CleanCut v. Rug Doctor et al

Filing 159

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 146 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 148 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 7/23/12 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

CLEANCUT, LLC,
Plaintiff,

ORDER AND
MEMORANDUM DECISION

vs.

RUG DOCTOR, INC. and NATURE’S
FINEST, LLC,

Case No. 2:08-cv-836

Defendants.

Plaintiff CleanCut, LLC (CleanCut) alleges that Defendants Rug Doctor, Inc. and
Nature’s Finest, LLC (collectively “Rug Doctor”) make and sell a product that infringes the
claims of CleanCut’s United States Patent No. 7,047,851 (the ‘851 Patent). The invention of the
‘851 Patent is a device for trimming the wicks on candles, specifically: “a wick trimmer with a
measuring foot that facilitates the effective cutting of a wick to an appropriate length.” (Compl.
Ex. A, at col. 2, ll. 54-56, Dkt. No. 2.)
Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 146 & 148). Rug
Doctor asserts that one of the claim limitations is absent from the accused device and that
therefore there can be no direct infringement. See Becton, Dickinson Co. v. Tyco Healthcare
Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rug Doctor points to the claim limitation that
states, “wherein said measuring foot thickness determines the length of a wick allowed to remain
above a top surface of a candle upon trimming the wick” (the ‘851 Patent at 4:45 to 8:4). The

court construed the term “determines” to mean “fixes or establishes” (Order 5-6, Mar. 16, 2012,
Dkt. No. 142), and Rug Doctor argues that, for its product, it is the user who determines the
length of the wick and not the thickness of the measuring foot. But the court finds that this
question is disputed, and that a reasonable jury could determine that Rug Doctor’s accused
product infringes CleanCut’s patent. Rug Doctor’s claim that CleanCut’s patent is invalid
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to make and use the device is
similarly a question for the jury. As a result, Rug Doctor’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED.
The court also DENIES CleanCut’s motion for summary judgment, as the motion relies
entirely on the declaration of Curt Waisath, the inventor of CleanCut’s patent. The court cannot
conclude from Mr. Waisath’s evaluation alone that there are no disputed issues of material fact,
especially as Rug Doctor has raised questions concerning the proper analysis of the court’s claim
construction.
For the reasons discussed above, both motions for summary judgment are DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

______________________________
TENA CAMPBELL
United States District Judge

2