FloodBreak, LLC v. Art Metal Indus., LLC
| Decision Date | 06 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:18-cv-503 (SRU),3:18-cv-503 (SRU) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | FLOODBREAK, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ART METAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
FloodBreak, LLC ("FloodBreak") filed the instant patent infringement suit against Art Metal Industries, LLC ("AMI") and its principal owner, Kevin F. Biebel (collectively, "Defendants"). The complaint alleges that Defendants are directly infringing and inducing infringement of multiple claims of FloodBreak's United States Patent No. 9,752,324 ("the '342 patent"), entitled "Flood Protection for Underground Air Vents," under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq. It further alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted patent claims, propounding the argument that the accused products do not contain the limitation "stops . . . not obstructing said passage," which is recited in each of the claims. Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No. 153, at 1. Specifically, Defendants argue that the plain and ordinary meaning of the "stops . . . not obstructing" limitation is that the stops do not protrude into or create any area loss within a passage. Id. at 7-9. It necessarily follows, Defendants claim, that the "plinth blocks" in AMI's products—which FloodBreak has identified as reading on the claimed stops—do not infringe the limitation because they "protrude into and cause area loss within the passage created by the sidewalls" of the accused products. Id. at 6-7.
Defendants further assert that, even if I adopt FloodBreak's construction of the "stops . . . not obstructing" limitation—which is that the component can protrude into and create area loss within the passage, as long as it does not block the movement of air—FloodBreak cannot carry its burden of proving infringement. Id. at 9-11. Lastly, they contend that, under FloodBreak's construction, the asserted claims are indefinite and therefore invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112. Id. at 11-16.
FloodBreak opposes the motion, principally on the following grounds: (1) the plain and ordinary meaning of the "stops . . . not obstructing" limitation is that the stops cannot block the movement of air; (2) the record raises triable issues on whether Defendants' products infringe the "stops . . . not obstructing" limitation under such a construction; and (3) the limitation is not indefinite as a matter of law. Opp. to Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No 178, at 13-22.
I agree with FloodBreak. As I explain below, I conclude that FloodBreak's construction of the "stops . . . not obstructing" limitation should govern, and that a juror could reasonably find that AMI's products infringe the limitation under such interpretation. I further conclude that Defendants have not sufficiently demonstrated that FloodBreak's construction renders the asserted claims indefinite and that the limitation is not indefinite as a matter of law. I therefore deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement or invalidity.
A court shall grant summary judgment when the movant demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute with respect to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). When reviewing a summary judgment motion, a court must construe the facts of record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw allreasonable inferences against the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970).
When a motion for summary judgment is properly supported by documentary and testimonial evidence, however, the nonmoving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings and instead must present sufficient probative evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986); Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 872 (2d Cir. 1995). To present a "genuine" issue of material fact, there must be contradictory evidence "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id.
If the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of his case with respect to which he has the burden of proof at trial, then summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. In that instance, "there can be 'no genuine issue as to any material fact,' because a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial." Id. at 322-23; accord Goenaga v. March of Dimes Birth Defects Found., 51 F.3d 14, 18 (2d Cir. 1995) ().
The '342 patent is directed to a flood prevention apparatus that can be installed in a ventilation shaft, such as under a subway grating leading to an underground tunnel system like the New York City subway. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Additional Facts, Doc. No. 179, at ¶ 1 .
The preamble to each of the independent patent claims3 states that the invention is an apparatus that "allow[s] ventilation" from an underground ventilation duct through a ventilation shaft to an atmospheric opening. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Additional Facts, Doc. No. 179, at ¶ 8 . The preamble further provides that, "on threat of flooding," the apparatus is "operable to prevent downward flood of surface water into the underground ventilation duct." Harris Ex. A, Doc. No. 147-1, at cols. 14-18.
Each of the independent claims, and thus all of the asserted claims, include the following limitations:4 (a) "a support for arrangement in said shaft defining a passage between top andbottom openings of the support for fluid communication of said ventilation duct up through said support to said atmospheric opening;" (b) "one or more stops within and connected to said support proximate said bottom opening and not obstructing said passage;" and (c) "one or more panels mounted in said support for rotation upwardly to an upright home position not obstructing said passage . . . ." Defs. Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Facts, Doc. No. 149, at ¶ 1; Harris Ex. A, Doc. No. 147-1, at cols. 14-18.
In addition, asserted dependent claim 10 requires that an apparatus include a beam "unobstructively horizontally spanning" across the passage. Pl. Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Additional Facts, Doc. No. 179, at ¶ 10; Harris Ex. A, Doc. No. 147-1, at 15:15-18).
The '342 patent specification discusses "exemplary embodiments" of the invention. According to the specification's detailed description of the embodiments, when the apparatus is in a non-deployed state—that is, with at least one panel door in an upright home position—it allows ventilation as usual from the underground tunnel system up through the ventilation shaft, through a passage in the apparatus, and out to an atmospheric opening at the top of the apparatus. See Pl. Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Additional Facts, Doc. No. 179, at ¶ 2 (citing Doc. No. 147-1, at 3:30-52). On threat of flooding, at least one panel door can be deployed so that it rotates downwardly to a passage closing position, precluding surface waters from flooding the underground tunnel. Id. at ¶ 3 (citing Doc. No. 147-1, at 3:30-52).
The detailed description of the embodiments further instructs: "[i]n an exemplary embodiment, the support may comprise a hinge mount mounting member unobstructivelyhorizontally spanning across the support passage . . . ." Doc. No. 147-1, at 6:52-54. It elaborates, "[b]y unobstructively is meant that the hinge mounting member does not block movement of air through the passage." Id. at 6:59-61.
The description then reads: "[i]n an exemplary embodiment[,] a beam unobstructively horizontally spans across the support passage and connects to opposed sides of the support proximate the top opening." Id. at 6:62-65. It continues: "by unobstructively, is meant that the beam does not block movement of air through the passage." Id. at 6:65-68.
The specification includes figures of exemplary embodiments, including the following views of one such embodiment, "Apparatus 100," with shading added by FloodBreak.
Image materials not available for display.
FIG. 17
Image materials not available for display.
Defs. Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Facts, Doc. No. 149, at ¶ 2; Pl. Local Rule 56(a)2 Statement of Additional Facts, Doc. No. 179, at ¶ 5.
The exemplary embodiment depicted above is described as follows:
Apparatus 100 comprises a four-sided box 110 inclusive of sidewalls 124 (124 a, 124 b, 124 c, 124 d) having at the upper extent of the sidewalls flanges 120 (120 a, 120 b, 120 c, 120 d) transverse to the sidewalls 124 for extension over a top of walls of a ventilation shaft for suspension of box 110 vertically in the shaft to define a passage 125 between top opening 126 and bottom opening 128 of box 110 for fluid communication of a ventilation duct up through box 110 to an atmospheric top opening 126. Stops 130 a, 130 b, 130 c and 130 d in the form of corner braces and 131 b (a stiffener support) are within and connected to sidewalls 124 proximate bottom opening 128 and do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial