DeMarini Sports v. Worth Inc
| Decision Date | 13 February 2001 |
| Citation | 57 USPQ2d 1889,239 F.3d 1314 |
| Parties | (Fed. Cir. 2001) DEMARINI SPORTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORTH, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. 99-1561, -1583 DECIDED: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Theodore F. Shiells, Gardere & Wynne, L.L.P., of Dallas, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was Edward Jorgenson.
Mark J. Patterson, Waddey & Patterson, of Nashville, Tennessee, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief was Edward D. Lanquist, Jr.
Before SCHALL, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
DeMarini Sports, Inc. ("DeMarini") appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granting the motion of Worth, Inc. ("Worth") for summary judgment ("SJ") of non-infringement of DeMarini's U.S. Patent No. 5,415,398 ("the '398 patent") and denying the motion of DeMarini for summary judgment of infringement of claim 15 of the '398 patent literally and of claims 1, 2, 15, and 18 of the '398 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., No. 97-1693-KI (U.S. Dist. Ct. Or. Aug. 15, 1999) ("DeMarini II").
We hold that the district court's construction of the terms "frame" and "insert" was not erroneous. We also hold that the district court's construction of claim 15 to require that the large-diameter impact portion be part of a bat frame was not erroneous. Moreover, we conclude that no reasonable jury could find infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents of claims 1, 2, 15, or 18 of DeMarini's '398 patent. Thus, we affirm the district court's judgment of no infringement.
The technology of the '398 patent is high-performance double-walled aluminum softball bats. In or around 1989, Ray DeMarini approached Michael Eggiman, the inventor of the '398 patent, and proposed that they form a part-time business designing and selling high-performance softball bats. Prior to embarking on this project, Eggiman knew nothing about bat design. His expertise was in the design of leaf springs for trucks and was gained at the suspension division of a truck manufacturing company where he worked as a full-time mechanical engineer with DeMarini.
Eggiman began his bat design efforts by studying commercially available bats. From his study, Eggiman concluded that one of the most important factors in bat performance was the thickness of the wall of the bat at the point of impact with a ball, i.e., the impact portion of the bat. Eggiman noted that although thicker-walled bats resisted denting and lasted longer, thinner-walled bats had better performance due to the ability of the wall of the bat to cave in and spring back -- an effect commonly referred to as the "trampoline effect." Eggiman's new understanding of the importance of the trampoline effect, coupled with his knowledge of the manner in which leaf springs are able to give and slide over one another, gave him the idea of a double-walled bat, i.e., a bat in which there are two concentric tubes, at least at the hitting end of the bat.
Eggiman considered two approaches to the design of a double-walled bat. The first approach was to insert one tube inside a traditional bat of the type having a relatively large diameter impact portion at one end and tapering to a relatively small diameter handle portion at the other end. The second approach was to take the traditional bat structure and position a larger diameter tube; i.e., an exterior shell, over the impact portion of the bat. However, in reducing his design to practice, Eggiman did not pursue the second approach because he did not know if such a construction would be safe. More particularly, he was not sure how to keep the exterior shell securely attached over the end of the bat.
The '398 patent application was filed on May 14, 1993, and finally issued on May 16, 1995. Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the '398 patent are shown below, depicting a described embodiment of the invention. [Tabular or Graphical Material Omitted]
The '398 patent describes Figure 1 as disclosing a "bat 10" which has a "tubular aluminum frame 11 with a relatively large-diameter impact portion 12, an intermediate tapering portion 14, and a relatively small-diameter handle portion 16." '398 patent, col. 2, II. 39-43. A "tubular insert 18 is suspended within the impact portion 12" and secured inside the tubular frame 11 at the insert's first end 20 and second end 22. Id., col. 2, II. 44-61. Also seen in Figure 1 is a gap 26 between "the insert 18 and the inner wall of the impact portion 12." Id., col. 2, II. 66-68. Figure 2 is a magnified cutaway view of Figure 1, id., col. 2, II. 33-34, and Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view taken along line 3--3 of Figure 2, id., col. 2, II. 35-36, showing that the "gap [26] extends uniformly around the insert [18]." Id., col. 2, I. 68 - col. 3, I. 1.
A bat designed according to the claims of the '398 patent was marketed in 1993. The claims at issue of the '398 patent read as follows:
I. A bat, comprising:
a hollow tubular bat frame having a circular cross-section; and
an insert positioned within the frame, the insert having a circular cross-section, the insert having first and second ends adjoining the tubular frame, the insert being separated from the tubular frame by a gap forming at least part of an annular shape along a central portion between said first and second ends, the frame elastically deflectable across the gap to operably engage the insert along a portion of the insert between the insert first and second ends.
2. A bat according to claim 1 in which the insert is suspended within the frame and is secured thereto at said first and second ends.
15. In a hollow bat having a small-diameter handle portion and a large-diameter impact portion, an improvement comprising an internal structural insert defining an annular gap with an inside wall of the impact portion of the bat and the impact portion elastically deflectable to close a portion of the annular gap and operably engage the insert.
18. A bat, comprising:
a hollow tubular bat frame having a small-diameter handle portion and a large-diameter impact portion having a circular cross-section with an inner and outer diameter;
at least one insert having a substantially circular cross-section with an outer diameter less than the inner diameter of the frame impact portion, the insert being held within the impact portion; and the impact portion being inwardly elastically deflectable such to establish a tight interference fit between the insert and the impact portion.
'398 patent, col. 5, ll. 54-68; col. 6, ll. 37-43; and col. 6, l. 66 - col. 8, l. 5.
The Worth bat accused of infringing the foregoing claims of the '398 patent is a softball bat known as the "EST" bat. Instead of an insert disposed within the impact portion of the bat, Worth places an external shell over the hitting end of the bat. Three of Worth's engineering drawings of the EST bat are shown below.
[Tabular or Graphical Material Omitted]
During the design of the EST bat, Worth tested a commercial version of DeMarini's patented bat but was not aware of the existence of the '398 patent at that time. Worth admits, though, that it learned about the '398 patent prior to completing its design of the EST bat. Additionally, in 1996, Worth and DeMarini engaged in licensing negotiations over the '398 patent, but Worth was unable to obtain a license.
Despite the fact that Worth knew of the '398 patent before finishing the EST bat design, Worth contends that its EST bat design is based on independent design concepts substantially different from those of the '398 bat. According to Worth, design efforts for the EST bat began prior to the issuance of the '398 patent. These efforts included research and development work done by a consultant for Worth, Dr. Speckhart, during the development of the Worth SUPERCELL 2 bat, introduced commercially in 1995. During his work on the SUPERCELL 2 project, Speckhart discovered that when a ball was hit with the large diameter impact portion of a conventional bat, the resulting bending of the tapered portion of the bat had a significant, positive effect on hitting performance. Worth refers to this bending phenomenon as the "diving board effect." From this discovery, Worth designed the SUPERCELL 2 bat focusing on the shape and thickness of the tapered portion of the bat.
Worth contends that in designing the EST bat, it was primarily concerned with maximizing the diving board effect it had begun to develop in the SUPERCELL 2 bats. To achieve the maximum benefit of the diving board effect, Worth's focus was on reducing the starting diameter of the tapered section of the EST bat. Worth knew that to be a successful bat, however, the EST would also have to provide the maximum diameter impact portion allowed by softball rules; i.e., 2.25 inches. According to Worth, with the foregoing concepts in mind, the EST bat was designed to have a hollow body that is tapered down to a handle at one end and is covered at the opposite "hitting end" by an exterior shell.
Worth specifically asserts that the diameter of the hollow body of the EST bat was designed to be less than the maximum diameter permitted for an impact portion of a softball bat so that the beginning of the tapered section could be as small as possible to provide for the greatest amount of bat bending. To accommodate this design and build the diameter of the impact portion back up to the maximum diameter allowed under the softball rules, the exterior shell was added at the hitting end. According to Worth, the EST exterior shell over the hitting end both increases the diameter and reinforces the bat in the area where it is intended to impact a ball. Because the diameter of the EST body where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2005); DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1330-34 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Constr., 172 F.3d 836, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Carroll Touch, Inc. v. E......
-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2005); DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1330-34 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Constr., 172 F.3d 836, 842 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Carroll Touch, Inc. v. E......
-
Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.
...order to provide a proper context for the discussion of the terms that are in dispute. See, e.g., DeMarini Sports v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1323, 57 USPQ2d 1889, 1893-94 (Fed.Cir.2001). But here, the term "therapeutically effective" is in dispute because it is central to whether Goldwa......
-
Kingman Reef Atoll Dev., L.L.C. v. United States
...United States, 335 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir.), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2001), ......
-
Proof of Equivalence After Festo
...F.3d at 1359. This test is determined from the viewpoint of one having ordinary skill in the art. DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1331-32 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("An element in the accused product is equivalent to a claim limitation if the differences between the two are 'ins......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950). 149. See part C.3 of this chapter for a more in-depth discussion. 150. See DeMarini Sports v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Tex. Instruments v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 805 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Basics of Intellectual Property ......
-
Table Of Cases
...Corp., 121 F.T.C. 616 (1996), 110. DeepSouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 519 (1972), 27. DeMarini Sports v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001), 23, 35. Devices for Med., Inc. v. Boehl, 822 F.2d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 1987), 62. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980), 2, 3,......
-
Tesla, Marconi, and the great radio controversy: awarding patent damages without chilling a defendant's incentive to innovate.
...Corp., 361 F.3d 1363, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also PPG Indus., 156 F.3d at 1354-55. (162.) DeMarini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("Literal infringement of a claim occurs when every limitation recited in the claim appears in the accused device, i.e.......
-
In re Seagate: did it really fix the waiver issue? A short review and analysis of waiver resulting from the use of a counsel's opinion letter as a defense to willful infringement.
...to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice."). (115.) DeMarini Sports v. Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, Inc., 141 F.3d 1084, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Egan v. Dep't of Navy, 802 F.2d......