Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.

Document Cited authorities 105 Cited in 40 Precedent Map Related
Decision Date13 April 2004
Docket NumberNo. C 98-2106 MWB.,C 98-2106 MWB.
Citation313 F.Supp.2d 951
PartiesENGINEERED PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff, v. DONALDSON COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

313 F.Supp.2d 951

ENGINEERED PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff, v. DONALDSON COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

No. C 98-2106 MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

April 13, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

                I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................957
                 II. MOTIONS RELATED TO EPC'S CASE-IN-CHIEF ...................................959
                     A. Admissibility Of Evidence Of Equivalents ..............................959
                        1. The pending motions ................................................959
                        2. Arguments of the parties ...........................................959
                        3. Legal analysis .....................................................961
                           a. The Festo decisions .............................................961
                               i. The Supreme Court's decision ................................961
                              ii. The decision on remand ......................................963
                           b. The "elongated locking member" and "interengagable
                notches" limitations ...........................................965
                               i. Was there a "narrowing" amendment? ..........................965
                              ii. Were the narrowing amendments for purposes of
                patentability? .............................................969
                             iii. Can EPC overcome the presumption of "total
                surrender"?.................................................970
                           c. The "disengagement means" limitation ............................975
                               i. Arguments of the parties ....................................975
                              ii. The prior rulings ...........................................975
                             iii. Standards for reconsideration ...............................977
                              iv. Does the Festo analysis apply to claim construction? ........973
                               v. Does the prosecution history limit the prior claim
                construction, literal infringement, or doctrine of
                equivalents infringement? ..................................982
                     B. Willful Infringement ..................................................986
                        1. Arguments of the parties ...........................................986
                        2. Analysis ...........................................................986
                III. MOTIONS RELATED TO DONALDSON'S DEFENSES ..................................987
                     A. Viability Of Donaldson's Double-Patenting Defense .....................987
                        1. The pending motions ................................................987
                        2. Arguments of the parties ...........................................988
                        3. Analysis ...........................................................989
                           a. The court's prior ruling ........................................989
                               i. Summary judgment standards ..................................989
                              ii. The first step in analysis of the defense ...................990
                             iii. The second step in analysis of the defense ..................990
                           b. Effect of the summary judgment ruling ...........................992
                               i. Viability of the defense ....................................992
                              ii. Impact on the motion for leave to amend .....................993
                     B. Patent Misuse .........................................................993
                        1. Arguments of the parties ...........................................993
                        2. Analysis ...........................................................994
                           a. Patent misuse ...................................................994
                           b. Propriety of pre-trial determination ............................996
                     C. Separate Patentability ................................................998
                        1. Arguments of the parties ...........................................998
                        2. Analysis ...........................................................999
                           a. Separate patentability ..........................................999
                           b. Relevance to literal infringement ..............................1001
                
                c. Relevance of the proffered evidence of separate patentability ..1002
                           d. Admissibility of the evidence of separate patentability ........1002
                IV.  EXPERTS .................................................................1003
                     A. Miller And Hall ......................................................1003
                        1. James W. Miller ...................................................1003
                           a. Arguments of the parties .......................................1003
                           b. Analysis .......................................................1004
                               i. Late disclosure and improper supplementation ...............1004
                              ii. Patent attorneys as experts ................................1006
                        2. Jerry Lee Hall ....................................................1008
                     B. Expert On Lost Profits ...............................................1008
                        1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................1008
                        2. The "Daubert standard" ............................................1009
                        3. Application of the "Daubert standard" .............................1011
                     C. Untimely Expert Reports ..............................................1011
                        1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................1012
                        2. Analysis ..........................................................1013
                           a. Applicable standards ...........................................1013
                           b. Exclusion of Mr. Burton's March 1, 2004, report and
                summary exhibits ..............................................1014
                           c. Exclusion of Dr. Nieberding's evidence .........................1016
                V.   WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE .....................................................1016
                     A. The Pending Motions ..................................................1016
                     B. Background ...........................................................1017
                     C. Analysis .............................................................1018
                        1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................1018
                        2. Applicable law ....................................................1020
                        3. Application of the law ............................................1021
                VI. ADMISSIBILITY OF VIDEOTAPE ...............................................1023
                VII. RELEASE OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT EXHIBITS ....................................1024
                VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................1024

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.

I. INTRODUCTION

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) (decision by former District Judge, now Circuit Judge, Michael Melloy, following a "Markman hearing"); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 225 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (EPC II) (ruling by the undersigned on the defendant's motion for summary judgment on defense of invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 290 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D.Iowa 2003) (EPC III) (ruling by United States Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss on the parties' cross-motions regarding plaintiff's counsel's alleged conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety), 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.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

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
13 cases
  • Microsource, LLC v. ECO World Grp., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 23, 2022
    ...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 expe......
  • Kuiper v. Givaudan, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • February 7, 2009
    ...and Daubert 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 Rul......
  • Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • August 12, 2004
    ...regarding 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 ......
  • Spencer v. Fed. Prison Camp Duluth
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • August 1, 2016
    ...into the litigation of this matter, assert unpled allegations in an effort to avoid summary judgment."); Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 313 F.Supp.2d 951, 1023 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (striking any references to documents and testimony that parties had not been able to fully explore during d......
    • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Using Traditional Privileges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Guerrilla Discovery - 2014 Contents
    • August 5, 2014
    ...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
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Guerrilla Discovery - 2015 Contents
    • August 5, 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Guerrilla Discovery
    • April 1, 2022
    ...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......
  • Practical Aspects of the Law of Misuse: Misuse in the Litigation Context
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property Misuse: Licensing and Litigation. Second Edition
    • December 6, 2020
    ...plaintiff presented affirmative case on misuse first at trial). 228. See, e.g. , Engineered Prod. Co. v. Donaldson Co., 313 F. Supp. 2d 951, 996 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (limiting defendant’s misuse defense to two alleged incidents of misuse it identified prior to trial). 229. Intel Corp. v. Common......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT