Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. C 04-4067-MWB.,C 04-4067-MWB.
• Citation: 448 F.Supp.2d 1034
• Parties: MAYTAG CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a Frigidaire, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

448 F.Supp.2d 1034

MAYTAG CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a Frigidaire, Defendant.

No. C 04-4067-MWB.

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

September 8, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Edmund J. Sease, Jeffrey D. Harty, R. Scott Johnson, Mckee, Voorhees & Sease, Plc, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Cherri T. Gregg, David M. Maxwell, Frank G. Smith, John D. Haynes, Alston & Bird, Llp, Douglas L. Bridges, Fish & Richardson Pc, Atlanta, GA, Richard J. Sapp, Nyemaster Goode Voigts West Hansell & O'Brien, Pc, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUPPORTING FACTUAL STATEMENTS

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1037
                   A. Procedural Background ............................................... 1037
                      1. Maytag's lawsuit and Electrolux's response ....................... 1037
                      2. Discovery and claim construction ................................. 1038
                      3. The summary judgment motions ..................................... 1039
                   B. Factual Background .................................................. 1040
                      1. Prosecution and objectives of the patents-in-suit ................ 1040
                      2. The patents in suit .............................................. 1042
                         a. The `909 patent ............................................... 1042
                

                         b. The '809 patent ............................................... 1044
                      3. Claim construction ............................................... 1048
                      4. Electrolux's accused devices and processes ....................... 1050
                         a. The non-infringing '105 patent and the Old Horizon basket ..... 1050
                         b. The accused H+ basket ......................................... 1052
                         c. The accused New Horizon basket ................................ 1055
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ........................................................ 1059
                   A. Standards For Summary Judgment ...................................... 1059
                   B. What Record Can The Court Consider .................................. 1060
                      1. The motions to strike or supplement .............................. 1060
                      2. Analysis ......................................................... 1062
                         a. What circuit's law applies .................................... 1062
                         b. The admissible evidence requirement ........................... 1062
                         c. "Unsworn" expert reports ...................................... 1063
                         d. Summary ....................................................... 1065
                   C. The Motions For Summary Judgment .................................... 1065
                      1. "Validity" issues ................................................ 1065
                         a. Inadequate written description ................................ 1065
                             i. Arguments of the parties .................................. 1065
                            ii. Applicable law ............................................ 1067
                           iii. Application of the law .................................... 1069
                         b. Lack of enablement ............................................ 1078
                             i. Arguments of the parties .................................. 1078
                            ii. Applicable law ............................................ 1079
                           iii. Application of the law .................................... 1080
                      2. Other issues ..................................................... 1083
                III. CONCLUSION ........................................................... 1084
                

This patent infringement action, which involves patents for plastic washing machine baskets and the process for making them, comes before the court on the parties' motions for summary judgment and the parties' related motions to strike portions of each other's statements of fact in support of their motions for or resistances to summary judgment. The motions for summary judgment encompass both validity and infringement issues, as well as the defendant's contention that any infringement of valid patents was not willful as a matter of law. The motions presently before the court are every bit as hotly contested as the construction of various claim terms was for purposes of the "Markman hearing"¹ which required a lengthy and detailed ruling,² and the issues now before the court are more numerous and at least as complex. In the circumstances now presented, however, the court finds that two of the many issues raised by the parties are ultimately dispositive.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

1. Maytag's lawsuit and Electrolux's response

Plaintiff Maytag Corporation (Maytag), a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Newton, Iowa, filed this patent infringement action on July 23, 2004, against defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc., doing business as Frigidaire (Electrolux), a Delaware corporation licensed to do business and doing business in Iowa and elsewhere, with its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, but with manufacturing facilities in this District. Maytag alleges in its Complaint (docket no. 2) that Electrolux is willfully infringing two patents assigned to Maytag: U.S. Patent No. 5,881,909 (the '909 patent), entitled "PLASTIC WASHING MACHINE BASKET," and U.S. Patent No. 5,980,809 (the '809 patent), entitled "METHOD FOR MOLDING A PLASTIC WASHING MACHINE BASKET." Maytag seeks judgments of infringement and willful infringement of both patents, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from such infringement, treble damages with both pre- and post-judgment interest, and `attorneys' fees. Electrolux answered Maytag's Complaint on October 25, 2004 (docket no. 10), denying Maytag's infringement claims and asserting several affirmative defenses, including invalidity of the patents-in-suit, as well as counterclaims for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents. Maytag replied to Electrolux's counterclaims on November 16, 2004 (docket no. 18), denying those counterclaims.

2. Discovery and claim construction

A Scheduling Order, Discovery Plan, And Order on Miscellaneous Pretrial Matters (docket no. 17) and a separate Order Setting Trial, Final Pretrial Conference And Requirements For Final Pretrial Order (docket no. 20) were filed on November 9, 2004, and November 30, 2004, respectively. Pursuant to the Scheduling Order, a Markman hearing was originally scheduled for June 3, 2005, with interim deadlines for the filing of charts identifying the patent claims that the plaintiff alleges are infringed; the defendant's admissions concerning characteristics identified by the plaintiff that are present in the accused device and identification of those that the defendant contends are not present; identification of extrinsic evidence supporting each party's claim constructions; a joint claim construction statement; and briefing of claim construction issues. Discovery disputes, disputes concerning which claim terms the parties were required to define, and other events required the rescheduling of the pertinent deadlines and the Markman hearing itself, first to July 29, 2005, then to September 29, 2005, then to October 28, 2005, and ultimately to December 5, 2005.

On November 28, 2005, the court sent to the parties a 106-page tentative pre-argument draft of its ruling on the issues presented in the parties' briefs for the Markman hearing, so that the parties could focus their oral arguments and, still more specifically, address where, in each party's view, the court had gone wrong in its analysis of pertinent issues and its construction of claim terms. The court held the Markman hearing as scheduled on December 5, 2005. The hearing involved argument of counsel and some demonstrative video and slide presentations, but no live witnesses or presentation of other evidence. At the oral arguments, the parties agreed that the opportunity to review the court's draft ruling had focused their arguments, and the oral arguments themselves demonstrated that the issues had been substantially narrowed by the court's preargument disclosure of its proposed resolution of pertinent issues and its proposed claim constructions. Indeed, the court found this process of disclosing a tentative draft to the parties prior to the Markman hearing to be invaluable in resolving the disputed issues in claim construction.

The court entered its Memorandum Opinion And Order Regarding Construction Of Disputed Patent Claim Terms (docket no. 119) on January 19, 2006. The court amended that Memorandum Opinion, nunc pro tuns, on January 24, 2006 (docket no. 122), to add constructions of two claim terms that had been addressed in the court's ruling, but inadvertently left out of the chart summarizing the court's claim constructions. The amended decision is published at Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 411 F.Supp.2d 1008 (N.D.Iowa 2006).

3. The summary judgment motions

The next significant procedural milestone in this case came in April 2006 when the deadline for the filing of summary judgment motions set forth in the Scheduling Order arrived. Electrolux filed the first such motion, its April 28, 2006, Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 139), which raises issues of invalidity and noninfringement of the patents-in-suit as well as Electrolux's contention that any infringement or potential infringement of which it may be guilty was not "willful" as a matter of law. Just over two hours later, Maytag filed its own summary judgment motion, its April 28, 2006, Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Of Infringement Of Claims 24 & 25 Of U.S. Patent No. 5,881,909 (docket no. 144). The parties filed extensive briefing of these motions, which the opposing parties resisted and in further support of which the movants...