Kadant Johnson, Inc v. D'Amico et al
Filing
594
ORDER & REASONS denying 337 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 6/8/2012. (Reference: 11-0036)(kac, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KADANT JOHNSON INC.
versus
JOSEPH V. D’AMICO, LOUISIANA
STEAM EQUIPMENT, LLC and
UTILITIES OPTIMIZATION
GROUP, LLC
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2869
c/w 11-0036
Refers to 11-0036
Judge Helen G. Berrigan
Mag. Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr.
ORDER & REASONS1
Before this Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants,
Louisiana Steam Equipment, LLC, LSE Systems, Inc., Utilities Optimization Group,
LLC, and Utilities Construction Group, Inc (“LSE”). (Rec.Doc.337). Having
considered the memoranda of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court
DENIES the motion for Summary Judgment for the following reasons.
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper when “the record indicates that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact” and when the party moving for summary judgment is
“entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED.R.CIV.P. 56. A genuine issue of material
fact exists when, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248 (1986).
When considering a motion for summary judgment, this Court “will review the facts
1
Rebekka Veith, a first-year student at Tulane University Law School, contributed to the
research and preparation of this Order & Reasons.
drawing all inferences most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Reid v. State
Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 577, 578 (5th.Cir.1986).
LSE argues that it is entitled to summary judgment for no willful infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 5,098,135 (‘135 Patent) because LSE has an objectively reasonable
defense to infringement based on non-infringing claim interpretations of the ‘135 patent,
and because plaintiff, Kadant Johnson, Inc. (“Kadant”) failed to bring preliminary
injunction proceedings against LSE. (Rec.Doc.337-1 at 1). Kadant counters that this
Court does not have a sufficient case record to determine whether LSE’s claim
interpretations were reasonable and that Kadant did not file an injunction for “obvious
and understandable reasons.” (Rec.Doc.395 at 5).
There is a two-prong test for willful infringement of patents. First, a plaintiff or
patentee “must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an
objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” In
re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2007) (en banc). This is a
threshold requirement, and only if it is met can the next prong of the test be considered.
Id. To meet the second requirement, “a patentee must also determine that this
objectively-defined risk (determined by the record developed in the infringement
proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the
accused infringer.” Id. (emphasis added).
This Court finds that LSE has not carried its burden to prove the absence of a
material fact as to whether they acted “despite an objectively high likelihood” that LSE
would infringe on Kadant’s patent. Although this Court did adopt some of LSE’s claim
interpretations, it did not adopt all of them (see Rec.Doc.357), and a question about the
reasonable interpretation of even just one claim should preclude a finding of summary
judgment for no willful infringement. See Riddell Inc. v. Schutt Sports, Inc., 724
F.Supp.2d at 1000. Moreover, the Seagate test specifies that it is the “record in the
infringement proceeding” that will determine what an objective risk of infringing is in a
patent case. 497 F.3d at 1371. The infringement proceedings have not yet occurred in
this case, and so an “objectively high likelihood” of infringement in this case is still to be
defined.
Additionally, there is no per se bar to damages for willful infringement based on
post-filing conduct if no injunction is filed. DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer
Corp., 2011 WL 6013022 at *14 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 1, 2011) (citing Seagate, 497 F.3d at
1374). Thus, a genuine issue of material fact about willful infringement of the ’135
patent may still exist despite Kadant’s failure to file a preliminary injunction.
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Mtion for Partial Summary Judgment is
DENIED. (Rec.Doc.337).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 8th day of June, 2012.
______________________________
DISTRICT JUDGE
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?