Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Company

Filing 81

ORDER on claims construction; no claims construction hearing to be held; terms identified by the court to be construed using the parties' written submissions. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 11/17/2009. (llj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------D O U G L AS DYNAMICS, LLC, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 - cv -2 6 1 - b b c v. B U Y ER S PRODUCTS COMPANY, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------This is a civil lawsuit in which plaintiff Douglas Dynamics, LLC alleges that d efen dan t Buyers Products Company is infringing five of plaintiff's patents relating to snow plo w s. Before the court are the parties' motions for construction of 16 relevant claim terms an d for a court hearing. Dkt. ##16 & 45. The preliminary pretrial conference order, dkt. # 11 , addresses claims construction motions and provides as follows: It is the party's burden to persuade the court that construction of each specified term is necessary to resolve a disputed issue concerning infringement or invalidity. If the m ov ing party wants a claims construction hearing, then it must request one, specify w hich terms require a hearing and provide grounds why a hearing actually is necessary for each specified term. I am persuaded that construction of all 16 terms is necessary to resolve clearly disputed issues concerning infringement or invalidity. As the parties will notice in the list

1

of terms to be construed, I have shortened some of the "claim phrases" they provided to fo cus on what I understood to be the specific terms at issue and to make clear which terms w ill be construed. (In the event the parties were seeking to have every term in the proposed claim phrases construed, such a request would be denied because it would not comply with the court's preliminary pretrial conference order. Construing every term in the phrases pro vid ed by the parties would result in the construction of more than 16 terms, which would violate the 16-term limit. Dkt. #11 at 2.) W ith respect to the parties' request for a claims construction hearing, neither party explains why a hearing is necessary for each specified term. Instead, each provides the general and vague statement that a hearing would "simplify the issues and conserve valuable co urt time[.]" Dkt. #16 at 3-4; #45 at 3. Without further explanation, such a statement d oes not persuade me that a hearing is necessary to resolve the parties' disputes. As

defendan t notes in its initial brief, "The technology at issue in this lawsuit is far from new o r complex--it relates simply to snow plows." Dkt. #72 at 6. Moreover, the explanations and interpretations provided in the written briefs and their accompanying documents are understan dable. Accordingly, although I will construe the 16 terms put forward by the parties, there will be no claims construction hearing; the terms will be construed using the parties' written submissions.

2

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that 1. The following 16 terms will be construed by the court: a. With respect to United States Patent No. 4,999,935: · · · "m ean s for mounting said plow blade" as used in claim 1; "a hydraulic power unit" as used in claim 1; "m an ifold connected to and mounted on said hydraulic power u nit" as used in claim 1; · "m eans defining fluid flow passages in said manifold" as used in claim 1; b . With respect to United States Patent No. 5,420,480: · · · · · "sw i tch in g means" as used in claims 7 and 18; "sw i tch " as used in claims 7 and 18; "first switch means" as used in claims 1, 2, 9 and 16; "co up lin g means" as used in claims 1, 2, 7, 9 and 16; "seco n d switch means" as used in claims 1, 2, 9 and 16;

c. With respect to United States Patent No. RE 35,700: · "sn o w p lo w blade fixed to the A-frame" as used in claims 1, 38 an d 45;

3

· ·

"m o un tin g means" as used in claims 1 and 38; "su pp o rt frame" as used in claim 45;

d . With respect to United States Patent No. 5,353,530: · "m ean s for releasably connecting the lift frame to the mount fram e" as used in claims 1 and 10; · "a pair of spaced guides tapering in an outwardly direction" as u sed in claim 10; · "m eans for pivotally connecting the rear end of the A-frame to th e lift frame" as used in claim 10; e. With respect to United States Patent No. 6,944,978: · "gen erally parallel to the longitudinal axis" as used in claims 28, 5 3 and 57-59. 2. No claims construction hearing will be held; the terms listed above will be

con strued using the parties' written submissions. E n tered this 17t h day of November, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

4