Kudlacek v. Dbc, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. C 99-3041-MWB.,C 99-3041-MWB.
• Citation: 115 F.Supp.2d 996
• Parties: Donald S. KUDLACEK, Plaintiff, v. DBC, INC., d/b/a Specialty Archery Products, and Donald I. Chipman, Defendants, and Robert E. Shoemake and Jessie Morehead, Third-Party Plaintiffs, DBC, Inc., d/b/a Specialty Archery Products, and Donald I. Chipman, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. Donald S. Kudlacek, Counterclaim and Third-Party Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

115 F.Supp.2d 996

Donald S. KUDLACEK, Plaintiff, v. DBC, INC., d/b/a Specialty Archery Products, and Donald I. Chipman, Defendants, and Robert E. Shoemake and Jessie Morehead, Third-Party Plaintiffs, DBC, Inc., d/b/a Specialty Archery Products, and Donald I. Chipman, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v. Donald S. Kudlacek, Counterclaim and Third-Party Defendant.

No. C 99-3041-MWB.

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

September 22, 2000.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY OF THE '325 PATENT AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE '007 PATENT

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                

                I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1002
                     A. Procedural Background .................................................... 1002
                     B. Factual Background ....................................................... 1003
                        1. The '325 patent ....................................................... 1003
                           a. The background and claims of the patent ............................ 1003
                           b. Undisputed and disputed facts relating to the invalidity of
                               the '325 patent ................................................... 1006
                           c. Undisputed and disputed facts relating to non-infringement of
                               the '325 patent ................................................... 1009
                        2. The '007 patent ....................................................... 1011
                           a. The background and claims of the patent ............................ 1011
                           b. Undisputed and disputed facts relating to non-infringement of
                               the '007 patent ................................................... 1016
                 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .............................................................. 1019
                     A. Standards For Summary Judgment In Patent Cases ........................... 1019
                     B. Specialty's Motions For Summary Judgment ................................. 1020
                        1. Construction of claim 1 of the '325 patent ............................ 1021
                           a. Rules of construction .............................................. 1021
                           b. Disputed language of the claim ..................................... 1022
                           c. Construction of claim 1(d) ......................................... 1022
                           d. Construction of claim 1(e) ......................................... 1024
                                i. Rules of construction for a means-plus-function element ....... 1024
                               ii. Application of the rules ...................................... 1026
                        2. Invalidity of the '325 patent ......................................... 1032
                           a. The "on-sale" bar .................................................. 1032
                           b. Applicability of the on-sale bar here .............................. 1034
                                i. Sufficiency of Kudlacek's evidence of the date of invention ... 1035
                               ii. The "Bottjer/Moore" sales ..................................... 1036
                              iii. The "Kivett" sale ............................................. 1037
                               iv. The "Mannos" sales ............................................ 1038
                                v. The "Bickel Flitemate" sales .................................. 1038
                        3. Non-infringement of the '325 patent ................................... 1039
                           a. Literal infringement ............................................... 1039
                                i. The literal infringement analysis ............................. 1039
                               ii. Literal infringement of claim 1(d) ............................ 1040
                              iii. Literal infringement of claim 1(e) ............................ 1042
                           b. Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents ..................... 1047
                                i. The infringement analysis under the doctrine of equivalents ... 1047
                               ii. Equivalents infringement of claim 1(d) ........................ 1050
                              iii. Equivalents infringement of claim 1(e) ........................ 1051
                     C. Kudlacek's Motion For Summary Judgment ................................... 1053
                        1. Construction of claim 1 of the '007 patent ............................ 1054
                           a. Language of the claim .............................................. 1054
                           b. Prosecution history and the Shores '786 patent ..................... 1055
                                i. Application claim 1 ........................................... 1056
                               ii. The Shores '786 patent ........................................ 1056
                              iii. Rejection and amendment ....................................... 1058
                               iv. The scope of prosecution history estoppel ..................... 1059
                                v. The resulting construction .................................... 1061
                           c. Construction of "threaded" ......................................... 1061
                        2. Non-infringement of the '007 patent ................................... 1062
                           a. Literal infringement ............................................... 1062
                                i. Literal infringement of the "threading" limitation ............ 1063
                               ii. Literal infringement of the "interchangeability" limitation ... 1064
                           b. Equivalents infringement ........................................... 1065
                                i. Equivalents of the "threading" limitation ..................... 1065
                

                ii. Equivalents of the "interchangeability" limitation ...... 1067
                            c. "Direct" infringement ........................................ 1068
                            d. Contributory infringement .................................... 1069
                                 i. The statutory basis for the claim ....................... 1070
                                ii. Requirements of the claim ............................... 1070
                               iii. Contributory infringement here .......................... 1071
                     D. Final Or Partial Judgment? .......................................... 1072
                         1. Guidance from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals .............. 1073
                         2. The Supreme Court's decision in Cardinal Chemical ............... 1073
                         3. The import of Cardinal Chemical for this case ................... 1075
                III. CONCLUSION ............................................................. 1075
                

Upon his return from years of wandering after the Trojan War, just before killing all the suitors his wife had unwillingly collected during his absence, Odysseus won an archery contest by shooting an arrow through twelve rings arranged in a line.¹ What is most amazing about this story, at least to one acquainted with the present litigation, is that Odysseus apparently managed this feat of marksmanship without the aid of the archery bow stabilizers or peep sight targeting systems made by the parties to this patent infringement lawsuit.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Donald S. Kudlacek filed this action alleging patent infringement on May 20, 1999, against defendants DBC, Inc., an Iowa corporation, doing business as Specialty Archery Products, and Donald I. Chipman. Unless otherwise dictated by the circumstances, the defendants will be referred to collectively as "Specialty." In the single count of his Complaint, Kudlacek alleges that Specialty has been infringing and is continuing to infringe Kudlacek's United States Patent No. 5,611,325 (the '325 patent) for an archery bow stabilizer by making, using, selling, and offering for sale bow stabilizers embodying the patented invention. Kudlacek seeks injunctive relief and damages, including treble damages for willful and wanton infringement, prejudgment interest and costs, attorney's fees, and such other legal and equitable relief as the court deems just. Kudlacek demanded a jury trial of his infringement claim.

On June 14, 1999, Specialty filed an Answer and Counterclaims, and on July 26, 1999, Specialty and third-party plaintiffs Robert E. Shoemake and Jessie Morehead filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint.² In the Amended Answer, Specialty denied Kudlacek's claim of infringement of the '325 patent and asserted various affirmative defenses to that claim. Specialty also asserted one Counterclaim addressed to the '325 patent, Counterclaim 1, which seeks declaratory judgment that Specialty is not now and never has infringed, induced infringement, or contributorily infringed the '325 patent, and that the '325 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. In a second Counterclaim and Third-Party Claim, Specialty, Shoemake, and Morehead assert their own claim for patent infringement. This claim alleges that Kudlacek sells an "Adjustable Control Peep" for an archery bow that infringes at least claim 1 of United States Patent No. 5,137,007 (the '007 patent), a patent for an "Archery Shooting Control System," which is owned by third-party plaintiffs Shoemake and Morehead, but exclusively licensed to Specialty and for which Specialty holds the first right to sue infringers. Because of this licensing arrangement, the defendants and third-party plaintiffs will also be referred to collectively as "Specialty," unless the circumstances dictate otherwise. On this claim for infringement of the '007 patent by Kudlacek, Specialty seeks injunctive relief, damages, treble damages for willful infringement, an accounting of profits, attorney's fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems just and equitable.

On March 6, 2000, Specialty filed separate motions for summary judgment determinations of invalidity and non-infringement of the '325 patent. Specialty filed a supplemental memorandum in support of its "invalidity" motion on May 25, 2000, asserting...