Arctic Cat, Inc. et al v. Polaris Industries Inc. et al
Filing
100
ORDER MODIFYING THE REPORT AND ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION for 49 Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Arctic Cat Sales Inc., Arctic Cat, Inc., and 68 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Purposes is GRANTED (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on May 12, 2015. (HAZ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ARCTIC CAT, INC. and ARCTIC CAT
SALES INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES INC., a
Minnesota Corporation, and POLARIS
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Civil No. 13-cv-3579 (JRT/FLN)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER ON REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendants.
John C. Adkisson, Joseph A. Herriges, and Ann N. Cathcart Chaplin, FISH
& RICHARDSON PC, 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200, Minneapolis,
MN 55402, for plaintiffs.
Dennis C. Bremer, William F. Bullard, Alan G. Carlson, and Samuel T.
Lockner, CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH, LINDQUIST &
SCHUMAN, PA, 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200, Minneapolis, MN
55402, for defendants.
This is one of three patent infringement actions currently before the Court,
involving Arctic Cat Inc. (“Arctic Cat”) and Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”). Each of
the actions involves patent disputes concerning all-terrain vehicles with side-by-side
seating. Arctic Cat moved to consolidate the three actions, and on February 11, 2015,
Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the Court grant Arctic Cat’s motion for consolidation. Polaris has
objected to one paragraph in the “Findings of Fact” section of the R&R, which describes
29
a letter sent by Polaris to Arctic Cat in 2013. Because the Court finds that the R&R’s
characterization of the letter may be misleading, the Court will sustain Polaris’s narrow
objection and adopt the R&R with modified language in the second paragraph.
BACKGROUND
Arctic Cat and Polaris are currently involved in three patent disputes over Arctic
Cat’s “Wildcat” all-terrain vehicles and Polaris’s patents for its “RANGER RZR” sideby-side all-terrain vehicle. 1 (See Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Consolidate at 1-5,
Nov. 11, 2014, Docket No. 51.)
On November 14, 2014, Arctic Cat moved to
consolidate all three actions for pretrial purposes, in light of the related nature of the
cases. (Mot. to Consolidate, Nov. 14, 2014, Docket No. 49.) On February 11, 2015, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Arctic Cat’s
motion be granted and the cases consolidated. (Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) at
1, Feb. 11, 2015, Docket No. 68.)
Polaris timely objected to the R&R on February 25, 2015, narrowly challenging
one paragraph contained in the “Findings of Fact” section. (Def.’s Objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R (“Objection”), Feb. 25, 2015, Docket No. 71.) Specifically,
Polaris objects to the second paragraph of the R&R, which states:
On December 3, 2013, Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”) sent
Plaintiff Arctic Cat Inc. (“Arctic”) a letter informing Arctic that its
“Wildcat” line of all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs”) infringed on Polaris’s U.S.
Patent Nos. 8,596,405 (“the ‘405 patent”), 7,819,220 (“the ‘220 patent”),
1
See Arctic Cat Inc. et al. v. Polaris Indus. Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-3579 (JRT/FLN);
Polaris Indus. Inc. et al. v. Arctic Cat Inc. et al., Case No. 14-cv-3386 (JRT/FLN); and Polaris
Indus. Inc. et al. v. Arctic Cat Inc. et al., Case No. 14-cv-3412 (JRT/FLN).
-2-
and 8,382,125 (“the ‘125 patent”). See Herriges Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 52.
Polaris additionally claimed that Arctic’s “Wildcat” ATVs would infringe
on two of Polaris’s pending patent applications. Id.
(R&R at 1-2.) Polaris argues that this characterization of the December 3, 2013 letter is
not consistent with the record. Polaris maintains that the letter separately refers to two
different sets of Arctic Cat products and treats their potential to infringe on Polaris’s
patents more tentatively than the R&R suggested. The full text of the relevant paragraph
of Polaris’s letter reads as follows:
As for the Arctic Cat product line, we are aware of the Wildcat and Wildcat
4 versions, as well as, the newly introduced Wildcat Trail. We have
reviewed the Wildcat and Wildcat 4 vehicles and have concluded that they
infringe Polaris’ U.S. Patent No. 8,596,405 (copy enclosed), which issued
today, December 3, 2013. While the Wildcat Trail has only recently been
released, based upon photos and other information obtained, we believe that
it too will infringe upon at least one or more of the claims of Polaris’ U.S.
Patent Nos. 7,819,220; 8,382,125; 8,596,405; or one or more of the claims
of Polaris’ pending published patent applications; for example
US20080023240 or US20130161109; collectively referred to as “Polaris
Patents.”
(Decl. of Joseph A. Herriges in Supp. of Mot. to Consolidate (“Herriges Decl.”), Ex. B at
2, Nov. 11, 2014, Docket No. 52.) This matter is now before the Court on Polaris’s
objection to the R&R’s characterization of the December 3, 2013 letter.
DISCUSSION
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon the filing of a report and recommendation by a magistrate judge, a party
may “serve and file objections to the order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The standard of
review applicable to an appeal of a Magistrate Judge’s order on nondispositive pretrial
-3-
matters is a deferential one, under which the Court will reverse such an order only if it is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Roble v. Celestica Corp.,
627 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1014 (D. Minn. 2007). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when,
although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Chakales v.
Comm’r, 79 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 1996).
II.
POLARIS’S OBJECTION
Polaris’s objection is limited to the second paragraph of the R&R. Polaris asserts
that the paragraph mischaracterizes the content of a letter sent from Polaris to Arctic Cat
on December 3, 2013.
Polaris offers three reasons for its objection: (1) the
characterization of the letter is not consistent with the record; (2) the characterization of
the letter does not relate to the legal analysis in the R&R and is therefore irrelevant as a
formal finding of fact; and (3) Arctic Cat never requested a finding relative to the
characterization of the letter, so Polaris did not have a chance to address the letter prior to
the issuance of the R&R. (Objection at 3-5.)
The main argument Polaris advances in its objection is that the R&R erroneously
describes the content of the December 3, 2013 letter by failing to acknowledge that
Polaris’s letter made differing allegations with respect to different Arctic Cat products.
Polaris asserts that although its letter affirmatively alleged that the “Wildcat” and
“Wildcat 4” products violated Polaris’s ‘405 patent, at the time of its letter Polaris did not
have sufficient information to allege which of its patents might be infringed by Arctic
Cat’s “Wildcat Trail” product. (See Herriges Decl., Ex. B at 2.) Therefore, the letter was
-4-
phrased “tentatively” to indicate that Polaris believed the “Wildcat Trail” would infringe
“one or more” of Polaris’s patents, not that it would definitely infringe each of the ‘405,
‘125, and ‘220 patents.
In response, Arctic Cat characterizes Polaris’s objection as an attempt to have
“this Court find that Polaris never actually accused Arctic Cat of infringement . . . .”
(Pls.’ Resp. to Objection to R&R at 2, Mar. 11, 2015, Docket No. 75.) This misstates
Polaris’s objection. Polaris seeks only to have this Court clarify the content of a specific
letter from a specific date. Arctic Cat appears to raise three distinct arguments in support
of its opposition: first, Polaris’s conduct in this litigation since the letter was filed
precludes Polaris from arguing that it never accused Arctic Cat of infringement; second,
Polaris waived this objection by not raising it sooner in response to Arctic Cat’s motion
to consolidate; and third, Polaris’s objection is contrary to a previous order of this Court.
(Id.)
As to Arctic Cat’s first argument, the Court notes that Polaris’s objection is strictly
limited to the meaning of the plain text of one paragraph of its December 3, 2013 letter.
Any subsequent interactions between these parties, including subsequent litigation
tactics, do not change the text of the letter. Thus, the Court will not base an interpretation
of the letter on Polaris’s subsequent conduct.
As to Arctic Cat’s second argument, the Court finds that Polaris has not waived
this objection. In support of its argument to the contrary, Arctic Cat points to United
States v. Nguyen, No. 09-172, 2010 WL 5146414, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 13, 2010), in
which the court held that a criminal defendant had waived arguments to suppress
-5-
evidence because the defendant raised the arguments for the first time in his objection to
an R&R. Id. As the court observed in that case, however, the arguments considered
waived by the Nguyen defendant could have been appropriately raised earlier, either in a
motion to suppress or during oral argument at the defendant’s suppression hearing, but
the defendant did not raise the argument until the magistrate judge had already issued an
R&R. Id. Those are not the facts here. Although Arctic Cat did address Polaris’s
infringement claims in its motion, Polaris’s objection is to the manner in which the
Magistrate Judge characterized the December 2013 letter. Polaris could not have known,
prior to the R&R’s issuance, the wording the magistrate judge would use to describe the
content of the letter. Therefore, the Court will not find that Polaris waived this objection.
Finally, with respect to Arctic Cat’s third argument, Arctic Cat maintains that
Polaris’s objection is contrary to this Court’s prior Order ruling that the December 2013
letter established a dispute as to infringement of the ‘125 and ‘220 patents. (Mem. Op. &
Order at 16 n.5, Oct. 20, 2014, Docket No. 60.) In the October 20, 2014 Order, the Court
mentioned the letter in a footnote, explaining that “[t]he Court has jurisdiction over
Arctic Cat’s declaratory judgment claims, which Polaris does not dispute, as the claims
present a case or controversy under Article III because the letter created a ‘definite and
concrete’ dispute about the parties’ legal relationship.” (Id.)
This footnote merely
indicated that the letter suggested a dispute between the parties, sufficient to give rise to a
case or controversy for the purposes of federal jurisdiction under Article III. In that
Order, the Court did not address whether Polaris’s letter specifically alleged that Arctic
Cat’s “Wildcat Trail” product infringed the ‘125 and ‘220 patents. Accordingly, the
-6-
Court finds that the October 20, 2014 Order does not directly conflict with Polaris’s
current objection and does not bar their arguments as to the text of the letter.
Upon reviewing the text of the letter, the Court concludes that it was clear error to
characterize the letter as accusing all “Wildcat” products of infringing on all three Polaris
patents. See Chakales, 79 F.3d at 728. Therefore, the Court will sustain Polaris’s limited
objection to the second paragraph of the R&R. Finding no clear error as to the remainder
of the R&R, the Court will adopt the R&R, with the modification that the second
paragraph will be replaced in its entirety by the exact text of Polaris’s December 3, 2013
letter that Polaris cites in its objection.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and the records, files, and proceedings herein, the Court
SUSTAINS Polaris’s objection [Docket No. 71] and MODIFIES the Report and
ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge dated October 24, 2014 [Docket
No. 68]. Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
The Report and Recommendation dated October 24, 2014 [Docket No. 68]
is amended by striking the first paragraph in Section I.A. and replacing it with the
following text:
On December 3, 2013, Defendant Polaris Industries Inc. (“Polaris”) sent
Plaintiff Arctic Cat Inc. (“Arctic”) a letter “constitut[ing] notification of
claims of patent infringement.” See Herriges Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 52.
The letter alleged the following:
As for the Arctic Cat product line, we are aware of the
Wildcat and Wildcat 4 versions, as well as, the newly
introduced Wildcat Trail. We have reviewed the Wildcat and
-7-
Wildcat 4 vehicles and have concluded that they infringe
Polaris’ U.S. Patent No. 8,596,405 (copy enclosed), which
issued today, December 3, 2013. While the Wildcat Trail has
only recently been released, based upon photos and other
information obtained, we believe that it too will infringe upon
at least one or more of the claims of Polaris’ U.S. Patent Nos.
7,819,220; 8,382,125; 8,596,405; or one or more of the claims
of Polaris’ pending published patent applications; for example
US20080023240 or US20130161109; collectively referred to
as “Polaris Patents.”
Id.
2.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate Cases for Pretrial Purposes [Docket No.
49] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall also be
filed in Polaris Industries Inc., et al. v Arctic Cat Inc., et al., Civil No. 14-3386
(JRT/FLN) and Polaris Industries Inc., et al. v Arctic Cat Inc., et al., Civil No. 14-3412
(JRT/FLN).
DATED: May 12, 2015
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
___________
__________
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
-8-
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?