Highway Equipment Co., Inc. v. Cives Corp., 04-CV-147-LRR.

• Decision Date: 07 March 2007
• Docket Number: No. 04-CV-147-LRR.,04-CV-147-LRR.
• Parties: HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, v. CIVES CORPORATION and Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc., Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

476 F.Supp.2d 1079

HIGHWAY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, v. CIVES CORPORATION and Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc., Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

No. 04-CV-147-LRR.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

March 7, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David A. Hacker, Gregory G. Williams, Stephen J. Holtman, Simmons Perrine Albright

Ellwood, Cedar Rapids, IA, Robert E. Browne, Thomas C. McDonough, Thomas E. Williams, William J. Lenz, Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant.

Eric Harold Weisblatt, George A. Hovanec, Jr., Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC, Alexandria, VA, Patrick M. Roby, Elderkin Law Firm, Cedar Rapids, IA, Wendelynne J. Newton, Buchanan Ingersoll PC, Pittsburgh, PA, Frederick C. Laney, Eric J. Mersmann, Timothy J. Haller, Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, Chicago, IL, for Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

ORDER REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

READE, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  INTRODUCTION ...............................................................1083
                  II.  BACKGROUND .................................................................1083
                       A.  Factual Background .....................................................1083
                       B.  Procedural Background ..................................................1084
                 III.  JURISDICTION ...............................................................1085
                  IV.  PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...........................................1086
                       A.  Claims .................................................................1087
                       B.  Specification ..........................................................1087
                       C.  Prosecution History ....................................................1088
                       D.  Extrinsic Evidence .....................................................1088
                       E.  Means-Plus-Function Construction .......................................1089
                   V.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE '389 PATENT ............................................1090
                       A.  Claim 1 ................................................................1091
                           1.  "being disposed at a bottom of said walls and within said body
                and extending between said first and second ends thereof" ........1091
                           2.  "spreader means cooperating with said conveyor means for
                spreading the materials" .........................................1093
                           3.  "said side walls curving downwardly and inwardly towards said
                conveyor means such that said dump body defines a substantially
                semi-circular cross sectional configuration for guiding
                and evenly deflecting all of the materials within said body
                towards said conveyor means" .....................................1095
                           4.  "along the entire length of said conveyor means" ...................1097
                       B.  Claim 4 ................................................................1097
                       C.  Claim 5 and Claim 7 ....................................................1098
                  VI.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE '786 PATENT ............................................1098
                       A.  Claim 1 ................................................................1098
                           1.  "endless conveyor means trained over said drive means, said
                conveyor means being disposed at a bottom of said walls and
                within said body and extending between said first and second
                ends thereof for conveying the materials along said body" ........1099
                               a.  "endless conveyor means" .......................................1099
                               b.   "said conveyor means being disposed at a bottom of said
                walls and within said body and extending between said
                first and second ends thereof for conveying the materials
                along said body" .............................................1103
                           2.  "said side walls curving downwardly and inwardly towards said
                conveyor means such that said dump body defines a substantially
                semi-elliptical cross-sectional configuration for guiding
                

                and evenly deflecting all of the materials within said body
                towards said conveyor means" .....................................1104
                           3.  "along the entire length of said conveyor means" ...................1104
                       B.  Claim 3 ................................................................1105
                 VII.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE '230 PATENT ............................................1105
                       A.  Claim 1 ................................................................1107
                           1.  Other portions between the curved and terminal portions? ...........1107
                           2.  "sufficient to induce" .............................................1109
                           3.  Conclusion .........................................................1110
                       B.  Claim 2 and Claim 3 ....................................................1110
                       C.  Claim 7 ................................................................1110
                       D.  Claim 9 ................................................................1110
                           1.  "bin sidewall which is continuously curved from an outer
                upper, near vertical portion of the sidewall to a lower, inner
                near horizontal portion of the sidewall" .........................1111
                           2.  "the terminal boundary of the inner portion of the curved
                sidewall being inclined above the horizontal at an angle
                sufficient to induce sand contained therein to slide downwardly
                in the presence of agitation arising from vehicle
                motion, into the conveyor" .......................................1111
                VIII.  CONSTRUCTION OF THE '900 PATENT ............................................1112
                  IX.  CONCLUSION .................................................................1115
                

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the court for construction of the disputed claims of the four patents-in-suit, the '389 Patent,¹ the '786 Patent,² the '230 Patent³ and the '900 Patent.⁴

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Highway Equipment Company, Inc. ("HECO") is an Iowa corporation with its principal place of business in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. HECO makes and sells road maintenance equipment. HECO produces various attachments for trucks, including material spreaders and snowplows. The focus of the instant litigation is HE CO's XT3-series of dump bodies ("the XT3"). The XT3 is a multi-purpose "dump body" that is mounted on a truck chassis.

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Cives Corporation ("Cives") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Roswell, Georgia. Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Monroe Truck Equipment, Inc. ("Monroe") is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in Monroe, Wisconsin. Cives and Monroe also make and sell road maintenance equipment, including multi-purpose dump bodies.

HECO, Cives and Monroe are competitors. The interests of Cives and Monroe are aligned in the instant litigation, however, because they are the co-owners and assignees of record of the four patents-in-suit.

In late 2002, HECO launched the XT3. In June of 2004, counsel for Cives and Monroe wrote a letter to HE CO. In the letter, Cives and Monroe stated that their patents covered the XT3, and any effort by HECO to make or sell the XT3 would constitute patent infringement. HECO's counsel denied any infringement.

B. Procedural Background

On October 29, 2004, HECO filed this declaratory-judgment action against Cives and Monroe, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a), 2201 and 2202. In Counts I and II of its Second Amended Complaint,⁵ HECO seeks declarations that the four patents-in-suit are invalid and unenforceable, respectively.⁶ In Count III, HECO asks for a declaration that it has not infringed, contributorily infringed or induced the infringement of the four patents-insuit. In Count IV, HECO alleges that Cives and Monroe engaged in patent misuse. HECO also requests attorney fees, costs and an order permanently enjoining Cives and Monroe from threatening patent infringement against HECO, its customers, distributors, dealers, licensees, agents, servants and employees.

Cives and Monroe deny HECO's allegations and have counterclaimed for infringement, contributory infringement and inducement of infringement.⁷ Cives and Monroe maintain that HECO's unlawful infringement is willful, intentional and deliberate. Cives and Monroe request permanent injunctive relief, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs.

On September 29, 2006, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment on claim construction (docket nos. 69 and 71). Contrary to a prior order of the court, the parties filed separate claim construction charts, instead of a joint claim construction chart ("JCCC"). On October 9 and 10, 2006, respectively, HECO and Cives and Monroe filed responses to the motions for summary judgment.

On October 18, 2006, the parties filed a JCCC.⁸ The JCCC, as modified by the parties' concessions at the Hearing, forms the basis for the instant Order. Although the parties' motions for summary judgment request construction of additional claims, such motions no longer fully represent the parties' respective positions.

On October 20, 2006, the court heard oral argument in a Markman⁹ Hearing ("Hearing"). Attorneys Robert E. Browne, Stephen J. Holtman and Thomas C. McDonough represented HECO. Attorneys Timothy J. Haller, George A. Hovanec, Jr. and Frederick C. Laney represented Cives and Monroe.

Trial is set for the two-week period beginning on May 21, 2007.

III. JURISDICTION

Neither party questions whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. However, the court has a special obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists. See United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440, 56 S.Ct. 829, 80 L.Ed. 1263 (1936) (holding that "the lack of jurisdiction of a federal court touching the subject-matter of the litigation cannot be waived by the parties, and the District Court should, therefore, have...