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

• Decision Date: 30 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. C 98-2106-MWB.,C 98-2106-MWB.
• Citation: 225 F.Supp.2d 1069
• Parties: ENGINEERED PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff, v. DONALDSON COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Page 1069

225 F.Supp.2d 1069

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

No. C 98-2106-MWB.

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

September 30, 2002.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Richard S. Fry, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapdis, IA, Edward M. Laine, pro hac vice, Craig J. Lervick, pro hac vice, Bridget A. Sullivan, pro hac vice, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Minneapolis, MN, for Engineered Products Co.

Robert J. Tansey, Jr., pro hac vice, Annamarie A. Daley, pro hac vice, Ken R. Hall, pro hac vice, Christopher J. Sorenson, pro hac vice, Robins Kaplan Miller, Ciresi, Minneapolis, MN, Stephen J. Holtman, Simmons Perrine Albright Ellwood, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Donaldson Co., Inc.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING DOUBLE PATENTING AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REASSERT '728 PATENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1073
                      A.  Procedural Background ................................................... 1073
                      B.  Factual Background ...................................................... 1075
                          1.  The air filter indicator market ..................................... 1075
                          2.  EPC's patents ....................................................... 1076
                          3.  The stipulation regarding the '728 patent ........................... 1079
                 II.  DONALDSON'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION REGARDING
                              OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING ......................................... 1082
                      A.  Timeliness of the motion ................................................ 1082
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ............................................ 1082
                          2.  Analysis ............................................................ 1083
                              a.  The applicable standard ......................................... 1083
                              b.  Application of the standards .................................... 1085
                      B.  Effect Of The Stipulation And Representations On The Motion ............. 1086
                          1.  Donaldson's representation concerning invalidity defenses to
                the '456 patent ................................................... 1086
                          2.  Scope of the stipulation concerning the '728 patent ................. 1087
                      C.  Standards For Summary Judgment .......................................... 1088
                      D.  Arguments Of The Parties ................................................ 1089
                      E.  Obviousness-type Double Patenting ....................................... 1091
                          1.  General principles .................................................. 1091
                          2.  The two-step analysis ............................................... 1093
                      F.  Step One: Claim Construction ............................................ 1094
                          1.  Claim 1 of each patent .............................................. 1094
                              a.  Side-by-side comparison ......................................... 1094
                              b.  Identifiable differences ........................................ 1096
                          2.  Claims 2 and 3 of the '456 patent ................................... 1097
                              a.  Language of the claims .......................................... 1097
                              b.  Identifiable differences ........................................ 1097
                                   i.  Construction of a means-plus-function claim ................ 1098
                                  ii.  Construction of the means-plus-function claim here ......... 1099
                          3.  Summary of step one ................................................. 1100
                      G.  Step Two: Patentable Distinctions ....................................... 1100
                          1.  The two tests ....................................................... 1100
                          2.  Recent applications ................................................. 1101
                              a.  In re Braat ..................................................... 1101
                              b.  In re Goodman ................................................... 1103
                              c.  In re Emert ..................................................... 1103
                

                d.  In re Berg ...................................................... 1105
                              e.  Eli Lilly ....................................................... 1107
                          3.  The applicable test ................................................. 1109
                              a.  Could EPC have filed both sets of claims in one application? .... 1109
                              b.  Was the PTO solely responsible for any delay? ................... 1110
                          4.  Scope of the comparison ............................................. 1111
                              a.  Scope of comparison as framed by the parties .................... 1112
                              b.  Apparent uncertainty of the case law ............................ 1112
                              c.  Consideration of other principles ............................... 1113
                          5.  Are there patentable distinctions under the applicable test? ........ 1115
                              a.  The independent claims .......................................... 1115
                              b.  The dependent claims in light of the '728 patent ................ 1116
                              c.  The impact of prior art ......................................... 1118
                                    i.  Arguments of the parties .................................. 1118
                                   ii.  Authority to consider prior art ........................... 1118
                                  iii.  Extent to which prior art should be considered ............ 1120
                              d.  Merits of the "prior art" arguments ............................. 1124
                                    i.  The prior art in question ................................. 1124
                                   ii.  Teachings of the '457 patent .............................. 1126
                                  iii.  Teachings of the '733 patent .............................. 1129
                          6.  Summary of step two ................................................. 1130
                III.  EPC'S MOTION TO REASSERT THE '728 PATENT .................................... 1131
                 IV.  CONCLUSION .................................................................. 1131
                

In this court's somewhat limited experience with patent cases, it seems that the dispute between the parties often comes down to which party is trying to pound round pegs into square holes. Of course, the dispute may be complicated further by one party's assertion that it is the pegs that are (or must be) square, while the holes are (or must be) round, inviting a rejoinder by the other party that round pegs and square holes would not be patentably distinct from square pegs and round holes, or that, even if one configuration didn't anticipate, render obvious, or literally infringe the other, it would infringe the other under the doctrine of equivalents! However, where one issue is the judge-made doctrine of "obviousness-type double patenting," as it is in this case, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has provided the lower courts with the following reminder: "In spite of the parties' eagerness to conform the round-peg facts of the case into semantic, square holes, the critical inquiry remains whether the claims in [a later-issued patent] define an obvious variation of the invention claimed in [an earlier-issued] patent [to the same inventor]." See In re Emert, 124 F.3d 1458, 1462 (Fed.Cir.1997).

Somewhat more specifically, this case involves the defendant's contention that one patent for an air filter indicator device is invalid owing to obviousness-type double patenting over another patent to the same inventor, also for an air filter indicator device, which was filed later, but issued sooner. The defendant argues that it properly raised this contention within weeks of the scheduled trial, based on a "new" decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 251 F.3d 955 (Fed.Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1109, 122 S.Ct. 913, 151 L.Ed.2d 879 (2002), which the defendant contends "introduced a new application of the rule of obviousness-type double patenting." The plaintiff disputes the defendant's contention that the Eli Lilly decision requires invalidation of its later-issue patent, and also disputes whether the court should entertain the defendant's double-patenting argument at all on the ground that it was untimely raised. In the alternative, if its later-issued patent is invalidated, the plaintiff seeks leave to reassert claims alleging infringement of its earlier-issued patent, which the plaintiff had previously stipulated could be dismissed with prejudice.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

Former District Judge, now Circuit Judge, Michael Melloy, to whom this case was originally assigned, set the scene for the present litigation as follows: "In this patent infringement action, the plaintiff, Engineered Products Company (`EPC'), asserts patent and trade dress claims against the defendant, Donaldson Company (`Donaldson'), arising from Donaldson's creation and sale of two air filter indicator devices—the Air Alert, sold from 1997 to 1999, and the NG Air Alert, sold from 1999 through the present." Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d 836, 841 (N.D.Iowa 2001). Two of EPC's patents were originally at issue in this litigation, U.S. Patent Number 4,368,728 (the '728 patent), issued on January 25, 1983, and U.S. Patent Number 4,445,456 (the '456 patent), issued on May 1, 1984.

Landmarks in the procedural history of this case include the following events. EPC filed its Complaint in this action on November 20, 1998, and Donaldson filed its Answer and Counterclaim on January 11, 1999. EPC then filed its Reply to Donaldson's Counterclaim on February 1, 1999. Donaldson amended its Answer and Counterclaims on September 2, 1999, and EPC replied to the amended...