Ramsey Group, Inc. v. Egs Intern., Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. 1:02CV77.,CIV. 1:02CV77. |
| Citation | 329 F.Supp.2d 630 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | RAMSEY GROUP, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Plaintiff, v. EGS INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a Enviroguard; Douglas Frazier, an individual; Kenneth Cotton, an individual; and Expo Power Systems, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants. |
J. Derel Monteith, Jr., Carter & Schnedler, Asheville, NC, for Plaintiff, Consolidated Defendant, and Counter-Defendant.
Brian T. Racilla, Michael J. McKeon, Fish & Richardson, P.C., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff and Consolidated Defendant.
Wyatt S. Stevens, Roberts & Stevens, P. A., Asheville, NC, James G. Gatto, Michael C. Whitticar, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, Reston, VA, for Consolidated
Plaintiff, Defendant and Counter-Claimant.
Philip J. Smith, W. Carleton Metcalf, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P. A., Asheville, NC, William A. Davis, Simeon Schopf, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glvosky and Popeo, Washington, DC, for Defendant and Counter-Claimant.
James E. Doroshow, Allan S. Cohen, Kristine Michelle Blumensaadt, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Consolidated Defendant.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on numerous motions and cross motions for summary judgment.
On March 26, 2002, Plaintiff Ramsey Group, Inc. (Ramsey) initiated this action seeking declaratory judgments that it has not infringed United States Patent No. 6,308,728 B1 ('728) for a spill containment system and method and that the patent is invalid. The complaint also asserted a claim for unfair trade practices pursuant N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. The Defendants in that action were EGS International, Inc., doing business under the name of EnviroGuard (EnviroGuard), Douglas Frazier (Frazier), the inventor of the '728 patent and majority shareholder of EnviroGuard, and Kenneth Cotton (Cotton), the president of EnviroGuard. According to the complaint, "Ramsey Group and Defendants are competitors in the field of designing, manufacturing, and selling products for containing spills of hazardous material from stationary industrial and commercial batteries such as those used in the telecommunications industry." Complaint, filed March 26, 2002, at 3.
On April 16, 2002, the Ramsey Group amended its complaint to delete an allegation that the corporate status of Defendant EnviroGuard had been suspended by the California Secretary of State. Amended Complaint, filed April 16, 2002, at 2.
On May 28, 2002, Defendants filed a "Statement of Non[-]Assertion of U.S. Patent No. 6,308,728 B1" in which the Defendants announced that
[s]ubject to all jurisdictional objections which are specifically preserved, Defendants ... inform the Court that Defendants do not and will not assert U.S. Patent No. 6,308,728 B1, the patent-in-suit, against [Ramsey] with respect to the Uni-Seal containment system or any of Ramsey's products that Ramsey currently sells.
Statement of Non[-]Assertion of U.S. Patent No. 6,308,728 B1, filed May 28, 2002.1
On July 26, 2002, the undersigned granted Ramsey's motion for leave to file a supplemental amended complaint which added Defendants Expo Power Systems, Inc. (Expo) and Toni Frazier, Douglas Frazier's wife, and which added United States Patent No. 6,395,417 B1 (the '417 patent) to its request for declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity. Memorandum and Order, filed July 26, 2002. Expo counterclaimed for a declaration of infringement. Answer and Counterclaim, filed August 9, 2002.
On October 16, 2002, this action was consolidated with Expo Power Systems, Inc. v. Ramsey Group, Inc., Civil Case No 1:02cv202. Order, filed October 16, 2002. In that action, originally filed in California, Expo sought a declaration that Ramsey had infringed the '417 patent. Memorandum and Order, filed August 27, 2003, at 4.
On August 27, 2003, the undersigned granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to Expo's claim of infringement of the '728 patent and dismissed Expo's counterclaim as to that patent. Id., at 15. On September 3, 2003, the undersigned issued a claim construction decision as to the '417 patent. Memorandum of Decision, filed September 3, 2003. On October 6, 2003, Ramsey filed a dismissal of its claims against Toni Frazier. Stipulated Dismissal of Claims against Defendant Toni Frazier, filed October 6, 2003.
The parties have now filed motions and cross-motions for summary judgment on the issues remaining in the action. The Court finds no hearing is necessary for ruling on the pending matters.
A determination of infringement requires a two-step analysis. First, the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process. In order for a court to find infringement, the plaintiff must show the presence of every ["element"] or its substantial equivalent in the accused device. Claim construction is an issue of law .... The determination of infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact.
Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Expo's motion for summary judgment is limited to its allegation that Ramsey's Uni-Seal System literally infringes the '417 patent. "Literal infringement requires that every element of the invention as claimed is present in the accused device." ACCO Brands, Inc. v. Micro Sec. Devices, Inc., 346 F.3d 1075, 1080 (Fed.Cir.2003). Ramsey's motion for summary judgment is based on the doctrine of equivalents. "Infringement by equivalents requires that the accused device contains elements identical or equivalent to each element of the claim." Id.
The issue, then, is whether a determination of infringement can be resolved by this Court without a jury.
[A grant of] summary judgment [is appropriate] when the record shows [there are] no genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law [is proper] for the moving party. [In reviewing the record, the] court draws reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the non-mov[ing] [party]. Moreover an asserted issue of material fact is not "genuine" in the sense of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 56 if a reasonable jury could only resolve the question for the moving party. In assessing issues of material fact to determine whether a "reasonable jury" could disagree on them, [the] court identifies facts posing a potential dispute and then examines those facts in the context of the legal criteria by which a fact finder would resolve the dispute.... Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires an intensely factual inquiry. And, [the] court is well aware of the difficulty of granting summary judgment motions on issues requiring delicate balancing of many factual components. Ultimately [the] court may [grant] summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, where that doctrine is legally applicable, only if it discerns no genuine issues of material fact and that no reasonable jury could find equivalence.... In this review, [the] court must examine the record for genuine issues of material fact and must determine that no reasonable jury could reach a different conclusion.
Vehicular Tech. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2000) (internal citations omitted).
Douglas Frazier invented and patented the device claimed by the '417 patent. Frazier assigned all of his right, title and interest in the '417 patent to Expo. The '417 patent claims a battery spill containment system which may be used with stationary battery installations. Such installations provide a "`stable source[ ] of continuous electrical power that function[s] independently of outside utility companies.' "Memorandum of Decision, filed September 3, 2003, at 3 (quoting Plaintiff's Claim Construction Brief, filed April 18, 2003, at 2). Stationary battery installations normally contain Plaintiff Ramsey Group, Inc.'s Memorandum in Support of Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Patent Noninfringement, filed September 24, 2003, at 6. Stationary lead-acid battery systems are required by law to contain a liquid-tight spill-control barrier to prevent highly corrosive and toxic electrolytes from spilling or leaking and thus, causing damage to the surrounding people, property and environment. Id.
Ramsey manufactures and sells the Uni-Seal System which is also a battery acid containment system. That system uses a liner, barrier rails to contain the liner and a neutralizer to absorb leaked acid. Expo claims the Uni-Seal System infringes the '417 patent.
Expo argues that Ramsey's products literally infringe the '417 patent. Claim 1 of the '417 patent reads:
A spill containment system for containing a spilled substance from a device, the spill containment system comprising: a plurality of containment rails that are resistant to damage from the spilled substance; a plurality of mounts that mount the plurality of containment rails to one another to define an area; a flexible liner placed within the area and having a base with a wall; a material placed within the area and on the liner which absorbs the spilled substance; and wherein the mounts permit the removal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial