
described as “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “‘The construction that stays true to the
claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in
the end, the correct construction.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v.
Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In addition to the written
description, “the prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by
demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the
invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise
be.” Id. at 1317.
The Federal Circuit has made clear that a district court may adopt an “evolving” or
“rolling” claim construction, in which the court’s construction of claims can be modified as the
court better understands the technology and the patents at issue. Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies,
Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (trial testimony informed court to
change claim construction); Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (“[D]istrict courts may engage in rolling claim construction, in which the court revisits
and alters its interpretation of the claim terms as its understanding of the technology evolves.”);
19

see Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1397-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(affirming claim construction clarification made after jury trial and affirming JMOL of
non-infringement).
On appeal, the Federal Circuit will “review the district court’s ultimate interpretation of
patent claims de novo.”

CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346, 1349-50 (Fed.

Cir. 2015).
2.

The Court’s Construction Of “Arm Portion” Conflicts With The
Claim Language And Basic Principles Of Claim Construction.

As a starting point, the Court’s construction for “arm portion” was not faithful to the plain
meaning of the words used and effectively read the term out of the asserted claims.
The construction ignores the plain meaning of the word “arm,” and it affords no basis to
distinguish between the arm portion and body portion on any kind of structural level.5 As a
result, the construction allowed an arm portion and a body portion to be “found” in the same
physical structure, which is how LoggerHead applied it at trial (that is, alleging a single
rectangular block had both an “arm portion” and a “body portion”). (See Tr. 502; Cagan Trial
Dem. Ex. 41.) Besides the fact that this reading directly contradicts LoggerHead’s repeated
statements to the PTO—LoggerHead agreed at trial that Buchanan’s gripping elements had arm
portions, after all—courts routinely require that claimed component parts be at a minimum
separately identifiable structures. “Where a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication
of the claim language is that those elements are distinct components of the patented invention.”
Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
5 To be clear, Defendants do not argue, and have never argued, that the “arm portion” and “body portion”

must be entirely separate structures (i.e. formed or manufactured separately from each other in two
standalone pieces). Rather, Defendants have contended, consistent with the claim language and usage
throughout the intrinsic evidence, that these two portions must be in some way separately identifiable
from one another. (Dkt. 145 at 2-3; Dkt. 176 at 4, 9.)

20

(quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (internal quotations
omitted); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
(concluding that where a claim provides for two separate elements, a “second portion” and a
“return portion,” these two elements “logically cannot be one and the same”).
Second, Judge Darrah’s construction is erroneous because it simply repeats language that
already appears in the claims, rendering the term “arm portion”—and the word “arm” in
particular—entirely superfluous.6 The Federal Circuit has held that a claim construction is
erroneous where it “ascribes no meaning to the term . . . not already implicit in the rest of the
claim.” Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d 1327, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Comparing
the surrounding claim language in the independent claims asserted here to the current
construction of “arm portion” shows that “arm” is being read out of the construction entirely:
Claim: “an arm portion configured to engage one of said at least one guide and a
force transfer element contiguous with the arm portion”
Construction: arm “[a] portion of a gripping element(s) configured to engage
one of the guides and contiguous with a force transfer element(s)”
This construction is even more erroneous than that in Mangosoft, as it replaces “arm portion”
with words that already appear explicitly in the claim while simultaneously giving no meaning to
(and thus reading out) the word “arm.”
Moreover, replacing the “arm portion” term with its current construction (underlined
below) in the asserted independent claims renders the claims circular and gives no meaning to the
words “arm portion”:

6 The Court’s construction of “body portion”—which also just repeated other claim language, effectively

reading out the term—is similarly erroneous. Although this term need not be corrected or clarified for
the jury’s infringement verdict to be overturned, the parties briefed the “arm portion” and “body portion”
terms in tandem during claim construction and Defendants object to the Court’s construction of both
terms.

21

Claim: “each at least one gripping element including a body portion adapted for
engaging the workpiece, an arm portion configured to engage one of said at least
one guide and a force transfer element contiguous with the arm portion”
Claim With Current “Arm Portion” Construction Inserted: each at least one
gripping element including a body portion adapted for engaging the workpiece, [a]
portion of gripping element configured to engage one of the guides and
contiguous with a force transfer element(s) configured to engage one of said at
least one guide and a force transfer element contiguous with the portion of
gripping element configured to engage one of the guides and contiguous with a
force transfer element(s)
Thus, the construction of “arm portion” was wrong because it imparts no meaning to the
structural limitation set forth in the claims and renders the actual “arm portion” claim language
superfluous. It is well settled that “a claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the
claim is preferred over one that does not do so.” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286,
1305 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted); see Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 744 F.3d 1376,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“By effectively reading ‘substantially’ out of the claims, the district court
erred.”); Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“We
must give meaning to all the words in Exxon’s claims.”). The Federal Circuit has explained why:
Allowing a patentee to argue that physical structures and characteristics
specifically described in a claim are merely superfluous would render the scope of
the patent ambiguous, leaving examiners and the public to guess about which
claim language the drafter deems necessary to his claimed invention and which
language is merely superfluous, nonlimiting elaboration. For that reason, claims
are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.
Bicon, Inc. v. The Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quotations and citations
omitted). Here, an “arm portion” must mean something different from the rest of the phrase in
which it appears; otherwise “arm” becomes superfluous. Agilent Techs, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
567 F.3d 1366, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation omitted) (“A ‘closed chamber . . .
adapted to retain a quantity of fluid’ must mean something different than just a ‘chamber . . .
adapted to retain a quantity of fluid.’ Otherwise, the word ‘closed’ becomes superfluous.”)

22

(emphasis added).

“Arm” is a meaningful word in the claim term “arm portion” that

distinguishes this item from the “body portion,” and the Court’s construction read out this
differentiating language.
3.

The Current Construction Of “Arm Portion” Contradicts
LoggerHead’s Statements To The PTO During Prosecution Of The
Asserted Patents.

Beyond the Court’s construction conflicting with the plain meaning of “arm portion” and
its usage in the claims itself, the construction is completely inconsistent with how LoggerHead
used and applied the term to distinguish the prior art during prosecution.
Throughout the course of prosecution, the examiner twice rejected the claims of the ‘470
patent as anticipated by Buchanan. To overcome those rejections, LoggerHead distinguished the
alleged invention from Buchanan based on the structure—rather than the function—of the “arm
portion” and “body portion” limitations of the claimed gripping element.

Specifically,

LoggerHead argued to the Patent Office that “the force transfer element (i.e., pin 26) of
Buchanan is directly attached to the body portion” of the plunger 24, and “not an arm portion
because Buchanan does not teach or suggest an arm portion.” (PTX 4 at LH-00001836-37.)
By contrast, the claimed gripping element in the patents-in-suit includes an “arm portion” (36,
shown in red) to which the force transfer element is connected and that projects from the body
portion (34, shown in yellow):
Buchanan

Patents-in-Suit

23

(See id. at LH-00001836 (highlighting added).)

According to LoggerHead:

“Buchanan’s

gripping element does not contain an arm portion. Instead, the force transfer element (i.e.,
pin 26) of Buchanan is directly attached to the body portion.” (Id. at LH-00001837 (emphasis
added).) In other words, according to LoggerHead during prosecution, Buchanan’s gripping
element is all body. Again and again during prosecution, LoggerHead made this distinction:
“[t]he force transfer element 26 of Buchanan, as best understood, however, is contiguous with
the body, not an arm portion because Buchanan does not teach or suggest an arm portion. For
this reason alone, the claims are in condition for allowance.” (Id. at LH-00001657-58 (emphasis
added).)
The construction used at trial was thus inconsistent with LoggerHead’s own statements to
the Patent Office, as an arm portion could be any “portion of [a] gripping element configured to
engage one of the guides and contiguous with a force transfer element(s).” (Dkt. 185 at 22.) But
under that function-only definition, Buchanan’s supposedly “armless” gripping element would
have had an “arm portion” after all, simply because its solid, block-like structure also
functionally engages one of the guides and is contiguous with a force transfer element. Indeed,
LoggerHead’s own expert highlighted LoggerHead’s complete change of position at trial,
agreeing that under the Court’s construction, the Buchanan gripping element satisfies the arm
portion and body portion limitations by illustrating Buchanan’s arm portion in yellow and body
portion in blue:

24

sue a party who makes that same device for infringement.” Id.; see N. Am. Container, Inc. v.
Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (to avoid rejection, “applicant
distinguished his invention from the Dechenne patent on the basis of the latter disclosing inner
walls that are ‘slightly concave.’ The inescapable consequence of such an argument is that the
scope of applicant’s claims cannot cover inner walls that are ‘slightly concave.’”).7
The current construction allowed LoggerHead to do what the law unequivocally
prohibits: distinguish block-like gripping elements as being beyond the scope of the claims’ arm
portion requirement during prosecution, and then assert those same claims against the Max Axess
Locking Wrench’s block-like gripping element in this litigation (and, indeed, fully flip-flop and
now agree that even Buchanan’s block-like gripping elements satisfy the limitation).
The construction of “arm portion” must be corrected to provide this term some meaning,
and account for LoggerHead’s statements to the Patent Office that are wholly inconsistent with
the construction and how it was presented to the jury by LoggerHead at trial.
4.

The Current Construction Of “Arm Portion” Is Contrary To The
Specifications Of The Asserted Patents.

In addition to failing to account for LoggerHead’s clear, repeated statements to the PTO
during prosecution, the current construction also is incorrect as contrary to LoggerHead’s
description of the limitation in the specification. Every reference to an “arm portion” of a
gripping element in the patents’ specifications depicts a separately-identifiable structure that
7 To be clear, Defendants do not believe a finding of prosecution disclaimer is necessary to arrive at its

proposed construction. Prosecution disclaimer typically involves a situation where the prosecution history
dictates a construction that is narrower than the plain meaning of the words used in the claims, i.e., the
patentee has “disclaimed” the broader meaning. See, e.g., Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp.,
508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the file history is consistent with the undisputed plain
meaning of the claim term, and reinforces that an “arm portion” provides the term some structure. To the
extent the Court would somehow find the plain meaning of the claim language dictates a broader scope,
however, Defendants submit that the prosecution statements did clearly and unmistakably disclaim any
construction that would define “arm portion” functionally without affording it some structural meaning to
differentiate it from the body portion.

26

projects from the body portion. (E.g., PTX 1 at 3:51-4:23 & Figs. 1-2; PTX 3 at 4:60-5:47, 7:618:10 & Figs. 1-2; id. at 10:37-67 & Figs. 14-15; id. at 13:67-14:31 & Figs. 30-31; id. at 15:3016:7 & Figs. 37-38.)

LoggerHead’s efforts to confuse the jury at trial by referring to other

embodiments in the specification only served to underscore the incorrectness of the Court’s
construction. (E.g., Tr. 988 (LoggerHead’s counsel referencing embodiments depicted in Figures
11, 12, and 18 of the asserted patents).)
The patents’ description of these embodiments expressly contradicts this construction of
“arm portion.” Specifically, the embodiment described in Figures 10-12 of both asserted patents
discloses an adjustable gripping tool with a solid, block-like gripping element that the
specifications describe as having a force transfer element contiguous with the gripping element’s
body portion, not the arm portion:

(PTX 1 at 7:42-8:18 & Fig. 11; PTX 3 at 9:47-10:14 & Fig. 11.) The patents distinguish other
embodiments that employ gripping elements with projecting arm portions contiguous with a
force transfer element, explaining that in this Figure 10-12 embodiment, “rather than a U-shaped
body, a force transfer element extends from each side of the body portion to engage the slots of
the pair of elements 25a, 25b (25b in FIG. 11) which comprise the second element 24.” (PTX 1
at 8:14-18; PTX 3 at 10:11-14 (emphasis added).) Nowhere in the figures or written description
for this embodiment is an arm portion identified or considered for the simple reason that this
27

embodiment does not have one. (See PTX 1 at 7:42-8:18 & Figs. 10-12; PTX 3 at 9:37-10:14 &
Figs. 10-12.)
When claims are limited to certain embodiments, “[t]he manner in which the patentee
uses a term within the specification and claims usually will make the distinction apparent.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, LoggerHead’s
identification in the Figure 10-12 embodiment of a force transfer element that is contiguous with
the body portion of the solid gripping element—and not an arm portion—supports the conclusion
that a solid, block-like gripping element does not contain an arm portion. Thus, as a matter of
claim construction law, the construction of “arm portion” cannot be so broad as to sweep the
block-like gripping elements into its scope. Yet the current construction, particularly when
stretched the way LoggerHead applied it, enabled just such an impossible result at trial.
None of (1) the Figure 10-12 embodiment in the asserted patents, (2) Buchanan as
distinguished by LoggerHead during prosecution, or (3) the Max Axess Locking Wrench satisfy
the arm portion limitation there is only a monolithic, block-like element to which the force
transfer element is attached.

LoggerHead has never even attempted to draw a distinction

between these three gripping elements as it relates to the arm portion limitation, further
confirming the impropriety of the current construction.
5.

The Specifications And Intrinsic Record, As Well As The Ordinary
Meaning Of “Arm Portion,” Necessitate A Construction Requiring
That The Arm Portion Project From The Body Portion.

In light of the fact that the current construction of “arm portion” contradicts the patents’
specifications and prosecution history, as well as multiple canons of claim construction, the
Court should revisit this issue and adopt a construction for “arm portion” that is a “portion of
gripping element that projects from the body portion and to which the force transfer element is

28

connected.” This construction, proposed by Defendants during the Markman proceedings, is
supported by the intrinsic record and can withstand scrutiny on appeal.
The claim construction process begins with the premise that “words of a claim are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quotation
omitted). The ordinary and customary meaning of “arm” is a structure that projects from or
extends from another structure, a “body.”8 This is distinguishable from the current construction,
which (as applied by LoggerHead) allowed for the arm and body portion limitations to be one
and the same monolithic block. As Dr. Fronczak testified at trial, one of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand a “simple block” to have both body and arm portions. (Tr. 1162.) Thus,
Defendants’ construction affords a reasonable plain meaning to the “arm” qualifier in the claim
term, while also being consistent with the further description of the roles these “portions” play in
the context of the claimed invention.
Defendants’ proposed construction is likewise supported by the specifications and
prosecution histories of the asserted patents. It provides the necessary distinction from the
embodiment described in the patents’ Figures 10-12, in which the force transfer element connects
to the body portion. The construction also comports with all the embodiments described in the
asserted patents as having both an arm portion and a body portion (e.g., Figures 1-2 of both
patents and Figures 14-15, 30-31, and 37-38 of the ‘470 patent), each of which identifies an arm
8 It is entirely appropriate—but hardly necessary—for the Court to look to dictionaries to confirm the

ordinary and customary meaning of an “arm.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“In some cases, the
ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent
even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the
widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words. In such circumstances, general purpose
dictionaries may be helpful.”); GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(defining “plain meaning” of term “profile” by reference to Random House Webster’s College
Dictionary). In any event, the plain meaning of “arm portion” is effectively undisputed, as LoggerHead
has never suggested an alternative definition. Thus, in the context of tools in particular, the MerriamWebster dictionary defines “arm” as “a slender part of a structure, machine, or an instrument projecting
from a main part, axis, or fulcrum.” (Dkt. 131 Ex. 4 (emphasis added).)

29

portion that projects from the body portion and connects to the force transfer element. Moreover,
while the Court’s construction of “arm portion” cannot be reconciled with LoggerHead’s usage
of the term to distinguish Buchanan during prosecution, Defendants’ proposed construction is
entirely consistent with the prosecution history and makes sense of LoggerHead’s distinction of
the prior art.
Defendants’ proposed construction also is consistent with other courts’ understanding of
these words when used in patent claims. Multiple courts have consistently construed an “arm” in
the context of mechanical patents to constitute a “projection” from a central part:
•

Humanscale Corp. v. Mass Engineered Design, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD,
slip op. at 2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2014) (construing “arm” as “similar to a human arm,
such as the projection from a central support in a machine”) (emphasis added);

•

Wonderland Nursery Goods Co., Ltd. v. Baby Trend, Inc. et al., No. 2:12-cv-04052RSWL-JCG, slip op. at 8-9 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013) (construing “a pair of
attachment arms” as “two structures projecting perpendicularly from the seat back
capable of being received in the two corresponding receptacles for attachment”)
(emphasis added);

•

Bow Jax Inc. v. Sims Vibration Lab., Inc., No. 2:09-cv-0047-RMP, slip op. at 25 (E.D.
Wash. June 22, 2010) (construing “first and second arms” as “both the first and
second arms are parts of the silencer projecting outwardly from the center segment”)
(emphasis added); and

•

Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc. et al., No. 2:06-cv-00272, slip op. at 7
(E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2008) (construing “arm assembly” as “a structure having one or
more constituent parts connected to and projecting from the supporting means”)
(emphasis added).9

Accordingly, Defendants’ proposed construction is well supported and should be adopted.
6.

Upon Correcting The Construction Of “Arm Portion,” The Court
Should Grant Defendants JMOL Of Non-Infringement.

Under the proper construction of “arm portion,” the Court should grant JMOL of
non-infringement with respect to all five asserted patent claims, each of which requires a
9 Copies of the cited claim construction orders are attached as Exhibits 6-9 to Dkt. 131.

30

gripping element with arm and body portions. Because the proper construction of “arm portion”
requires that it project—and at least be a separately identifiable structure—from the body portion,
it is beyond any factual dispute that the Max Axess Locking Wrench’s alleged gripping element
cannot meet this requirement and thus cannot infringe. “Patent infringement involves both claim
construction and application of the claim to the accused product.” Crystal Semiconductor Corp.
v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Literal infringement requires
the patentee to prove that the accused device contains each limitation of the asserted claim(s).”
Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The evidence presented at trial established that the Max Axess Locking Wrench’s
gripping element is a monolithic block with a pin (which is the alleged force transfer element)
pegged through it:10

10 Multiple witnesses testified to this point at trial. (Tr. 1006 (Max Axess Locking Wrench inventor Eric

Broadaway describing gripping element as “a solid block with a hole through it for the force transfer
element.”); id. at 1030, 1063, 1556 (opinion counsel John Owen testifying, “The Max Axess gripping
element is basically a mostly rectangular block with a pin through it”; “the Max Axess gripping element,
like the Buchanan plunger, is a basic block with a pin through it”; in “the final Max Axess product, the
gripping elements . . . are the ‘solid block with a pin through it’ formation that we had discussed
earlier.”); id. at 1099-1100, 1112-13 (technical expert Professor Frank Fronczak testifying, “I’m looking
at the Max Axess gripping element and I’m saying I know this block with the pin coming through it on
the left doesn’t have an arm”).)

31

(PTX 13; PTX 51 at APEX0000019; Tr. 1030, 1032, 1063-64, 1187, 1556.)
It is indisputable that the Max Axess Locking Wrench’s gripping element does not have
any section, part, or portion that could be characterized as a “projection” to satisfy the arm
portion limitation; rather, the accused gripping element is a monolithic block with a pin through
it. Indeed, even LoggerHead’s expert agreed that the infringement read he presented at trial
requires a conceptual division of a single monolithic structure. Dr. Cagan theoretically sliced the
Max Axess Locking Wrench’s alleged gripping element, adding dashed lines of his own design
in an attempt to divine the existence of a supposed arm portion within a solid, monolithic block:

(Cagan Trial Dem. Ex. 41 (dashed lines added to representation in LoggerHead’s demonstrative
exhibit, but not present in actual Max Axess Locking Wrench component); Tr. 502, 528-29.)
There is no projection or separately identifiable structure in the Max Axess Locking Wrench
gripping element that could satisfy the arm portion limitation as properly construed. At bottom,
the Federal Circuit has explained: “[t]here can be no literal infringement where a claim requires
two separate structures and one such structure is missing from an accused device.”11 Becton

11 Likewise, LoggerHead is prohibited as a matter of law from using the doctrine of equivalents to argue

that a monolithic block has both an arm portion and a body portion when it expressly distinguished the
prior art on this basis during prosecution. Canton Bio-Med., Inc. v. Integrated Liner Tech., Inc., 216
F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding prosecution history estoppel barred infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents because of arguments applicant made during prosecution history to overcome

32

Dickinson, 616 F.3d at 1255-56; see Gaus, 363 F.3d 1288-90.

Accordingly, Defendants

respectfully request that the Court grant JMOL of non-infringement.12
C.

If The Court Does Not Grant JMOL Of Non-Infringement, It Should Grant
JMOL Of Invalidity For All Of LoggerHead’s Asserted Claims In Light Of
The Prior Art Buchanan Reference.

If the Court does not grant JMOL of non-infringement, then it should grant JMOL of
invalidity because any distinctions between Buchanan and LoggerHead’s asserted claims
disappear when LoggerHead’s claims are read to cover the Max Axess Locking Wrench, and
must be applied to Buchanan in that same manner. Upsher-Smith Labs., Inc. v. Pamlab, LLC,
412 F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A century-old axiom of patent law holds that a product
which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier.”); accord Peters v. Active Mfg.
Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) (“That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.”). As
with infringement, “the first step in any validity analysis is to construe the claims of the invention

examiner’s rejections based on prior art, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that prosecution history estoppel
was precluded because applicant had not amended claims during prosecution); Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco
Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 978-79, 981 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (same). Further, allowing a gripping element with
a monolithic block to infringe by equivalence would render the “arm portion” claim limitation a nullity,
in violation of Federal Circuit precedent. Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
262 F.3d 1258, 1279-80 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[I]f a court determines that a finding of infringement under
the doctrine of equivalents would entirely vitiate a particular claim element, then the court should rule
that there is no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents,” and affirming finding no infringement
by equivalence on such basis) (internal quotation omitted).
12 Alternatively, if the Court declines to go so far as to adopt Defendants’ proposed construction of “arm

portion,” then it should simply clarify the construction to spell out what should already be inherent to it:
the claimed arm portion cannot be part of a solid, block-like gripping element. Mformation Techs., Inc.
v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1397-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming post-trial clarification to
claim construction and JMOL of non-infringement); Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658
F.3d 1347, 1355-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (same). This clarification is supported by the ordinary meaning of
the term to one of skill in the art. (Tr. 1162.) And, as discussed above in Sections III.B.3-4, it also
comports with the prosecution history and specifications of the asserted patents by precluding gripping
elements with force transfer elements that connect to the body portion from having an arm portion.
Adopting this clarification similarly necessitates JMOL of non-infringement because, again, the Max
Axess Locking Wrench’s alleged gripping element is just a solid block with a pin through it. At most,
the force transfer element (the pin) is contiguous with the alleged body portion and thus cannot satisfy
the arm portion limitation every asserted claim requires.

33

to determine the subject matter for which patent protection is sought.” Smiths Indus. Med. Sys.,
Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The claims, properly interpreted,
define the scope of the invention and allow the trial court to determine whether the claimed
invention would have been obvious in light of the prior art.” Id. It is black letter law that claim
terms must be applied consistently in the infringement and validity analyses. Abbott Labs. v.
Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc) (collecting cases) (“It has been
an inviolate rule that patent claims are construed the same way for validity and for
infringement.”).
In his trial testimony, Defendants’ technical expert Dr. Frank Fronczak made Defendants’
prima facie case for the invalidity of LoggerHead’s five asserted claims. With the aid of a
demonstrative slide deck to illustrate his analysis for the jury, Professor Fronczak presented his
opinion that Buchanan satisfied all but two of the asserted claims’ limitations, which Professor
Fronczak denoted with green checkmarks. (Tr. 1122-53; App’x 5, Fronczak DDX 1-79; see
DTX 75 (Buchanan patent).) For the two remaining limitations—“arm portion” and “wherein the
first element includes at least one aligning element”—Dr. Fronczak explained that, if the Max
Axess Locking Wrench was deemed to meet these limitations then Buchanan would satisfy them
as well.13
This is because a finding of infringement would mean that the jury accepted
LoggerHead’s applications of these claim elements to the Max Axess Locking Wrench, such that:
13 Even under LoggerHead’s application of the current construction, the Max Axess Locking Wrench

cannot satisfy the “arm portion” limitation as a matter of law. (E.g., Tr. 1098-1102, 1113, 1164, 117781, 1188.) As Professor Fronczak testified, a person of skill in the art would not consider the Max Axess
Locking Wrench’s gripping elements as having an arm portion for multiple reasons, including that the
tool’s monolithic, block-like gripping elements are not “configured” to engage the guides. (Id.)
Similarly, Professor Fronczak testified that the Max Axess Locking Wrench does not satisfy the
“aligning element” limitation because the alleged aligning elements are not included on the first element
as the patents require. (E.g., id. at 1102-08, 1114.)

34

(1) an arm portion could be found in a gripping element formed from a solid block with a pin
through it; and (2) the aligning element could be “included” on the first element by merely
passing through the first element. The Buchanan tool is designed the same as the Max Axess
Locking Wrench in these two respects (Tr. 1129-30, 1151-54), so finding that the Max Axess
Locking Wrench met these limitations for infringement logically would require Buchanan to
satisfy them as well for invalidity. “It has been an inviolate rule that patent claims are construed
the same way for validity and for infringement.” Abbott Labs., 566 F.3d at 1317-18 (collecting
cases). “A patent may not, like a ‘nose of wax,’ be twisted one way to avoid anticipation and
another to find infringement. Because the claims of a patent measure the invention at issue, the
claims must be interpreted and given the same meaning for purposes of both validity and
infringement analyses.” Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). Accordingly, if the Max Axess Locking Wrench infringes,
then Professor Fronczak demonstrated that Buchanan satisfies every element of the asserted
claims, meaning these claims are invalid.
In rebuttal, LoggerHead’s technical expert Jonathan Cagan did not dispute Professor
Fronczak’s opinions that Buchanan satisfied the asserted claims for the overwhelming majority
of the limitations. Dr. Cagan raised only three aspects of the claims that he argued Buchanan did
not satisfy; however, none of his argument unsettle Professor Fronczak’s analysis or provide a
sufficient legal basis to find anything other than invalidity (if the claims are also infringed).
First, Dr. Cagan argued that Buchanan’s cam plates 27 and 28 could not be part of the
claimed “second element” because these cam plates are “separate structure[s]” from the handle
member 14. (Tr. 1244-45.) This argument misses the mark because the Court’s construction of
“second element” for the ‘579 patent does not include any requirement that the second element
be formed from a single structure. (Dkt. 185 at 15-18 (Markman order).) This is particularly so
35

where, as is the case in Buchanan, the additional “structures” (here, cam plates) are fixed to and
move in unison with the handle member. Accordingly, Dr. Cagan sought to read a limitation into
the claims that is not there.
Second, Dr. Cagan asserted that Buchanan cannot satisfy the “second element” and
“actuation portion” limitations of the ‘470 patent because Buchanan’s cam plates are not a single
structure and not “formed within and integral to the tool head.”14 (Tr. 1244-45, 1247-48.) As an
initial matter, Dr. Cagan’s opinions on infringement and invalidity were inconsistent, with Dr.
Cagan offering infringement opinions that the second element components could be a “two-piece
assembly” (Tr. 520-21) and then arguing that Buchanan did not meet this limitation because it
arguably uses two pieces to accomplish the same function (Tr. 1244-45). Professor Fronczak
explained that these limitations were met by Buchanan. (E.g., Tr. 1144-47.) Moreover, even if
not expressly taught by Buchanan, Professor Fronczak and Defendants further established proof
of obviousness for this limitation, a point that LoggerHead did not even attempt to meaningfully
address. Professor Fronczak testified that it would have been a matter of simple design choice
for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of LoggerHead’s invention to either weld the
cam plates directly to the handle member or simply incorporate (i.e., cut or drill) the cam plates’
slots directly into the plates of the handle member. (Tr. 1147-50.) Dr. Cagan presented no
14

The Court’s construction of “second element” and “actuation portion” for the ‘470 patent were
also erroneous, reading in limitations from certain additional embodiments in the ‘470 patent’s
specification that are found nowhere in the claims themselves. (Dkt. 145 at 13-14.) In particular, the
fact that the Court construed these limitations more narrowly for the ‘470 patent than for the ‘579 patent,
despite the fact that the ‘470 patent has a broader range of disclosure, finds no support in claim
construction precedent. See, e.g., Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., 754 F.3d 1364, 1368-71 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(construing claim term in later patent the same as in the parent patent where later patent was a
continuation of parent); Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed.
Cir. 2001) (ruling district court erred in construing claim limitation differently for related patents, stating
“we see no reason to construe the claims of the former two patents more narrowly than those of the latter
two patents”); NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reasoning
that “patents all derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must
interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”).

36

testimony or evidence to rebut this opinion.

Indeed, Dr. Cagan’s testimony about the

equivalency of a one- versus two-piece assembly supports, rather than refutes, a finding of
obviousness. (Tr. 521 (referring to two-piece assembly of alleged second element, noting that
“in terms of overall functioning . . . you’ll see that they are the same” as if performed by a single
piece).)
Third, Dr. Cagan claimed that Professor Fronczak failed to present any evidence that the
movement of Buchanan’s gripping elements is “curvilinear,” as Claim 16 of the ‘579 patent and
Claim 9 of the ‘470 patent both require. (Tr. 1250-51.) This contention is flatly contradicted by
the trial record. Dr. Cagan ignored Professor Fronczak’s testimony that Buchanan’s gripping
elements simultaneously move inward and radially as the handles are squeezed:
As the handles are moved together, just look at one of those spokes coming up
that represents the -- or that show the gripping elements, the motion of the
gripping elements. It starts off at a 1 o’clock position. As the handles are
squeezed, it moves to a 12 o’clock position. Simultaneously, it moves radially
inward as it is moving. So the motion is curvilinear.
(Tr. 1153.) Professor Fronczak is a professor emeritus in mechanical engineering and certainly
was able to reach this opinion, as he testified, based on his review of Buchanan’s drawings,
which can be self-evident of how the tool would operate. Dr. Cagan offered no substantive
response or evidence to contradict Professor Fronczak’s testimony.
Professor Fronczak proved that, if the Max Axess Locking Wrench design is found to
infringe, then Buchanan satisfies every limitation in those claims as well. Dr. Cagan’s rebuttal
validity arguments misapply the Court’s constructions and ignore Professor Fronczak’s actual
testimony, and they cannot form a sufficient legal basis for LoggerHead to avoid a finding of
invalidity if the Max Axess Locking Wrench infringement verdict is upheld.
In short, no reasonable jury could find the Max Axess Locking Wrench is covered by the
claims but the Buchanan adjustable gripping tool is not. Thus, should the claim construction
37

remain unchanged and/or JMOL of non-infringement is denied, JMOL of invalidity must be
granted.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court: (1) enter

summary judgment of no willfulness for the alleged patent infringement or grant JMOL of that
the purported patent infringement was not willful; (2) grant JMOL of non-infringement based on
the correct constructions of “arm portion” and “body portion” present in every asserted claim;
and (3) if the Court does not grant JMOL of non-infringement, then it should grant JMOL of
invalidity because any distinctions between Buchanan and LoggerHead’s asserted claims
disappear when LoggerHead’s claims are read to cover the Max Axess Locking Wrench and are
applied consistently to Buchanan.

*

*

38

*

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 22, 2017

By: /s/ Marcus E. Sernel, P.C.
Marcus E. Sernel, P.C.
Eric D. Hayes
Ian J. Block
Katherine E. Rhoades
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Gregory S. Arovas, P.C.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Apex Tool Group, LLC
and Sears Holdings Corporation

Dated: June 22, 2017

By: /s/ James M. Hilmert
James M. Hilmert
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Dr.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant Sears Holdings Corporation

39

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 22, 2017, the foregoing document was filed electronically
through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System. Service of this document is being made upon
all counsel of record in this case by the Notice of Electronic Filing issued through the Court’s
Electronic Case Filing System on this date.

By: /s/ Marcus E. Sernel, P.C.