Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex International, Inc., Civil No: 1:01-CV-152 J (consolidated with No. 1:02-CV-122) (D. Utah 12/30/2003)
| Decision Date | 30 December 2003 |
| Docket Number | Civil No: 1:01-CV-152 J (consolidated with No. 1:02-CV-122). |
| Parties | FREE MOTION FITNESS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.; NAUTILUS' GROUP INC. AND NAUTILUS HUMAN PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Page 1
vs.
CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.; NAUTILUS' GROUP INC. AND NAUTILUS HUMAN PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants.
BRUCE S. JENKINS, Senior District Judge.
On December 3, 2001, Free Motion Fitness Inc. ("Free Motion") filed its Complaint against Cybex International, Inc. ("Cybex") under the patent laws of the United States, specifically, under Title 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285 (2000). (Complaint, dated December 3, 2001 (dkt. no. 1).)
On May 9, 2003, Free Motion filed its Motion and Memorandum in Support of
Page 2
Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent 6,458,061 ("`061 Patent") By Defendant's (Cybex) FT 360 Device ("Pl. Brief I") (dkt. nos. 109, 110). The `061 Patent describes and claims a cable crossover exercise apparatus. Cybex opposed plaintiff's motion by filing its Cross Motion and Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment of No Infringement of Claim 1 of the `061 Patent, on June 20, 2003 ("Cybex Brief") (dkt. nos. 118, 119). Free Motion filed its opposition and reply to defendant's motion on July 2, 2003 ("Pl. Reply I") (dkt. no. 121). Cybex filed its reply to Free Motion's opposition on July 8, 2003 ("Cybex Reply") (dkt. no. 122). Both cross-motions for summary judgment were heard on July 11, 2003. Larry Laycock and Parrish Freeman of the law firm Workman Nydegger & Seeley appeared representing Plaintiff Free Motion. Casey McGarvey and Scott Savage of the law firm Berman, Gaufin, Tomsic & Savage appeared representing Defendant Cybex. The Court continued the matter until July 22, 2003, when the Court traveled to the offices of Workman Nydegger & Seeley and the Metro Sport Club Spa to observe both the Free Motion device and the Cybex machines, respectively. Following these on-site visits, the Court took the matter under advisement. (Minute Entry, dated July 22, 2003 (dkt. no. 124).)
In a separate but similar action, on September 26, 2002, Free Motion filed its Complaint against the Nautilus Group, Inc. ("Nautilus"). (Complaint, dated September 26, 2002 (dkt. no. 1, 1:02-cv-122).) On August 1, 2003, Free Motion filed its Motion
Page 3
for Partial Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement of Claim One of the `061 Patent by Defendant's (Nautilus) Freedom Trainer Device ("Pl. Brief II") (dkt. nos. 20, 21). Before, Nautilus could respond to this motion, the Court (Judge Paul G. Cassell) signed an order on August 29, 2003, which consolidated the Nautilus matter with the Cybex matter under the Civil No. 1:01cv152. (Order, dated August 29, 2003 (dkt. no. 22, 1:02-cv-122).) Nautilus filed its response and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Literally of Claim One of the `061 Patent on September 30, 2003 ("Nautilus Brief") (dkt. no. 158, 159). Free Motion filed its reply in support of its motion on October 15, 2003 ("Pl. Reply II") (dkt. no. 168). Free Motion filed its opposition to Nautilus' motion on November 3, 2003 ("Pl. Opposition II") (dkt. no. 179). Nautilus filed its reply to Free Motion's opposition on November 18, 2003 ("Nautilus Reply") (dkt. no. 183).
The Nautilus cross-motions for summary judgment were heard on November 19, 2003, after which the Court took the matter under advisement. (Minute Entry, dated November 19, 2003 (dkt. no. 185).) Tom Vuksinick and Parrish Freeman appeared representing Plaintiff Free Motion. Paul Meiklejohn, David Jacobson, and William Prince appeared representing Defendant Nautilus. Casey McGarvey appeared representing Cybex.
Page 4
The purpose of summary judgment is to assess whether trial is necessary. See White v. York Int'l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir. 1995). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing that there is an absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Viktus v. Beatrice Co., 11 F.3d 1535, 1539 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Hicks v. City of Watonga, 942 F.2d 737, 743 (10th Cir. 1991)). Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate that there are genuine issues for trial. Viktus, at 1539 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Indus. Co., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991)). A "material fact" is one that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To constitute a genuine factual dispute, there must be more than a scintilla of evidence that is significantly probative in establishing the fact. Viktus, 11 F.3d at 1539.
In applying the summary judgment standard, the court construes the factual record and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs., 27 F.3d 1499, 1503 (10th Cir. 1994); Deepwater Invs., Ltd. v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 938 F.2d 1105, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Regarding cross-motions for summary judgment, "[t]he court must rule on each party's motion on an individual and separate basis,
Page 5
determining for each side, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule 56 standard." 10A Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2720, at 327-328, 335-337 (3d ed. 1998).
"Summary judgment is appropriate in cases alleging patent infringement." Civix-DDI, LLC. v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp.2d 1132, 1138 (10th Cir. 2000). The plaintiff bears "the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence." Pehr v. Rubbermaid Inc., 87 F. Supp.2d 1222, 1226 (D. Kan. 2000) (citing Kegel Co., Inc. v. AMF Bowling Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Courts consistently apply a two-step inquiry when determining whether an accused device infringes another's patent. Pehr, at 1226 (citing Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc. 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). First, as a question of law, the court must construe the patent to determine the scope and meaning of its claims. Id. Second, as a question of fact, the claims as construed must be compared to the allegedly infringing product or method to determine whether the patent's claims are infringed. Id.
The Court must determine the proper construction of the terms of this claim using the language of how it is actually defined and described in the patents. The claim construction inquiry begins and ends with the actual words of the claim. Renishaw P.L.C. v. Marposs Societa' Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Absent
Page 6
definitions of some of the disputed terms in the claim, the Court construes the terms using their ordinary and accustomed meaning. Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The `061 Patent is presumed valid.1
A. The `061 Patent
The first step of analysis is to determine the scope and meaning of Claim One of the `061 patent. In construing a patent claim, the court looks first to intrinsic evidence of record, i.e. the patent itself, including all claims as the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language. Thus, the Court looks first to the language of Claim One. The relevant disputed terms are highlighted:
1. An exercise apparatus, comprising:
a resistance assembly;
a cable linking a first extension arm and a second extension arm to the resistance assembly, wherein the cable includes a first strand and a second strand;
the first extension arm includes a first end pivotally supported adjacent the resistance assembly at a first pivot point rotating about a first axis and a free second end from which the first end of the first extension arm further including a pulley having an axis of rotation offset from the first pivot point and rotating about an axis of rotation offset from the first pivot
Page 7
point and rotating about an axis substantially parallel to the first axis;
the second extension arm includes a first end pivotally supported adjacent the resistance assembly at a second pivot point rotating about a second axis and a free second end from which the second strand of the cable extends for engagement by a user, the first end of the second extension arm further including a pulley having an axis of rotation offset from the second pivot point and rotating about an axis substantially parallel to the second axis.
(`061 Patent, Claim 1, col. 7, lines 1-16 (Exhibit A to Pl. Brief) (emphasis added).) "[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy." Vivid Tech., Inc. v. American Science & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Court's construction of the relevant disputed terms of Claim One are dispositive:
1. a cable linking
Free Motion asserts that "a cable linking" is not limited to a single cable since use of the "preamble term `comprising' is open-ended, meaning the recited elements must be present but additional features may be present as well." (Pl. Reply I at 15.) Cybex opposes, arguing that the literal scope limits the claim to a single cable where the FT 360 links the arms and resistance assembly using two cables. (Cybex Brief at 7.) The Court observes that on October 1, 2002, a certificate of correction was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") regarding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial