Inventist, Inc. v. Ninebot, Inc. et al

Filing 202

ORDER re Marking Issue. The Court will not preclude Ninebot from arguing that it did not have constructive notice prior to the filing of the lawsuit for the purpose of limiting its damages for infringement. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (SB)

Case 3:16-cv-05688-BJR Document 202 Filed 07/31/23 Page 1 of 3

1

The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

NO. 16-cv-5688
INVENTIST, INC.,

8

ORDER RE MARKING ISSUE
Plaintiff,

9
v.
10
NINEBOT, INC., et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13

Pending before the Court are the parties’ briefs regarding the marking legal issue discussed

14

during the pretrial conference held on July 25, 2023. ECF Nos. 200, 201. Having reviewed the

15

parties’ briefs, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court rules that Ninebot

16

is not precluded from arguing that it did not have constructive notice prior to the filing of the lawsuit

17

for the purpose of limiting its damages for infringement.

18
19

Under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), a patentee must have provided notice to an infringer to recover
damages:

20

Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling
within the United States any patented article for or under them, or
importing any patented article into the United States, may give
notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon
the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.”, together with the
number of the patent, or by fixing thereon the word “patent” or the
abbreviation “pat.” together with an address of a posting on the

21
22
23
24
25

ORDER RE MARKING ISSUE
-1

Case 3:16-cv-05688-BJR Document 202 Filed 07/31/23 Page 2 of 3

1

Internet, accessible to the public without charge for accessing the
address, that associates the patented article with the number of the
patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be
done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them
is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure
so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any
action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was
notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in
which event damages may be recovered only for infringement
occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall
constitute such notice.

2
3
4
5
6
7

The Federal Circuit has held that “an alleged infringer who challenges the patentee’s

8

compliance with § 287 bears an initial burden of production to articulate the products it believes

9

are unmarked ‘patented articles’ subject to § 287.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational

10

Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “The patentee bears the burden of pleading and

11

proving he complied with § 287(a)’s marking requirement.” Id. at 1366 (citing Maxwell v. J. Baker,

12

Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Compliance with section 287(a) is a question of fact.”

13

Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1111.

14

Ninebot asserts that it has identified unmarked products with respect to both the utility

15

patent and the design patent. See Joint Pretrial Statement 11, ECF No. 174; Second Joint Pretrial

16

Statement 9, 15, ECF No. 197. Inventist contends that Ninebot has not satisfied the burden of

17

production on the marking requirement because it did not timely identify these products, having

18

waited until April 2023, after discovery had closed. Joint Pretrial Statement 12; Second Joint

19

Pretrial Statement 8-9, 16. Ninebot argues that Inventist has not been prejudiced by the timing of

20

its disclosure since the identification of products does not rely on new undisclosed evidence, and

21

the evidence of marking is within Inventist’s control. Def.’s Brief 2, ECF No. 201. Inventist asserts

22

that it has been prejudiced because Ninebot’s arguments rest not only on Inventist’s own products

23

but also on the products of third-party licensees. Pl.’s Brief 3, ECF No. 200.

24

ORDER RE MARKING ISSUE

25

-2

Case 3:16-cv-05688-BJR Document 202 Filed 07/31/23 Page 3 of 3

1

As stated in Artic Cat, Ninebot’s burden of production “is a low bar.” 876 F.3d at 1368.

2

Further, section 287 is a limitation on damages, and not an affirmative defense. Motorola, Inc. v.

3

United States, 729 F.2d 765, 770 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Although Ninebot provides no justification for

4

waiting to identify these products to Inventist, there appears to be no prejudice to Inventist from the

5

timing of the disclosure, at least with respect to Inventist’s own products. And Inventist asserts that

6

there is no factual dispute that were no licenses at the time the Complaint was filed, at which time

7

Ninebot was put on actual notice of infringement.1 Second Joint Pretrial Statement 9. Indeed, as

8

argued by Inventist, the issue of when Ninebot had notice is an issue of fact for the jury, and the

9

parties provided a joint jury instruction on the issue. See Joint Pretrial Statement at 12, 56 (Joint

10

Jury Instruction No. 33). Inventist appears to have already accepted its burden to prove the date it

11

first notified Ninebot of its claim for patent infringement, whether through actual notice or

12

constructive notice by marking. Inventist has also already supplemented its list of exhibits to

13

include evidence of marking of its Solowheel products. Second Joint Pretrial Statement 29.

14
15

Therefore, the Court will not preclude Ninebot from arguing that it did not have constructive
notice prior to the filing of the lawsuit for the purpose of limiting its damages for infringement.

16

DATED this 31st day of July 2023.

17

A

18

Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge

19
20
21
22

1

23

The Complaint, asserting infringement of the utility patent, was filed on August 4, 2016 and the Amended Complaint,
adding assertions of design patent infringement, was filed March 7, 2018. ECF Nos. 1, 38. It appears that Inventist
began licensing its products in 2017. See Summary Judgment Decision 24, ECF No. 154.

24

ORDER RE MARKING ISSUE

25

-3