Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-09033

• Decision Date: 22 June 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:12-cv-09033
• Parties: LOGGERHEAD TOOLS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION and APEX TOOL GROUP, LLC, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

LOGGERHEAD TOOLS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION and APEX TOOL GROUP, LLC, Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-09033

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

June 22, 2017

Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

Honorable Maria Valdez

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS APEX AND SEARS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

II. Legal Standard For Judgement As A Matter Of Law .................................................... 3

III. Argument ............................................................................................................................ 4

A. The Court Should Enter Judgment Of No Willfulness ............................................ 4

1. The Court Has Already Granted And Reaffirmed Summary Judgment Of No Willfulness ....................................................................... 6

2. No Reasonable Jury Could Find Willfulness Based On The Evidence Presented At Trial ........................................................................ 8

B. The Court Should Grant JMOL Of Non-Infringement Based On A Correct Construction Of The "Arm Portion" Claim Term ................................................. 17

1. The Law Governing Claim Construction ................................................... 18

2. The Court's Construction Of "Arm Portion" Conflicts With The Claim Language And Basic Principles Of Claim Construction ................. 20

3. The Current Construction Of "Arm Portion" Contradicts LoggerHead's Statements To The PTO During Prosecution Of The Asserted Patents ......................................................................................... 23

4. The Current Construction Of "Arm Portion" Is Contrary To The Specifications Of The Asserted Patents ..................................................... 26

5. The Specifications And Intrinsic Record, As Well As The Ordinary Meaning Of "Arm Portion," Necessitate A Construction Requiring That The Arm Portion Project From The Body Portion ............................ 28

6. Upon Correcting The Construction Of "Arm Portion," The Court Should Grant Defendants JMOL Of Non-Infringement ............................ 30

C. If The Court Does Not Grant JMOL Of Non-Infringement, It Should Grant JMOL Of Invalidity For All Of LoggerHead's Asserted Claims In Light Of The Prior Art Buchanan Reference ................................................................... 33

IV. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 38

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc) ................................................................... 34, 35

Agilent Techs, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 22

Alloc, Inc. v. Norman D. Lifton Co., 653 F. Supp. 2d 469 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ............................................................................... 12

Am. Original Corp. v. Jenkins Food Corp., 774 F.2d 459 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................... 16

Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 35

Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 22

Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................... 31

Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................... 20, 33

Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 33

Bicon, Inc. v. The Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................... 22

Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) .......................................................................................................... 10

Bow Jax Inc. v. Sims Vibration Lab., Inc., No. 2:09-cv-0047-RMP, slip op. (E.D. Wash. June 22, 2010) ......................................... 30

Braun Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................... 11

Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................. 7

Canton Bio-Med., Inc. v. Integrated Liner Tech., Inc., 216 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................... 32

CardSoft, LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................... 20

Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Inst., 618 F. Supp. 2d 856 (N.D. Ill. 2009) .................................................................................. 3

Cohesive Tech. Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... 12

Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 33

Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 36

Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................... 26

Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................... 33

Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................... 21

Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ............... 4, 9, 16

Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................... 22

Fujisawa Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Kapoor, 115 F.3d 1332 (7th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................ 8

Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................... 21, 33

GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 29

Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., 754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 36

Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., No. 13-723-LPS, 2016 WL 7217625 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) ........................................... 9

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ............................................................................................... passim

Holden v. Deloitte and Touche LLP, 390 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2005) .................................................................................. 8

Humanscale Corp. v. Mass Engineered Design, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD, slip op. (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2014) ................................... 30

In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc) ......................................................................... 11

Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 18

Kossman v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp., 211 F.3d 1031 (7th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 4

Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 525 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... 21

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) ............................................................................. 19

Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc. et al., No. 2:06-cv-00272, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2008) ................................................... 30

Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 20, 33

Minch v. City of Chicago, 486 F.3d 294 (7th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 8

N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... 26

Nickson Indus., Inc. v. Rol Mfg. Co., Ltd., 847 F.2d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................... 16

NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................... 36

Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................