Hafco Foundry and Machine Company, Incorporated v. GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc.

Filing 117

MEMORANDUM OPINION: By 59 ORDER entered on 4/26/2017, the court denied defendant's motion to construe the patent as invalid or, in the alternative, motion to adopt defendant's claim construction. The reasons for that decision, as to patent validity and claim construction, are more fully set forth herein. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 6/13/2018. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE
COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-16143

GMS MINE REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By Order entered on April 26, 2017, the court denied
defendant’s motion to construe the patent as invalid or, in the
alternative, motion to adopt defendant’s claim construction.
(ECF No. 59).

The reasons for that decision follow.
I.

Background

Hafco filed the instant action for patent infringement on
December 15, 2015.

Hafco owns the patent for a Rock Dust Blower,

U.S. Design Patent No. D681,684S. See Complaint ¶ 9.

Within the

scope of the Rock Dust Blower Patent, “Hafco makes, offers for
sale and sells a rock dust blower . . . within the Southern
District of West Virginia and throughout the United States.”
at ¶ 12.

Id.

In 2014, Hafco entered into an agreement with Pioneer

Conveyor, alleged to be a GMS affiliate, by which Pioneer
Conveyor was to distribute Hafco rock dust blowers to mining
customers.

See id. at ¶ 13.

The distribution agreement between

Hafco and Pioneer Conveyor was terminated in early May 2015.

See

id.

According to Hafco, following termination of the

aforementioned distribution agreement, GMS began selling
infringing rock dust blowers within the Southern District of West
Virginia.

See id. at ¶ 14.
II.

Patent Validity

Under 35 U.S.C. § 171, "[w]hoever invents any new,
original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may
obtain a patent therefor. . . ."

The United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is charged with the task of examining
patent applications and issuing a patent if it appears that the
applicant has met the requirements for issuance of a patent.
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd., 564 U.S. 91, 95-96 (2011).

Once

issued, a design patent is entitled to a presumption of validity.
See 35 U.S.C. § 282 (“A patent shall be presumed valid.”).
Therefore, “overcoming this presumption requires clear and
convincing evidence."

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,

745 F.3d 1180, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Microsoft Corp.,
564 U.S. at 95 (“We consider whether § 282 requires an invalidity
defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

We hold

that it does.”); Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“A patent is presumed to
be valid, and this presumption can only be overcome by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary.”) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).

2

The burden of establishing the invalidity of the patent
rests on the party asserting invalidity.

See 35 U.S.C. § 282(a);

Microsoft Corp., 564 U.S. at 100 (“Thus, by its express terms, §
282 establishes a presumption of patent validity, and it provides
that a challenger must overcome that presumption to prevail on an
invalidity defense.”).
“Design patents on [ ] primarily functional rather than
ornamental designs are invalid.”

Ethicon Endo–Surgery, Inc. v.

Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

GMS argues

that the design patent at issue in this case is invalid because
of functionality, i.e., that the design is dictated by function.
The Federal Circuit “appl[ies] a stringent standard for
invalidating a design patent on grounds of functionality:

the

design of a useful article is deemed functional where the
appearance of the claimed design is dictated by the use or
purpose of the article.”

Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co., 304

F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).

In making this determination, the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has offered some
guidelines:
Articles of manufacture necessarily serve
a utilitarian purpose, but design patents are
directed to the ornamental designs of such
articles. 35 U.S.C. § 171. If a particular
design is essential to the use of an article, it
cannot be the subject of a design patent. . . .
We have found designs to be essential to the use

3

of an article when the claimed design is dictated
by the use or purpose of the article. . . .
In determining whether a claimed design is
primarily functional, “[t]he function of the
article itself must not be confused with
`functionality’ of the design of the article.”
Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456,
1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997). . . . We explained that a
claimed design was not invalid as functional
simply because the primary features of the design
could perform functions. As with its analysis on
other validity grounds, the district court used
too high a level of abstraction in assessing the
scope of the claimed design.
* * *
We have also instructed that the overall
appearance of the article–-the claimed design
viewed in its entirety–-is the basis of the
relevant inquiry, not the functionality of
elements of the claimed design viewed in
isolation. . . . [W]e explained that the utility
of each of the various elements that comprise the
design is not the relevant inquiry with respect
to a design patent because whether a design is
primarily functional or primarily ornamental
requires a viewing of the claimed design in its
entirety. . . .
We have not mandated applying any
particular test for determining whether a claimed
design is dictated by its function and therefore
impermissibly function. We have often focused,
however, on the availability of alternative
designs as an important–-if not dispositive–factor in evaluating the legal functionality of a
claimed design.
Ethicon Endo–Surgery, 796 F.3d at 1328-30 (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
As the foregoing makes clear, a design may embody
functional features and still be patentable.

4

“If that were not

true, it would be impossible to obtain a design patent on a
utilitarian article of manufacture or to obtain design and
utility patents on the same article.”

PHG Technologies, LLC v.

St. John Companies, Inc., 529 F. Supp. 2d 852, 859 (M.D. Tenn.
2007).
“[T]he determination of whether the patented
design is dictated by the function of the article
of manufacture must ultimately rest on an
analysis of its overall appearance." Berry
Sterling Corp. v. Pescor Plastics, Inc., 122 F.3d
1452, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Our cases reveal a
"list of . . . considerations for assessing
whether the patented design as a whole-its
overall appearance-was dictated by functional
considerations," including:
whether the protected design
represents the best design; whether
alternative designs would adversely
affect the utility of the specified
article; whether there are any
concomitant utility patents;
whether the advertising touts
particular features of the design
as having specific utility; and
whether there are any elements in
the design or an overall appearance
clearly not dictated by function.
Id. at 1456 (emphasis added). In particular, we
have noted that "[t]he presence of alternative
designs may or may not assist in determining
whether the challenged design can overcome a
functionality challenge. Consideration of
alternative designs, if present, is a useful tool
that may allow a court to conclude that a
challenged design is not invalid for
functionality." Id. "When there are several
ways to achieve the function of an article of
manufacture, the design of the article is more
likely to serve a primarily ornamental purpose."
Rosco, 304 F.3d at 1378.

5

PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc., 469 F.3d 1361,
1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The only evidence offered by GMS regarding the
functionality of the ‘684 patent was the concomitant utility
patent.

See ECF No. 47.

GMS did not offer any testimony, expert

or otherwise, to support its allegations that the design of
Hafco’s rock dust blower was dictated by function.

There was no

evidence regarding whether Hafco’s design represented the best
design.

There was no evidence whether an alternative design

would adversely affect the utility of the rock dust blower.
Indeed, the utility patent itself states that the “above detailed
description of preferred embodiments of the invention is provided
by way of example only.

Various details of design, construction

and procedure may be modified without departing from the true
spirit and scope of the invention. . . .”

ECF No. 47.

No

evidence regarding Hafco’s advertising for its rock dust blower
was offered.

Furthermore, the deposition testimony of Courtland

Joshua Helbig established that there were numerous alternative
designs for rock dust blowers in general and at least one other
competing can duster.

See ECF No. 55-2 at 20-21, 45-46.

Helbig

also testified at deposition that the can duster could have been
manufactured with a different sized drum.
15.

6

See ECF No. 55-3 at

Based on the foregoing, GMS did not meet its burden to
show by clear and convincing evidence that the ‘684 patent is
dictated by functional considerations.

Therefore, the patent was

not shown to be invalid on functionality grounds.*
III.

Claim Construction

In Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swiss, Inc., the Federal
Circuit en banc observed:
As the Supreme Court has recognized, a
design is better represented by an illustration
“than it could be by any description and a
description would probably not be intelligible
without the illustration.” Dobson v. Dornan, 118
U.S. 10, 14 (1886). The Patent and Trademark
Office has made the same observation. Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure § 1503.01 (8th ed.
2006) (“[A]s a rule the illustration in the
drawing views is its own best description.”).
Given the recognized difficulties entailed in
trying to describe a design in words, the
preferable course ordinarily will be for a
district court not to attempt to “construe” a

*

Furthermore, defendant did not assert the defense of
patent invalidity in its answer nor did it seek leave of the
court to assert the defense at such a late juncture. Patent
invalidity is an affirmative defense. See Commil USA, LLC v.
Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015). Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), a party must plead an affirmative
defense in their answer. In a patent case, regional circuit law
governs the question of waiver of a defense. Ultra-Precision
Mfg., Ltd. v. Ford Motor Co., 411 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
2005). In the Fourth Circuit, a waiver will be enforced if a
party fails to plead an affirmative defense if the opposing party
shows “prejudice or unfair surprise.” RCSH Operations, LLC v.
Third Crystal Park Assocs. LP, 115 F. App’x 621, 630 (4th Cir.
2004) (quoting Brinkley v. Harbor Recreation Club, 180 F.3d 598,
612 (4th Cir. 1999)). Hafco contends that it has been unfairly
surprised by GMS’s late assertion of the defense because it was
unable to conduct discovery on the issue.
7

design patent claim by providing a detailed
verbal description of the claimed design.
With that said, it is important to
emphasize that a district court’s decision
regarding the level of detail to be used in
describing the claimed design is a matter within
the court’s discretion, and absent a showing of
prejudice, the court’s decision to issue a
relatively detailed claim construction will not
be reversible error. At the same time, it should
be clear that the court is not obligated to issue
a detailed verbal description of the design if it
does not regard verbal elaboration as necessary
or helpful. In addition, in deciding whether to
attempt a verbal description of the claimed
design, the court should recognize the risks
entailed in such a description, such as the risk
of placing undue emphasis on particular features
of the design and the risk that a finder of fact
will focus on each individual described feature
in the verbal description rather than on the
design as a whole.
* * *
We therefore leave the question of verbal
characterization of the claimed designs to the
discretion of trial judges, with the proviso that
as a general matter, these courts should not
treat the process of claim construction as
requiring a detailed verbal description of the
claimed design as would typically be true in the
case of utility patents.
543 F.3d 665, 679-80 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

After Egyptian Goddess,

court have generally avoided detailed verbal claim constructions
in design patent cases except in limited circumstances.

See

Reddy v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 249, 253-54 (D.
Mass. 2014).
Against this legal backdrop and with no indication from
the parties that claim construction would be a contested issue in
8

this case until just before the final pretrial conference, the
court proposed the claim in this case be construed as follows:
“The ornamental design for a rock dust blower, as shown and
described in Figures 1-5.”

See ECF No. 46.

Even though GMS

raised the issue claim construction late in the game, the court
nevertheless continued the trial and scheduled a Markman hearing.
However, as discussed above, GMS relied solely on the concomitant
utility patent in support of its argument that detailed claim
construction was necessary.

GMS did not call any witnesses nor

did it offer any other evidence, documentary or otherwise, to
support its argument that certain features of Hafco’s claimed
design were purely functional.

Given the dearth of evidence to

assess the functionality of the various features, the court
adopted its prior construction.

In so doing, the court notes

that this construction is “a simpler interpretation of the patent
that accords more closely with the types of constructions adopted
by post-Egyptian Goddess courts.”
IV.

Reddy, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 255.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court denied defendant’s
motion to construe the patent as invalid or, in the alternative,
motion to adopt defendant’s claim construction.

The Clerk is

directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion to counsel of
record.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2018.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge

10