Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical Inc., 2012–1318.
Decision Date | 19 April 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 2012–1318.,2012–1318. |
Citation | 713 F.3d 1377 |
Parties | ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC. and Contour Optik, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. ZENNI OPTICAL INC., Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael A. Nicodema, Greenberg, Traurig, LLP, of Florham Park, New Jersey, argued for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Guy W. Chambers, Duane Morris, LLP, of San Francisco, CA, argued for the defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Harvey W. Gurland, Jr., J. Rodman Steele, Gregory M. Lefkowitz, and Karen Chuang Kline; Kristina Caggiano of Washington, DC.
Before NEWMAN, PROST, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
Contour Optik, Inc., a company of Taiwan, and sublicensee Aspex Eyewear, Inc. (collectively “Aspex”) sued Zenni Optical, LLC for infringement of several United States patents for magnetic clip-on eyewear such as sunglasses. The district court held that Aspex is collaterally estopped from pursuing this suit, based on earlier litigation between Aspex and Altair Eyewear, Inc. for infringement of the same patents; decisions reported at Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 386 F.Supp.2d 526 (S.D.N.Y.2005)( Altair I ) (claim construction); Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 485 F.Supp.2d 310 (S.D.N.Y.2007)( Altair II ) ( ); and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 288 Fed.Appx. 697 (Fed.Cir.2008)( Altair III ) ( ).
Aspex argues that collateral estoppel does not apply. Aspex points out that certain of the patent claims in suit against Zenni Optical were not included in the Altair litigation, and that several terms now at issue had not previously been construed or were incorrectly construed. On review of the premises, we affirm the district court's ruling of collateral estoppel, 1 for there is no material difference as to the claims now in suit, nor difference between the Altair and Zenni Optical products to which the claims are applied.
The complaint charged Zenni Optical with infringement of U.S. Patents No. 5,737,054 (the '054 patent), No. 6,012,811 (the '811 patent), and No. 6,092,896 (the '896 patent), all directed to clip-on eyewear in which magnets secure the bridge portions of the eyewear. The Summary of the Invention in the '811 patent describes the general subject matter of the three patents:
The present invention provides methods and apparatus to easily, firmly and elegantly attach auxiliary frames to primary frames, based on magnetic members at the bridges of frames. The invention has numerous advantages. For example, it creates a very strong support for attaching auxiliary frames to primary frames, it is relatively easy to manufacture, it is easier to blend into the general design of frames, and it makes the auxiliary frames easily applicable to primary frames even with just one hand.
'811 patent col.2 ll.17–25.
The Altair litigation involved the same three patents, and many of the same claims now in suit. For example, Aspex asserted Claim 1 of the '811 patent against Altair, and again against Zenni Optical:
1. An eyeglass device comprising:
a bridge connecting the two retaining mechanisms and holding the two retaining mechanisms together, and
a first magnetic member at the bridge for magnetically coupling to another magnetic member at the bridge of a second frame;
due to the locations of the magnetic members, one of the frames is restricted from moving downwards relative to the other frame, and
the two magnetic members are coupled at a surface that is not parallel to the frontal phase.
The Altair district court construed “retaining mechanisms” in the '811 and '896 patents as requiring supporting frames such as rims around the lenses, and construed “frame” in the '054 patent as requiring rims around the lenses. Altair I, 386 F.Supp.2d at 536, 540. On this construction the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of all three patents, because “none of [Altair's] products contain a rim around the sunglass lenses.” Altair II, 485 F.Supp.2d at 314–15.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that “retaining mechanisms” requires “rims or their equivalents.” Since all of Altair's magnetic clip-on sunglasses were rimless, this court affirmed that the 054 claim (only claim 1 was asserted), when construed as unlimited to a frame with rims, is invalid for obviousness. This court affirmed. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 484 Fed.Appx. 565 (Fed.Cir.2012). Aspex does not separately argue the preclusive effect of this determination.
Applying the Altair rulings to the Zenni issues, the district court observed that Zenni's accused rimless magnetic clip-on sunglasses are materially indistinguishable from Altair's rimless magnetic clip-on sunglasses. Zenni I, at 21 (). The district court held that the Altair decisions settled the question of whether such eyewear can infringe the '811 and '896 patents. Id., at 20–21. Thus the district court held that collateral estoppel bars this suit against Zenni Optical. Zenni II, at 2–3. Aspex appeals.
Collateral estoppel “precludes a plaintiff from relitigating identical issues by merely switching adversaries” and precludes a plaintiff “from asserting a claim that the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 329, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A ruling of collateral estoppel receives plenary review on appeal. Shell Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 319 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2003). Since the criteria of collateral estoppel are not unique to patent issues, on appellate review we are guided by the precedent of the regional circuit. Dana v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 342 F.3d 1320, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2003). However, for any aspects that may have special or unique application to patent cases, Federal Circuit precedent is applicable. See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1341 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.2012) ().
The district court cited the principles of estoppel as stated by the Eleventh Circuit:
To claim the benefit of collateral estoppel the party relying on the doctrine must show that: (1) the issue at stake is identical to the one involved in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the determination of the issue in the prior litigation must have been ‘a critical and necessary part’ of the judgment in the first action; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding.
Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1339 (11th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). The district court found that each of these criteria is met.
Aspex argues that the first Christo criterion is not met in that “the issue at stake” is not “identical” because the claim terms that were construed and applied in the Altair litigation are not the same as the claim terms now requiring construction. Aspex also argues that the claims of the ' 811 and '896 patents were not correctly construed in the Altair litigation, and that on the correct construction of the new terms, infringement by the Zenni products could be found. Aspex states that the issues now raised were not actually litigated and were not part of the prior judgment, and also that it did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Thus Aspex argues that collateral estoppel does not arise, and that it is entitled to trial of infringement by the Zenni products on the correct claim construction.
Aspex states that the Zenni infringement turns on the meaning of the claim terms “primary frame,” “auxiliary frame,” “first frame,” and “second frame,” and that these terms were not at issue in the Altair litigation. Aspex states that if these terms had been construed correctly in Altair, the ruling in the Altair litigation could have been different. Thus Aspex argues that the Altair proceeding does not estop this suit against Zenni.
Zenni responds that the question of estoppel is not whether the now-asserted claims contain some terms that were not previously construed, but whether the ' 811 and '896 claims in suit can be asserted against Zenni, for the Zenni eyewear is indistinguishable from the Altair eyewear against which the same patents were previously litigated to final judgment of non-infringement. Zenni states that there are no material differences between Altair's magnetic rimless sunglasses and Zenni's magnetic rimless sunglasses;...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Janssen Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
-
Janssen Prods., L.P. v. Lupin Ltd.
... ... ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 ... ," also known as "stereocenters" or "optical centers." DTX 7 ('015 Patent) at col. 9:2128. The ... ...
- Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc.
-
Certusview Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC
... ... SERVICES, LLC and S&N Communications, Inc., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. Case No.: ... SeeAspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical Inc., 713 F.3d 1377, 1380 ... ...
-
Eastern District Of Texas Adopts Limits On Asserted Patent Claims And Prior Art
...as to whether these important goals have been achieved. [1]. 639 F.3d 1303, 1311-13 (Fed. Cir. 2011). [2]. Id. at 1310 n.5. [3]. 713 F.3d 1377, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. [4]. See id. at 1381 (citing Bourns, Inc. v. United States, 537 F.2d 486, 491 (Ct. Cl. 1976) ("It is the identity of the issues ......