Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.
| Citation | 313 F.Supp.2d 951 |
| Decision Date | 13 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. C 98-2106 MWB.,C 98-2106 MWB. |
| Parties | ENGINEERED PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff, v. DONALDSON COMPANY, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa |
Bridget A. Sullivan, Craig J. Lervick, Cyrus A. Morton, Edward M. Laine, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Minneapolis, MN, Richard S. Fry, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.
Annamarie A. Daley, Christopher A. Seidl, Christopher J. Sorenson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, Stephen J. Holtman, Simmons, Perrine, Albright, Ellwood, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.
A plethora of pre-trial motions confronts the court in this patent infringement action. Although the motions are cast in terms of the admissibility of evidence, several of them are in reality motions for determination, as a matter of law, of key issues in the litigation. Consequently, this ruling on "pre-trial" matters addresses issues as involved and contentious as any summary judgment ruling and has at least as much likelihood as any summary judgment ruling to be outcome determinative on some claims and issues.
This patent infringement action between plaintiff Engineered Products Company (EPC) and defendant Donaldson Company (Donaldson) arises from Donaldson's creation and sale of two air filter indicator devices: the Air Alert, sold from 1997 to 1999, and the Next Generation Air Alert (NG Air Alert), sold from 1999 through the present. EPC contends that Donaldson's devices infringe EPC's U.S. Patent Number 4,445,456 (the '456 patent), issued on May 1, 1984, and expired in 2001, for a mechanical air filter restriction indicator with a lock-up feature. Because the court has already described the procedural and factual context to this litigation in some detail in prior published rulings, see Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d 836 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (EPC I) (); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 225 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (EPC II) (); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 290 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D.Iowa 2003) (EPC III) (), the court will not reiterate all of that background information here.
However, the court finds that it would be helpful to an understanding of the various discussions of the claimed invention in the '456 patent to include Figures 3 and 4 from the '456 patent, which show the claimed air filter indicating device in infold and outfold positions.
The court also finds it helpful to reiterate that the present dispute was prompted, at least in part, by a decision of General Motors (GM) in the mid-1990s to add a progressive air filter restriction indicator to its light truck platform, the GMT-800 platform. This platform includes large passenger vehicles, such as SUVs, and hence, was expected to see enormous growth. EPC and Donaldson, the only domestic manufacturers of progressive air filter restriction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Microsource, LLC v. ECO World Grp., LLC
...R. CIV. P. 16(f) ; see Trost v. Trek Bicycle Corp. , 162 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 1998) ; Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co. , 313 F. Supp. 2d 951, 1004–05 (N.D. Iowa 2004). The party's delay is substantially justified if it has "an adequate reason" for failing to disclose an expert ea......
-
Kuiper v. Givaudan, Inc., C06-4009-MWB.
...v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). In Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 313 F.Supp.2d 951, 1009-11 (N.D.Iowa 2004), a patent case, this court considered, in some detail, the standard under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Eviden......
-
MicroSource, LLC v. Eco World Grp.
...Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f); see Trost v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 162 F.3d 1004, 1008 (8th Cir. 1998); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., 313 F.Supp.2d 951, 1004-05 (N.D. Iowa 2004). The party's delay is substantially justified if it has “an adequate reason” for failing to disclose an expert earlie......
-
Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., C 98-2106 MWB.
...plaintiff's counsel's alleged conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 313 F.Supp.2d 951 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (EPC IV) (ruling on pre-trial motions). Therefore, with the exception of truly "new" issues, the analysis here may be quite I. I......
-
Using traditional privileges
...2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1994). But all is not always lost. Consider Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc. , 313 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Iowa 2004) for a list of factors for determining whether or not a waiver has occurred. In that case (a patent infringement action), t......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1994). But all is not always lost. Consider Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc. , 313 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Iowa 2004) for a list of factors for determining whether or not a waiver has occurred. In that case (a patent infringement action), t......
-
Experts
...not substantially justified nor were the late testing and disclosures harmless.”); contra, Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co. , 313 F. Supp. 2d 951, 1016 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (finding expert was “was substantially justified in late disclosure of a qualified expert to challenge” another’s an......
-
Experts
...was not substantially justiied nor were the late testing and disclosures harmless.”); contra, Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co. , 313 F. Supp. 2d 951, 1016 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (inding expert was “was substantially justiied in late disclosure EXPERTS Task 73 Experts 12-22 of a qualiied exp......