Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro–Tech Corp.

Decision Date23 December 2011
Docket NumberCase No. 09–2381–JWL.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Kansas
PartiesLAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY and Dr. Arup K. Sengupta, Plaintiffs, v. BRO–TECH CORPORATION, d/b/a The Purolite Company, Defendant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Aaron J. Mann, Jeffrey J. Simon, Patrick D. Kuehl, Jr., Richard R. Johnson, Husch Blackwell LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs.

David R. Barnard, Jason C. Parks, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Kansas City, MO, Robert C. Sullivan, Jr., Brian J. Doyle, David Francescani, J. Rodrigo Fuentes, John S. Goetz, Michael T. Zoppo, Fish & Richardson PC, Matthew L. Levine, Law Offices of Matthew L. Levine, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.

+-------------------+
                ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
                +-------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------+
                ¦                                        ¦    ¦
                +----------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦Introduction                            ¦1210¦
                +---------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦                                      ¦    ¦
                +--+--------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦I.¦Motions Relating to Experts           ¦1211¦
                +----------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦A.  ¦Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Troxel Testimony (Doc. # 426)        ¦1211 ¦
                +---+----+-------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦B.  ¦Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Sur–Rebuttal Reports (Doc. # 428)  ¦1211 ¦
                +---+----+-------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦C.  ¦Purolite's Motion to Exclude Clifford Testimony (Doc. # 430)       ¦1212 ¦
                +---+----+-------------------------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦D.  ¦Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Declaration (Doc. # 542)      ¦1212 ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
                +----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦II. ¦Summary Judgment Standard                                      ¦1213   ¦
                +----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
                +----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
                ¦III.¦Purolite's Counterclaims                                       ¦1213   ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Consequential Damages                                      ¦1213  ¦
                +----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Breach of the Agreement—Specifications                   ¦1214  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS               ¦1214¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦MERITS OF THE CLAIM                  ¦1216¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦C.  ¦Breach of the Agreement—Pursuit of Suspected Infringer   ¦1218  ¦
                +----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦D.  ¦Breach of the Agreement—Competitive Acts                 ¦1219  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦DAMAGES                              ¦1219¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦MERITS OF THE CLAIM                  ¦1220¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦E.  ¦Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing  ¦1221  ¦
                +-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦DAMAGES                              ¦1222¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦MERITS OF THE CLAIM                  ¦1222¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦F.  ¦Unfair Competition                                         ¦1223  ¦
                +----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦G.  ¦Restraint of Trade                                         ¦1223  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦                                                  ¦     ¦
                +---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦IV.¦Layne's Claims for Breach of Contract             ¦1226 ¦
                +------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Purolite's Defense of a Prior Material Breach              ¦1227  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦PROVISION OF SPECIFICATIONS          ¦1227¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦COMPETITIVE ACTS                     ¦1227¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦PURSUIT OF SUSPECTED INFRINGER       ¦1227¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦4.¦FAILURE TO PAY FOR PRODUCT           ¦1228¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Claim for Unpaid Royalties                                 ¦1229  ¦
                +----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
                ¦    ¦C.  ¦Claim for Breach of Section 11.2.                          ¦1229  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+--------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦SURVIVAL OF TERMINATION                ¦1230 ¦
                +---+---+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON COMPETITION¦1231 ¦
                +---+---+--+---------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦MERITS OF THE CLAIM                    ¦1234 ¦
                +--------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦D.  ¦Claim for Breach of Section 10.1.                          ¦1235  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦INCORPORATION OF THE OTHER AGREEMENT ¦1236¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦USE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY         ¦1236¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------+
                ¦  ¦                                      ¦    ¦
                +--+--------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦V.¦Plaintiffs' Patent Claims             ¦1237¦
                +----------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦A.  ¦Infringement                                               ¦1237  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦MARKING ESTOPPEL                        ¦1237 ¦
                +---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦EQUIVALENTS, INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT      ¦1238 ¦
                +---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦“DISPERSAL THROUGHOUT” (CLAIMS 1 AND 15)¦1239 ¦
                +---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦4.¦“BY THE ACTION OF THE OXIDANT” (CLAIM 1)¦1241 ¦
                +---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦5.¦“SALT OF SAID METAL” (CLAIM 1)          ¦1242 ¦
                +---+---+--+----------------------------------------+-----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦6.¦SUMMARY OF INFRINGEMENT ISSUES          ¦1243 ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------------+
                
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                ¦    ¦B.  ¦Invalidity                                                 ¦1244  ¦
                +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
                
+-----------------------------------------------------+
                ¦   ¦   ¦1.¦LICENSE ESTOPPEL                     ¦1244¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦2.¦SCOPE OF INVALIDITY DEFENSES         ¦1244¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦3.¦INOPERABLE PROCESS (CLAIM 1)         ¦1244¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦4.¦WRITTEN DESCRIPTION (CLAIM 1)        ¦1246¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦5.¦ENABLEMENT (CLAIM 1)                 ¦1249¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦6.¦ANTICIPATION BY PRIOR ART (CLAIM 15) ¦1252¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦7.¦OBVIOUSNESS (CLAIM 15)               ¦1256¦
                +---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
                ¦   ¦   ¦8.¦SUMMARY OF INVALIDITY ISSUES         ¦1257¦
                +-----------------------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------+
                ¦                                        ¦    ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • November 4, 2022
    ... ... Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc. , 817 F.3d 1305, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016). DISCUSSION In ... " survived after the termination of the existing lease contract); Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp. , 836 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1230 (D. Kan ... ...
  • Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • November 4, 2022
    ... ... jurisdiction de novo. Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, ... Inc. , 817 F.3d 1305, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ... termination of the existing lease contract); Layne ... Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp. , 836 F.Supp.2d 1203, ... ...
  • Baumann v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • December 28, 2011
    ... ... The Claims Environment, 1st Ed., James Markham, Kevin M. Quinley, Layne S. Thompson, 1993, p. 19.* * *American Family had the duty to pay its ... ...
  • Welty v. Ret. Bd., 20150746-CA
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 2017
    ... ... See Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro Tech Corp. , 836 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1236 (D. Kan ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT