Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Action No. 3:11-CV-345 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a JARDEN CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, Defendant. |
[REDACTED VERSION]
THIS MATTER is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT Sunbeam Products, Inc.'s Motion (Doc. No. 121), and DENY Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.'s Motion (Doc. No. 115).
This patent infringement action concerns slow cookers. Plaintiff Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. ("Hamilton Beach") claims that Sunbeam Products, Inc.'s ("Sunbeam") Cook & Carry slow cooker device infringes claims 1 and 3-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,947,928 ("'928 patent").
The '928 patent, filed June 4, 2010 and issued May 24, 2011, is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/255,188 ("'188 application"), filed October 21, 2008 and currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). The '188 application, in turn, is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 11/365,222, filed March 1, 2006 and issued February 3, 2009 as U.S. Patent No. 7,485,831 ("'831 patent"). Followingthe chain of continuation applications, the '928 patent claims priority back to the filing date of the '831 patent.
Hamilton Beach and Sunbeam compete directly in the small kitchen appliance industry, particularly with respect to slow cookers. The commercial embodiment of the '928 patent, launched in 2005, is Hamilton Beach's Stay or Go slow cooker. The Stay or Go features a clip that seals the lid of the slow cooker to the container, thereby preventing undesirable movement of the lid and spillage of foodstuffs from the container. Sunbeam, which manufactures and sells slow cookers under the Crock-Pot trademark, began selling a "Crock-Pot Cook & Carry" line of slow cookers after the '831 patent issued in 2010. As the names "Stay or Go" and "Cook & Carry" suggest, both slow cookers are designed with portability in mind. Hamilton Beach claims that Sunbeam copied the Stay or Go, and that it drafted the claims of the '928 patent, prosecuted under the PTO's "Accelerated Examination" procedure, in an effort to cover the configuration of Sunbeam's Cook & Carry. Hamilton Beach filed its Complaint for patent infringement in this Court the very same day the '928 patent issued—May 24, 2011—and moved for a preliminary injunction only two days later.
After briefing and argument from the parties, the Court denied Hamilton Beach's motion for a preliminary injunction on August 15, 2011. (Doc. No. 58.) On December 20, 2011, again after briefing and argument from the parties, the Court issued its Claim Construction Order pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Two of the Court's claim constructions—that of the claim terms "hook" and "container rim" (both present in all of the asserted claims)—are critical here. The Court construed "hook" as "the portion of the clip that simultaneously extends or lies, at leastpartially, in both the vertical and horizontal planes when in the closed or locked position." (Claim Construction Order, Doc. No. 79, at 2.) The Court construed "container rim" as "the upper portion of the container that includes the ledge adjacent to the container opening." (Id.)
Those constructions are critical to the two noninfringement arguments that Sunbeam now advances on summary judgment: that its accused Cook & Carry device does not meet (1) the "hook" limitation present in all of the asserted claims; and (2) the "hook . . . shaped to extend from the lever and around the container rim" limitation present in claims 3, 4, and 7.
The parties' summary judgment motions present a number of issues. The first category of issues relates to infringement, and specifically the question of whether Sunbeam's Cook & Carry infringes the two limitations above either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The remaining issues relate to invalidity. Sunbeam asserts that the '928 patent is invalid because Hamilton Beach: (1) cannot claim priority to the '831 patent as it introduced "new matter" into the '928 specification, which would render the '928 patent's claims anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b); (2) offered for sale and (3) publicly used the Stay or Go slow cooker more than one year prior to the '831 application date, which would render the '928 patent claims invalid even if the '928 patent can claim priority to the '831 application. Finally, Sunbeam asserts that the '928 patent is invalid as obvious.
The Court takes those issues up below in turn.
A motion for summary judgment should be granted where "the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of establishing the nonexistence of a triable issue of fact by "showing . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Therefore, if the nonmoving party's evidence is only colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. Id. at 249-50.
In considering whether summary judgment is proper, the Court must look to whether a rational trier of fact, viewing the record in its totality, could find for the nonmoving party. See Tuck v. Henkel Corp., 973 F.2d 371, 374 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49). All "factual disputes and any competing, rational inferences [are resolved] in the light most favorable to the party opposing [the] motion." Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 100 F.3d 228, 230 (1st Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When considering cross motions for summary judgment, the Court must apply the same standard outlined above, and cannot resolve genuine issues of material fact. Monumental Paving & Excavating, Inc. v. Pa. Mfrs.' Ass'n Ins. Co., 176 F.3d 794, 797 (4th Cir. 1999). The Court should "consider and rule upon each party's motion separately anddetermine whether summary judgment is appropriate as to each under the Rule 56 standard." Id.
To prove infringement, a patent holder must demonstrate that "each and every limitation set forth in a claim appear[s] in an accused product." See V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "Summary judgment on the issue of infringement is proper 'when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in a properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accused device either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.'" Fellowes, Inc. v. Michilin Prosperity Co., 491 F. Supp. 2d 571, 585 (E.D. Va. 2007) (quoting PC Connector Solutions LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
The Court construed the term "hook" present in all of the asserted claims as "the portion of the clip that simultaneously extends or lies, at least partially, in both the vertical and horizontal planes when in the closed or locked position." (Claim Construction Order, Doc. No. 79, at 2.)
Relying on the opinion of its expert, Dr. Lee Swanger, Sunbeam argues it cannot literally meet this limitation because the Cook & Carry's latching mechanism, when in the locked position, does not extend in both the vertical and horizontal planes. Rather, Sunbeam argues that while one portion of its latching mechanism lies in "close to [a] vertical" plane, "the second portion lies at a 45-degree angle—i.e., not even partially in thehorizontal plane." (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 11 (emphasis omitted).) To illustrate this idea, Sunbeam supplies a figure that superimposes lines intersecting at a 90 degree angle over a photo graph of the Cook & Carry, where the horizontal line intersects the vertical line at the tend in the wire portion of its latching mechanism:
(Id. at 11.)
Hamilton Beach first responds that Dr. Swanger's opinio with respect to the hook limitation is a "shan" proffered solely for the purpose of surviving summary judgment. Citing Swanger's testimony from the preliminary injunction hearing, Hamilton Beach asserts hat Swanger admitted that the Cook & Carry includes the "hook" claimed in the '928 patent.
Hamilton Beach next addresses the substance of the "hook" limitation. Hamilton Beach agrees that when engaged, the Cook & Carry's latching mechanism lies in a vertical plane below the bend in the wire. But Hamilton Beach contends, "Above the bend, the wire form proceeds at an angle with respect to the lower lortion so as to at least partially lie in both the horizontal and vertical planes." (Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 17.) Thus,Hamilton Beach argues that the shape of the wire form in the Cook & Carry is similar, before and after the bend, to the wire form shown in figure 2 of the '928 Patent:
'928 Patent fig.2.
Swanger's analysis, Hamilton Beach argues, amounts to nothing more than strategically placing a horizontal superimposed line in an effort to avoid literal infringement. In Hamilton Beach's view, Swanger carefully positioned his horizontal line so that no part of the Cook & Carry wire form lies within that horizontal line, and hence within the horizontal plane, when a horizontal line just as easily could lave been drawn in a higher location that would demonstrate infringement under Swanger's "superimposed line" methodology. To illustrate this idea, Hamilton...
To continue reading
Request your trial