Degelman Industries Ltd. v. Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc. et al
Filing
153
ORDER denying 77 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 78 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 80 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 86 Motion to Str ike ; granting 87 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 97 Motion to Strike ; granting 111 Motion for Extension of Time to File; adopting Report and Recommendations re 131 Report and Recommendations.; adopting Report and Reco mmendations re 132 Report and Recommendations.; adopting Report and Recommendations re 133 Report and Recommendations.; adopting Report and Recommendations re 134 Report and Recommendations.; adopting Report and Recommendations re 135 Report and Recommendations.; adopting Report and Recommendations re 137 Report and Recommendations.; adopting Report and Recommendations re 138 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 12/23/2011. (BMB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
DEGELMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,
Plaintiff,
06-CV-6346T
DECISION
and ORDER
v.
PRO-TECH WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC.,
and MICHAEL P. WEAGLEY,
Defendants.
________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Degelman Industries Ltd., (“Degelman”) brings this
action pursuant to federal patent law, (codified at 35 U.S.C. § 100
et.
seq.),
claiming
Fabrication,
Inc.,
that
defendants
(“Pro-Tech”)
and
Pro-tech
Michael
P.
Welding
and
Weagley
are
infringing upon Degelman’s United States Patent no. 6,845,576
(issued on January 25, 2005)(hereinafter “the ‘576 Patent”), as
well as United States Design Patent nos. 478,097 (the ‘097 Patent),
519,128
(the
‘128
Patent),
and
519,129
Patent)(collectively “the design patents”).
(the
‘129
The ‘576 Patent,
entitled “Materials Moving Blade,” generally discloses a pushing
blade that is attached to heavy equipment vehicles (such as a
bulldozer), for the purpose of moving earth, debris or snow.
The
blade is fitted with sidewalls that extend forward from each end of
the blade, which sidewalls prevent the material being moved from
escaping past either end of the blade.
The purported novelty of
the blade disclosed in the ‘576 Patent is that, inter alia, it is
fitted with a unique strengthening gusset that is designed to
strengthen the connection between the blade and the sidewalls, and
is also designed to prevent snow or other material from getting
caught or stuck under the gusset.
which
is
entitled
“Snow
Moving
The design patents, each of
Apparatus”
disclose
specific
ornamental designs for a snow moving apparatus.
The parties have filed several motions, including: plaintiff’s
motion
for
partial
summary
judgment
(docket
item
no.
77);
plaintiff’s motion to preclude expert testimony and reports (docket
item no. 78) defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, and
to exclude expert testimony (docket item no. 80); plaintiff’s
motion to strike (docket item no. 86); defendants’ motion to
preclude expert testimony (docket item no. 87); plaintiff’s second
motion to strike (docket item no. 97); and defendants’ motion to
supplement the record (docket item no. 111).
Because of the
complexity of the issues raised in the parties’ motions, by Order
dated August
11,
2010, I
appointed
Special
Master
Joseph
W.
Berenato, III, to hear and consider the parties’ motions, and to
issue a Report and Recommendation to the Court as to how each
motion should be decided. I further Ordered that the parties would
be given additional time to file objections to the Special Master’s
Reports and Recommendations, and that the findings of the Special
Master would be reviewed de novo by this Court.
2
THE SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Special Master Berenato conducted a hearing on the parties’
motions, and thereafter issued several Reports and Recommendations
recommending how the parties’ motions should be decided. In his
first Report and Recommendation (docket item no. 131) the Special
Master recommended that Defendants’ motion for partial summary
judgment (docket item no.80) be granted in-part and denied in-part.
In his second Report and Recommendation (docket item no. 132), the
Special Master recommended that plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment (docket item no. 77) be denied.
In the third
Report and Recommendation (docket item no. 133), Special Master
Berenato recommended that: plaintiff’s motion to preclude expert
testimony and reports (docket item no. 78) be granted in-part and
denied in-part, and that defendants’ motion to exclude expert
testimony and reports (docket item nos. 80 and 87) be granted inpart and denied in-part.
In his fourth Report and Recommendation
(docket
the
item
no.
134),
Special
Master
recommended
that
plaintiff’s motions to strike the Declarations of Donald W. O’Brien
(docket item nos. 86 and 97) be granted.
In the fifth Report and
Recommendation issued by Special Master Berenato (docket item no.
135) the Special Master recommended that defendants’ motion to
supplement the record with the Declaration of Duane C. Basch
(“Basch”) (docket item no. 111) be granted.
In the sixth Report
and Recommendation, (docket item no. 137) Special Master Berenato
3
recommended that plaintiff’s motion to strike the Affidavit of
Leslie Craig (“Craig”) (docket item no. 97) be granted.
Finally,
in his Seventh Report and Recommendation (docket item no. 138), the
Special Master recommended that plaintiff’s motion to strike the
Affidavit of Michael P. Weagley (“Weagley”) (docket item no. 86) be
denied.
THE PARTIES’ OBJECTIONS
I.
Plaintiff’s Objections
The parties object to certain of the recommendations made by
Special Master Berenato. Plaintiff objects to the Special Master’s
Recommendation that its motion for summary judgment on the issue of
infringement of the ‘128 design patent be denied. According to the
plaintiff, it set forth a prima facie case of infringement of that
patent, and the defendant failed to produce any evidence to rebut
plaintiff’s showing of infringement by defendants’ products.
Plaintiff also objects to the Special Master’s recommendation that
it’s expert David J. Quesnel (“Quesnel”) not be allowed to testify
as to infringement of the plaintiff’s patents by the defendants’
products.
Degelman
claims
that
it
established
Quesnel’s
credentials and authority to provide expert testimony on the
infringement of the plaintiff’s patents, and therefore the Special
Master erred in recommending that he be precluded from testifying.
Finally, the plaintiff contends that the Special Master should have
recommended that its motion to preclude the testimony of Jerre
4
Heyer (“Heyer”) be granted in its entirety, and that Special Master
Berenato erred in recommending that Heyer be allowed to testify as
an “ordinary observer.”
II.
Defendants’ Objections
Defendants object to several aspects of the Special Master’s
Reports and Recommendations.
Initially, the defendants contend
that the Special Master erred in recommending that its motion for
summary judgment on the issue of non-infringement of the design
patents be granted in-part and denied in-part.
While defendants
assert that the Special Master properly recommended that the
defendants
established
non-infringement
of
the
‘097
and
‘129
patents by certain of its products, the defendants contend that
Special Master Berenato should have concluded that none of the
allegedly infringing products infringed any of the design patents.
Defendants further argue that the Special Master should have
recommended that the ‘576 Patent be found invalid on the issues of
anticipation and/or obviousness. According to the defendants, they
sufficiently established that the invention disclosed in the ‘576
Patent is anticipated by a pull plow and a snow blower, and is
rendered obvious by previously existing products and previously
issued patents.
Defendants next object to the Special Master’s recommendation
that its motion seeking a declaration that the design patents are
invalid as obvious be denied.
According to the defendants, they
5
established by clear and convincing evidence that the design
patents are obvious in light of prior-art snow removal apparatuses.
Defendants
also
object
to
Special
Master
Berenato’s
recommendation that the testimony of their expert Nicholas P.
Godici (“Godici”) be limited to testimony regarding practices and
procedures
before
the
Patent
and
Trademark
Office(“PTO”).
Defendants contend that Godici is qualified to testify on several
other issues, including whether or not the plaintiff engaged in
inequitable conduct, and whether or not the patents in-suit are
valid.
Similarly, defendants object to Special Master Berenato’s
recommendation that the testimony of Alan P. Douglas (“Douglas”) be
restricted
to testimony regarding PTO practices and procedures.
Defendants assert that Douglas is qualified to testify on the
additional issues of validity and inequitable conduct.
Defendant objects to Special Master Berenato’s recommendation
that
the
testimony
of
its
proposed
expert
William
Leonard
(“Leonard”) be limited to testimony regarding the design and
fabrication of reinforcing members for reinforcing welded joints.
According to the defendants, Leonard is qualified to, and should be
allowed to, testify on issues of patent validity, and specifically
obviousness.
Finally, defendants contend that the Special Master
should have recommended that the proposed expert testimony of
Anthony Dannible (“Dannible”) on the issue of damages be precluded
6
because of alleged flaws in Dannible’s methodology in reaching his
conclusions.
Special Master Berenato recommended that Dannible’s
testimony be allowed because he is a qualified expert on the issue
of damages, and because his conclusions, and the rationale for
reaching his conclusions, go to the weight of his testimony, not
its admissibility.
For
the
reasons
set
forth
below,
I
deny
the
parties’
objections to the Special Master’s Reports and Recommendations, and
adopt the Report and Recommendations in their entirety, without
modification.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), after the filing of a
Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations.
After
such filing,
[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report
or
specified
proposed
finding
or
recommendations to which objection is made. A
judge of the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.
In the instant case, however, upon appointing the Special Master,
I Ordered that “[a]ll aspects of the Special Master’s Report and
Recommendation(s), shall be reviewed de novo by the court.”
7
See
August
11,
2010
Order
appointing
Special
Master
at
p.
1.
Accordingly, I review all aspects of the Special Master’s seven
Reports and Recommendations, including those portions to which no
specific objection was filed, de novo.
II.
Motions to Strike
A. Declarations of Donald W. O’Brien
Plaintiff has moved to strike the declarations of Donald W.
O’Brien (“O’Brien”) that were submitted in support of and in
opposition to the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment
on grounds that O’Brien, as attorney for the defendants, lacks
personal knowledge of the events and or facts that are the subject
of his declaration, and therefore may not, under Rule 56(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be considered by the Court.
Rule 56(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that “[a]n affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a
motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would
be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant
is competent to testify on the matters stated.”
56(c)(4).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Despite the requirement that a declaration be made upon
personal knowledge, attorneys often submit declarations in support
of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment for the
purpose of introducing documents into the record.
S.E.C. v.
Competitive Technologies, Inc., 2006 WL 3346210, *1, (D. Conn.,
Nov. 6, 2006)(“attorney affidavits are acceptable when . . . a
8
party
uses
them
only
as
a
vehicle
through
which
to
present
admissible evidence relevant to the matter at hand”) Although such
declarations often do not rest entirely on personal knowledge, and
it is expected that some advocacy will appear in an attorney
declaration, (See e.g. Gasser v. Infanti Intern., Inc., 2008 WL
2876531, *7 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2008)(noting that “some degree of
characterization” of evidence is to be expected in an attorney
affidavit)courts will strike attorney affidavits or declarations
where the documents are rife with argument, seek to introduce
inadmissible
averments.
evidence,
or
contain
unsubstantiated
factual
Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 172 F.3d 192, 198
(2nd Cir., 1999) (affirming district court’s decision striking
attorney
affidavit
where
the
affidavit
was
“riddled
with
inadmissible hearsay, conclusory statements and arguments, and
information clearly not made on the affiant's personal knowledge,”
and “more resemble[d] an adversarial memorandum than a bona fide
affidavit.”)
In the instant case, Special Master Berenato recommended that
plaintiff’s motion to strike the declarations of O’Brien be granted
with respect to the actual averments made by O’Brien, but that the
exhibits attached
reviewing
thereto
the Declarations
recommendation.
be
de
admitted
to the
novo,
affirm
I
record.
and
adopt
After
this
I find that the O’Brien Declarations contain
impermissible legal argument, excessive commentary on the evidence,
9
and in many instances, averments are based on inadmissible expert
testimony. The documentary evidence that O’Brien introduces in his
declarations, however, may stand on their own merits, and should
not be stricken merely because the accompanying declaration is not
permissible under Rule 56(c).
Accordingly, and for the reasons
stated by the Special Master in his Report and Recommendation
(docket item no. 134), I grant plaintiff’s motion to strike the
O’Brien Declarations (docket item nos. 83, 91, and 92) with the
exception that the documents attached thereto may be admitted.
B.
Declaration of Leslie Craig.
Plaintiff moves to strike the affidavit of Leslie Craig, a
proposed expert witness identified by the defendants.
Defendants,
in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment,
submitted an affidavit from Craig to establish facts regarding
purported prior art that according to the defendants, renders
plaintiff’s
patents
invalid.
Plaintiff
moves
to
strike
the
affidavit on grounds that Craig was never disclosed as a potential
witness
in
defendants’
initial
or
supplemental
discovery
disclosures.
Special Master Berenato recommended that the Craig affidavit
be
stricken
on
grounds
that
the defendants
failed
to
timely
disclose Craig’s identity or that he would be providing expert
testimony.
The Special Master found no good cause for defendants’
10
failure to timely identify Craig, and further found that plaintiff
would be prejudiced if Craig’s affidavit were allowed to stand.
Considering the Craig affidavit, and the parties’ arguments
for
an
against
allowing
the
affidavit
de
novo,
I
find
that
defendants have failed to establish good cause for failing to
identify Craig in a timely manner, and that the plaintiff would be
prejudiced
if
considered.
the
court
were
to
allow
the
affidavit
to
be
With respect to prejudice, I find that the lack of
disclosure of Craig as a potential expert witness prejudiced
plaintiff, as plaintiff did not have the opportunity to depose or
examine Craig.
Special
I further find, for the reasons stated by the
Master,
that
the
mention
of
Craig’s
name
during
a
deposition did not suffice to put plaintiff on notice that Craig
could be called to provide expert testimony on any subject.
With respect to defendants’ contention that they did not
disclose Craig as an expert because they did not anticipate the
arguments plaintiff would raise in opposition to defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, such a reason does not establish good cause
for failing to timely disclose Craig as an expert witness.
C.
Declaration of Michael Weagley
Plaintiff moves to strike the affidavit of defendant Michael
Weagley submitted in support of defendants’ motion for partial
summary
judgment
inadmissible
on
evidence,
grounds
that
including
11
the
affidavit
hearsay,
contains
opinions,
and
speculation.
Special Master Berenato recommended that plaintiff’s
motion be denied on grounds that Weagley’s averments were made on
personal knowledge, and set forth his own beliefs and recollections
of events.
That the statements made by Weagley may exhibit some
bias, as would be expected by the statements of a named defendant,
questions regarding credibility of Weagley’s statements Goes to the
weight, and not the admissibility, of his statements. Accordingly,
I adopt the Special Master’s recommendation that plaintiff’s motion
to strike Weagley’s affidavit be denied.
III. Motion to Supplement
Defendants move to supplement the record with the affidavit of
Duane C. Basch, (docket item no. 112) an attorney, for the purpose
of
introducing
evidence
of
prior
art, that
according
to
the
defendants, demonstrates that the asserted patents are invalid in
light of prior art.
Plaintiff objects to defendants’ motion on
grounds that the affidavit is untimely under the court’s scheduling
order.
Special
Master
Berenato
found
that
the
defendants
demonstrated good cause for any dely in filing the affidavit, and
Recommended that the defendants’ motion to supplement be granted in
part and denied in part.
Specifically, Special Master Berenato
recommended that the affidavit be admitted for the purpose of
entering the attached documents into the record, but denied with
respect to Basch’s averments, which the Special Master considered
to be argument and impermissible commentary on the evidence.
12
Having
reviewed
the
record
de
novo,
I
find
that
the
defendants, for the reasons stated by Special Master Berenato in
his Report and Recommendation demonstrated good cause for the late
filing
of
the
Craig
Supplemental
Affidavit,
and
therefore
defendants’ motion to supplement is granted to the extent that the
exhibits attached to the affidavit may be admitted.
defendants’
motion
to
supplement
with
respect
to
I deny
the
actual
averments made by Craig in his Supplemental Affidavit, which
largely constitute impermissible argument.
IV.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Testimony and Reports of
Nicholas P. Godici and Alan P. Douglas
Plaintiff
moves
to
preclude
testimony
and
reports
of
defendants’ experts Nicholas P. Godici and Alan P. Douglas on
grounds
that
Godici
and
Douglas,
who
were
proffered
by
the
defendants as experts on PTO practice and Procedures, as well as
inequitable
conduct,
and
patent
validity,
lack
the
requisite
expertise to qualify as experts with respect to issues of validity
and inequitable conduct.
Special Master Berenato Recommended in
his Report and Recommendation (docket item no. 133) that Godici and
Douglas be limited to testifying as to PTO practice and procedure,
but that they be precluded from testifying on issues of inequitable
conduct before the PTO, and patent validity.
In support of this
recommendation, Special Master Berenato concluded that, inter alia,
neither Godici nor Douglas were qualified to testify as experts on
the issue of validity, and more specifically obviousness, of the
13
asserted patents because neither had reviewed this Court’s claim
construction (and thus were unaware of the construction of the ‘576
Patent), and neither proposed expert has expertise in the relevant
field of art.
With respect to proposed testimony on the issue of
inequitable conduct, the Special Master noted that neither Godici
or Douglas are attorneys, and neither claimed to have advanced
understanding or knowledge of the legal standard for establishing
inequitable conduct.
Accordingly, the Special Master determined
that they were not qualified as experts to testify on the issue of
whether or not the plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct before
the PTO.
Defendants object to the Special Master’s recommendation on
grounds that the Special Master imposed an improperly high standard
for allowing expert testimony. Specifically, defendants claim that
the Special Master erred in suggesting that an expert is prohibited
from testifying on the ultimate issue in a case.
Defendants
further contend that the Special Master erroneously determined that
an expert could only testify based on his first-hand knowledge of
a subject.
The defendants argue that because Godici and Douglas
have extensive experience as patent examiners, and collectively
have
reviewed
thousands
of
patent
applications,
the
proposed
experts are qualified to testify not only on the issues of PTO
practice and procedures, but may offer valuable and necessary
14
insight into the issues of inequitable conduct and obviousness of
the asserted patents in light of prior art.
I find, however, that because the proposed experts lack
experience in the field of the relevant art, they may not testify
on the issue of validity.
While Godici and Douglas clearly have a
wealth of experience as patent examiners, as stated by Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals, “it is an abuse of discretion to permit
a witness to testify as an expert on the issues of noninfringement
or invalidity unless that witness is qualified as an expert in the
pertinent art.”
Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550
F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir., 2008).
In the instant case, the record
reveals that neither Godici or Douglas have experience in the art
of material moving blades or snow moving apparatus, the subjects of
the patents in suit, and therefore, it is clear that neither can be
considered experts qualified to render an opinion on whether or not
prior art renders any of the asserted patents invalid.
Similarly,
neither Godici nor Douglas have expertise on the issue of what
constitutes inequitable conduct for purposes of rendering an issued
patent invalid.
Although both proposed experts have considerable
experience regarding practice before the PTO, neither Godici nor
Douglas are attorneys, and neither have specialized experience or
knowledge
with
respect
to
the
legal
standards
that
govern
inequitable conduct analysis under federal law in federal court.
15
Accordingly, I find that Godici and Douglas are not qualified to
testify as experts on the issue of inequitable conduct.
For the reasons stated above and in the Special Master’s
Report
and
Recommendation,
I
grant
in-part
and
deny
in-part
plaintiff’s motion to preclude the testimony of Godici and Douglas.
Godici and
Douglas
may
testify
with
respect
to
practice
and
procedure before the PTO, but are precluded from testifying with
respect to obviousness or other aspects of the validity of the
patents in suit, and may not testify on the issue of whether or not
the plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct before the PTO.
V.
Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Testimony and Reports of
David J. Quesnel
Defendants move to preclude the testimony of plaintiff’s
proposed expert David Quesnel with respect to testimony regarding
infringement of the design patents on grounds that Quesnel does not
qualify as an “ordinary observer” competent to render an opinion on
the similarities between accused products and the asserted design
patents.
According to the defendants, Quesnel is not qualified as
an “ordinary observer” because he is not a consumer in the market
of materials moving blades or snow removal apparatus, and has not
established familiarity with such items.
Special Berenato recommended that Quesnel be precluded from
testifying on the issue of infringement of the design patents on
grounds that Quesnel did not qualify as an “ordinary observer,”
failed to make an adequate examination of the accused products, and
16
failed to adequately compare the asserted design patents to the
accused products.
Plaintiff objects to the Special Master’s
findings on grounds that the defendants’ motion to preclude Quesnel
was not timely; the Special Master considered arguments not made by
the
defendants
in
recommending
that
Quesnel’s
testimony
be
precluded; and that the Special Master erred in finding that
Quesnel was not qualified as an ordinary observer competent to
provide his opinion on whether or not the accused products are so
similar to the design patents as to infringe on those patents.
Upon reviewing the record de novo, I find that the Special
Master correctly determined that Quesnel does not qualify as an
ordinary observer, and therefore may not offer testimony as to
whether
the
patents.
defendants’
products
accuse
the
asserted
design
Initially, Special Master Berenato identified the proper
legal standard for defining an ordinary observer.
observer”
is
“a
person
who
is
either
a
An “ordinary
purchaser
of,
or
sufficiently interested in, the item that displays the patented
designs
and
discerning
who
has
decision
the
when
capability
observing
of
the
making
accused
a
reasonably
item's
design
whether the accused item is substantially the same as the item
claimed in the design patent.”
Arminak and Associates, Inc. V.
Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 501 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir., 2007).
Based on that definition, the Special Master properly determined
that Quesnel in no way qualifies as an ordinary observer of
17
materials moving blades or snow moving apparatus.
The evidence
reveals that Quesnel is not a purchaser or user of such equipment,
and has never made any particular study of such equipment out of an
interest
in
the
equipment.
That
he
has
seen
snow
removing
equipment in use does not render him an ordinary observer of such
equipment
capable
of
rendering
an
opinion
on
the
relative
similarities of such products to the design patents at issue.
Because Quesnel lacks the qualifications of an ordinary observer of
the products and designs at issue, I grant defendants’ motion to
preclude his testimony with respect to infringement of the design
patents by defendants’ accused products.
Plaintiff contends that defendants’ cross-motion to preclude
Quesnel’s testimony was untimely, and therefor must be denied.
find, however,
that
any
delay
in
filing
the
cross-motion
I
is
excusable, and did not result in prejudice to the plaintiff.
Defendant filed a timely motion to preclude the testimony and
report of Quesnel with respect to the issues of infringement of the
design patents. One month later, and after the deadline for filing
motions to preclude, defendants filed a cross-motion again seeking
to preclude Quesnel from testifying or offering expert reports on
the issue of infringement, but also seeking to preclude Quesnel’s
testimony on the issue of validity.
I find that plaintiff was not
prejudiced by this delay, as it was on notice as of the deadline
for
filing
motions
to
preclude
18
that
defendants
objected
to
Quesnel’s testimony, and was on notice of the defendants’ reasons
for objecting to Quesnel’s reports and testimony.
The arguments
underlying both motions were legally and factually similar, and
therefore plaintiff was not prejudiced by having to respond to both
motions.
VI.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Testimony and Reports of
Jerre Heyer
Plaintiff moves to preclude the reports and testimony of
defendants’
expert
witness
Jerre
Heyer
on
grounds
that
his
testimony is biased, based on incorrect legal standards, and
attempts to opine on ultimate issues reserved for the trier of
fact. Heyer is proffered as an expert witness by the defendants to
testify as
an
ordinary
observer
as
to
similarities,
or
lack
thereof, between the accused products and the plaintiff’s patents.
Special Master Berenato recommended that Heyer’s testimony be
precluded with respect to his opinion on the ultimate issue of
infringement, but that he be allowed to testify as an ordinary
observer with respect to the alleged dissimilarities between the
defendants’ products and the plaintiff’s patents.
In support of
his recommendation, the Special Master noted that Heyer has 30
years of experience with snow plows, and is in the business of
selling and servicing plows such as the ones at issue in this case.
He
is
a
longstanding
member
of
the
Snow
and
Ice
Management
Association, and has served as a presenter at Association meetings.
19
Plaintiff
objects
that
its
motion
to
preclude
Heyer’s
testimony should have been granted in its entirety, on grounds that
Heyer’s testimony regarding the dissimilarities between the accused
products and the asserted patents is based on an element-by-element
analysis of the products and patents, and as such, is not based on
the
correct
patents.
standard
for
determining
infringement
of
design
According to the plaintiff, the standard for determining
infringement of a design patent is whether or not patented design,
when considered as a whole, is infringed by the accused product.
See Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 677.
Plaintiff
contends that analysis such as Heyer’s, which it considers to be
based only on discrete elements of the design, and not the design
as a whole, fails to elucidate the issue of infringement of the
design patents, and therefore his testimony should be stricken in
its entirety.
I
find,
however,
that
Heyer’s
testimony
as
an
observer will benefit the trier of fact in this case.
ordinary
The court
will instruct the Jury on the proper standard, or, if the case is
tried before the bench, the court will be aware of the proper
standard for determining infringement of design patents.
Heyer’s
testimony based on his experience as an ordinary observer is simply
part of a larger body of evidence that the trier of fact will need
to consider in determining whether or not the accused products
infringe the design patents.
20
Heyer may, not, however, testify on the ultimate issue of
infringement, as Heyer lacks any specialized legal knowledge or
training to opine as an expert as to whether or not the asserted
patents are infringed.
Accordingly, I grant in part and deny in-
part plaintiff’s motion to preclude Heyer’s testimony.
VII. Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude Testimony and Reports of
William M. Leonard
Plaintiff moves to preclude the testimony and report of
defendants’ expert William Leonard on grounds that Leonard lacks
skill in the relevant fields of art of materials moving blades,
snow removal apparatus, mechanical design, and fabrication of
mechanical parts, and therefore may not testify as an expert on the
issues of infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents.
Defendants’ further contend that the methodology used by Leonard in
developing his opinions on validity is unproven, unsound, and
unreliable such that it may not be allowed under the standards set
forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993).
Special Master Berenato recommended that Leonard be precluded
from testifying as an expert or ordinary observer with respect to
patent validity, on grounds that he lacked sufficient expertise or
knowledge of material movers or snow moving equipment. The Special
master did, however, recommend that Leonard be allowed to testify
as an expert on the issue of design and fabrication of reinforcing
members for reinforcing welded joints.
21
Defendants object to the Special Master’s recommendation on
grounds that the Special Master has applied an overly restrictive
standard
for
allowing
expert
testimony.
According
to
the
defendants, Leonard posses the requisite knowledge and experience
to allow him to testify as an expert and ordinary observer on the
issues of snow moving apparatus design, materials moving blades.
Specifically, defendants note that Leonard has consulted as a
technical expert in cases involving snowplows, and has personal
experience operating his own snow plows used with a tractor and
pickup truck.
I find, however, that Leonard lacks sufficient knowledge and
experience to testify as an expert or ordinary observer with
respect to snow moving apparatus and materials moving blades.
I
further find that the methodology he employed to arrive at his
conclusion that the ‘576 patent is obvious in light of thenexisting technology is flawed and untested such that it does not
meet the Daubert standard for allowing expert testimony.
The uncontroverted evidence in the record reveals that the
bulk of Leonard’s technical experience comes from his several years
as an employee of Eastman Kodak Company, where he worked in the
field of camera manufacturing and product ideation.
Much of his
work was devoted to developing prototypes of camera parts, and
Leonard was a named inventor in patents issued to Kodak. Following
his tenure at Kodak, Leonard worked on his own as a consultant
assisting parties with the design and development of camera or
22
electronic parts. While Leonard’s experience is significant, it is
unrelated to the areas of snow removal apparatuses or materialmoving blades. Accordingly I find that he lacks the qualifications
necessary to serve as an expert or ordinary observer with respect
to the field of art pertaining to material-moving blades or snow
removal apparatus.
I further find that the “product ideation process” which
Leonard employed to conclude that the invention disclosed in the
‘576 Patent would have been obvious to a person skilled in the
relevant art, is untested and not demonstrated to be reliable, and
therefore under the standards set forth in Daubert, can not serve
as the basis for his expert testimony on obviousness. The standard
for determining whether or not expert scientific testimony may be
admitted at trial is set forth in Daubert where the Supreme Court,
in analyzing Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, determined
that expert testimony which "rests on a reliable foundation and is
relevant," is admissible under the Federal Rules.
U.S. at 597.
Daubert, 509
To determine whether or not expert testimony rests on
a reliable foundation, a district court must "make a preliminary
assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the
testimony is scientifically valid and whether that reasoning can be
applied to the facts in issue."
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592-93.
In
assessing whether or not the testimony is scientifically valid,
District Courts should examine certain factors such as: (1) whether
or not the methodology or theory can be (or has been) tested;
23
(2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer
review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error
for
the
methodology,
methodology
community.
is
and
generally
(4)
whether
accepted
in
or
the
not
the
relevant
theory
or
scientific
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593.
In the instant case, there is no evidence suggesting that the
“product ideation process” employed by Leonard can be been tested,
has been subjected to pear review, is generally accepted, or has a
known or potential rate of error.
In short, because the “product
ideation process” can not be tested, duplicated, or confirmed, I
find that it can not serve as a basis for Leonard’s conclusion that
the invention disclosed in the ‘576 patent is obvious in light of
existing art and technology.
I therefor grant plaintiff’s motion
to preclude Leonard’s testimony as it relates to materials moving
blades and snow removal apparatus.
Leonard may, however, testify
as an expert on the issue of design and fabrication of reinforcing
members for reinforcing welded joints.
VIII. Defendants’ Motion to Preclude Testimony and Reports of
Anthony J. Dannible
Defendants move to preclude the testimony of Anthony J.
Dannible, a certified public accountant retained by plaintiff to
offer expert testimony regarding plaintiff’s damages resulting from
defendants’ alleged infringement.
According to the defendants,
Dannible used the wrong analysis to determine the plaintiff’s
damages, and also relied on incorrect data, and flawed, unsupported
24
assumptions.
Special Master Berenato recommended that Dannible be
allowed to testify as to plaintiff’s alleged damages on grounds
that
any
deficiencies
in
Dannible’s
methodology,
data,
or
assumptions may be explored on cross-examination.
I concur with the Special Master’s findings, and for the
Reasons stated in his Report and Recommendation, I deny defendants’
motion to preclude Dannible’s testimony.
To the extent that
defendants believe that Dannible’s methods, data, and assumptions
are flawed, the defendants may test all of those areas on crossexamination.
IX.
The Parties’ motions for Summary Judgment.
Having
decided
the
evidentiary
matters
contested
by
the
parties, I know address the parties competing motions for summary
judgment.
The plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment asking the
court for a declaration that the defendants’ “Sno-Pusher” products
infringe upon its design patents.
Defendants move for partial
summary judgment seeking a declaration several of its models do not
infringe the plaintiff’s design patents.
Defendants further seek
a declaration that claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘576 Patent are
invalid as being anticipated by prior art, and that all of the
asserted patents are invalid as being obvious in light of prior
art. Finally, defendants seek a declaration that its “Angle Model”
25
snow pushers do not infringe the ‘576 Patent.
I discuss the
parties motions separately below.
A.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
The Special Master, in his second Report and Recommendation,
(docket item no. 132) recommended that plaintiff’s motion seeking
a declaration that defendants’ “sno-pusher” products infringe the
plaintiff’s asserted design patents be denied.
Special
Master
determining
set
forth
infringement
the
of
correct
design
In doing so, the
2-step
patents.
standard
See
Report
for
and
Recommendation at p. 6 (“First, the court determines the scope and
meaning of the patent claims asserted, and then the properly
construed
claims
are
compared
to
the
allegedly
infringing
device.”)(quoting Cybor Corp. v. Fas Techs, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448,
1454 (Fed. Cir., 1998).
additional
legal
Employing this standard, as well as
standards
set
forth
in
the
Report
and
Recommendation, Special Master Berenato determined that Degelman
had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the
accused products were “substantially” the same as the properly
construed claims of the asserted design patents.
Specifically,
after a thorough and detailed discussion of the ‘097, ‘127, and
‘128
patents,
and
the
accused
sno-pusher
products
of
the
defendants, Special Master Berenato determined that there were
genuine issues of material fact which precluded a grant of summary
26
judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of infringement of the
design patents by the sno-pusher products.
The Plaintiff objects to several aspects of the Special
Master’s Report, and argues that at least with respect to its
claims of infringement of the ‘128 Patent, it has demonstrated
infringement by a preponderance of the evidence, and the defendants
have failed to present any evidence to suggest that its sno-pusher
products do not infringe the ‘128 Patent.
I find, however, for the reasons stated by the Special Master,
that genuine issues of material fact exist which preclude granting
summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of infringement of
the design patents by the sno-pusher products.
Plaintiff has
failed to produce evidence, that, when considered in the light most
favorable to the defendants, establishes that it is entitled to a
judgment of infringement of any of the design patents as a mater of
law. As stated by the Special Master, to establish infringement of
a design patent, the patent holder must demonstrate that “‘an
ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived
into thinking that the accused design was the same as the patented
design.’”
Report and Recommendation at p. 6 (quoting Egyptian
Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679).
evidence
of
defendants’
similarity
products,
While plaintiff has presented some
between
the
its
defendants
patented
have
designs
similarly
and
the
presented
evidence of dissimilarity between its accused products and the
asserted design patents.
Because the competing evidence presents
27
genuine issues of material fact, the court cannot grant summary
judgment to the plaintiff. I therefore deny plaintiff’s motion for
partial summary judgment.
B.
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
As stated above, the defendants motion for partial summary
judgment seeks several forms of relief. First, the defendants seek
a declaration that several of its models do not infringe the
plaintiff’s design patents.
Defendants further seek a declaration
that claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘576 Patent are invalid as being
anticipated by prior art, and that all of the asserted patents are
invalid
as
being
obvious
in
light
of
prior
art.
Finally,
defendants seek a declaration that its “Angle Model” snow pushers
do not infringe the ‘576 Patent.
1.
I discuss these claims seriatim.
Infringement of the Design Patents
Special Master Berenato, in an extremely detailed analysis and
discussion
of
the
patents
in
suit
and the
accused
products,
recommended that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with
respect to infringement be:
Denied as to non-infringement of the D'097
Patent and the D'129 Patent by the Pro-Tech
accused SPL Loader Model, SPS Skid Steer
Model, SPB Backhoe Model, IST Loader Model,
IST Backhoe Model, IST Skid Steer Model, PBS
Pull Back Model, and SPC Compact Model.
Granted as to non-infringement, both literal
and under the doctrine of equivalents, of the
D'097 Patent and the D'129 Patent by the Protech
accused FPL
Fold
Out Model,
SBL
28
Switchblade Loader Model, Super Duty Loader
Model SBB, Switchblade Backhoe Model, SBS
Switchblade Skid Steer Model, and FTF Forklift
Model.
Denied as to non-infringement of the D'128
Patent by the Pro-Tech accused SPL Loader
Model, SPS Skid Steer Model, SPB Backhoe
Model, IST Loader Model, IST Backhoe Model,
IST Skid Steer Model, PBS Pull Back Model, SPC
Compact Model, FPL Fold Out Model, and FTF
Forklift Model.
Granted as to non-infringement, both literal
and under the doctrine of equivalents, of the
D'128 Patent by the Pro-Tech accused SBL
Switchblade Loader Model, SSB Switchblade
Backhoe Model, the SBS Switchblade Skid Steer
Model, and the Super Duty Loader Model.
Report and Recommendation (docket item no. 131) at pp. 48-49.
Having reviewed the record de novo, and having reviewed the
defendants’ objections to the Special Master’s Recommendation, I
adopt
the
Special
Master’s
Report
and
Recommendation
in
its
entirety without modification, and grant in-part and deny in-part
the defendants’
motion
for
summary
judgment
on the
issue of
infringement as set forth by the Special Master in his Report and
Recommendation.
The Special Master’s report on this matter is so
thorough, and so comprehensive, that no further elucidation is
necessary, and indeed, further comment would likely only detract
from the
clarity
of the
Special
Master’s
explication
of
the
complicated issues raised in defendant’s infringement motion.
Defendants objections do not demonstrate that the Special Master
erred in either his factual or legal analysis of the infringement
29
issues, and therefore, his recommendations are adopted without
modification.
2.
Invalidity of Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘576 Patent as
anticipated
Special
Master
Berenato
recommended
that
the
defendants’
motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that claims 1, 2,
5, and 6 of the ‘576 Patent are invalid as anticipated be denied on
grounds that the evidence submitted by the defendants in support of
their claim (which constituted testimony of several witnesses)
failed to constitute clear and convincing evidence sufficient to
overcome the presumption of validity of the claims of the ‘576
Patent.
Specifically,
Special
Master
Berenato
found
that
defendants’ witness Godici failed to establish first hand knowledge
of the prior art which he claims invalidates the claims of the ‘576
Patent, and instead relied on hearsay evidence in concluding that
claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘576 Patent are anticipated by prior
art.
Special Master Berenato further determined that because the
evidence of the prior art relied on by the defendants was ambiguous
in that: no physical example of the prior art exists, testimony
establishing that characteristics of the prior art was based on
witnesses recollections of the prior art, no photographs of the
prior art establish exactly what the prior art plow looked like, it
is not agreed that blueprints of the plow accurately depict the
plow as fabricated, and some evidence suggested that the prior art
plow suffered significant limitations to its utility because of its
weight and size, defendants failed to present clear and convincing
30
evidence of anticipation of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘576
Patent.
Defendants object to the Special Master’s recommendation, and
contend that the evidence they submitted satisfies its burden of
establishing that the ‘576 patent is anticipated by the prior-art
pull plow and snow blower identified by the defendants.
I find,
however, for the reasons stated by the Special Master, that the
defendants have not met their burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘576 Patent
are anticipated by any prior art. As stated by the Special Master,
the testimony regarding the prior art is ambiguous in that the
actual characteristics of the prior art are not clear.
The
testimony thus raises questions fact that cannot be resolved in a
motion for summary judgement.
I therefore adopt the Special
Master’s recommendation, and deny defendant’s motion for summary
judgment seeking a declaration of
invalidity of claims 1, 2, 5,
and 6 of the ‘576 Patent.
3.
Invalidity of all asserted patents as obvious
Special Master Berenato recommended that defendants’ motion
for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the asserted
patents are invalid as obvious be denied.
In so recommending,
Special Master Berenato found that with respect to the asserted
patents, the defendants had failed to carry their burden of proof
that the patents were obvious in light of prior art because genuine
31
issues of material fact remained as to whether or not the plow
relied
up
by
the
defendants
in
demonstrating
obviousness
constitutes prior art, and if so, whether it teaches art that
renders the patents obvious.
Defendants object to the Special Master’s recommendation, and
contend that the affidavit of its expert witness Alan Douglas
establishes that the Daniels Pull Plow, which it asserts as prior
art rendering the asserted patents invalid as obvious, discloses
elements that would have led a patent examiner to conclude that the
design patents are obvious.
Defendants further assert that the
affidavits of their expert witnesses Godici and Douglas establish
that the ‘576 Patent is obvious in light of the Daniels Pull Plow
and U.S. Patent 3,557,850.
However, for the reasons stated in the Special Master’s
Report,
I
find
that
defendant
has
failed
to
establish
the
obviousness of the asserted patents as a matter of law, and find
that material questions of fact preclude granting the defendant’s
motion.
favorable
Considering the evidence of record in the light most
to
the
plaintiff,
defendants does not establish
the
evidence
submitted
by
the
that no rational jury could find in
favor of the plaintiff on the issue of obviousness.
Accordingly,
I adopt the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation, and deny
defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that
the asserted patents are invalid as obvious.
32
4.
Infringement by Angle Model Snow Pushers
Defendants seek a declaration that its Angle Model snow
pushers do not infringe any of the plaintiff’s patents.
At oral
argument, plaintiff withdrew its claims of infringement by the
Angle Model, and therefore defendants’ motion is moot.
CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
I
adopt
the
Reports
and
Recommendations issued by Special Master Berenato (Docket items
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 137, and 138) in their entirety.
Specifically, I:
•
deny plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgement
(docket item no. 77);
•
grant in-part and deny in-part defendants’ motion for
partial summary judgment (docket item no.80). I find
that the defendants’ SBL Switchblade Loader Model, Super
Duty Loader Model, SBB Switchblade Backhoe Model, and
SBS Switchblade Skid Steer Model, do not infringe the
‘097, ‘128, or ‘129 Patents, and I therefore grant
defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking a
declaration of non-infringement of the ‘097, ‘128, and
‘129 Patents with respect to those products. I find that
the defendants’ FPL Fold Out Model and FTF Forklift Model
do not infringe the ‘097 or ‘129 Patents, and I therefore
grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking a
declaration of non-infringement of the ‘097, and ‘129
Patents with respect to those products. I deny
defendants’ request for a declaratory judgment that its
remaining
accused products
do
not
infringe
the
plaintiff’s asserted patents;
•
grant in-part and deny in-part plaintiff’s motion to
preclude the testimony of Nicholas P. Godici (docket item
no. 78).
Godici may testify as to
practices and
procedures before the Patent and Trademark Office PTO,
but may not testify on the issues of whether or not the
plaintiff engaged in inequitable conduct, and whether or
not the asserted patents are valid;
33
•
grant in-part and deny in-part plaintiff’s motion to
preclude the testimony of Alan P. Douglas (docket item
no. 78).
Douglas
may testify as to
practices and
procedures before the PTO, but may not testify on the
issues of whether or not the plaintiff engaged in
inequitable conduct, and whether or not the asserted
patents are valid;
•
grant in part and deny-in part plaintiff’s motion to
preclude the testimony of Jerre Heyer (docket item no.
78).
Heyer may testify as an ordinary observer with
respect to the appearance of the accused products and
apparatus disclosed in the asserted design patents.
Heyer may not testify on the issue of infringement;
•
grant in-part and deny in-part plaintiff’s motion to
preclude the testimony of William Leonard (docket item
no. 78).
Leonard may testify as to the design and
fabrication of reinforcing members for reinforcing welded
joints but may not testify on the issues of patent
validity;
•
deny defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of
Anthony Dannible (docket item no. 80);
•
grant defendants’ motion to preclude the testimony of
David J. Quesnel (docket item no. 87);
•
grant plaintiff’s motions to strike the Declarations of
Donald W. O’Brien (docket item nos. 86 and 97) subject to
the exception that the documents attached to the O’Brien
Declarations may be admitted to the record;
•
grant defendants’ motion to supplement the record with
the Declaration of Duane C. Basch (docket item no. 111);
•
grant plaintiff’s motion to strike the Affidavit of
Leslie Craig (docket item no. 97);
•
deny plaintiff’s motion to strike the
Michael P. Weagley (docket item no. 86).
Affidavit
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Michael A. Telesca
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:
Rochester, New York
December 23, 2011
34
of
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?