Riles v. Shell Exploration and Production Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-1553.,No. 01-1569.,01-1553.,01-1569. |
| Parties | William G. RILES, Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Jonathan T. Suder, Friedman, Young, Suder & Cooke, of Forth Worth, TX, argued for plaintiff-cross appellant. With him on the brief was Michael T. Cooke. Of counsel on the brief was John C. Janka, Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, of Chicago, IL.
Willem G. Schuurman, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., of Austin, TX, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were David P. Blanke, Gwen Samora and Adam V. Floyd. Of counsel on the brief were Albert M.T. Finch and Eugene Montalvo, Shell Oil Company, of Houston, TX; and Richard L. Stanley, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, of Houston, TX.
Before MICHEL, RADER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas refused to overturn as a matter of law a jury verdict of infringement and award of damages. William G. Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., H-00-0304 (S.D.Tex. June 19, 2001). Shell Exploration and Production Co. appeals that decision. William G. Riles cross appeals because the district court vacated the jury's finding of literal infringement and also denied enhanced damages. Because substantial evidence supports the jury's finding of infringement, this court affirms. Because the damage award is excessive and unsupported by evidence, this court vacates and remands. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, this court affirms the denial of enhanced damages.
On August 27, 1999, William G. Riles (Riles) filed suit against Shell Exploration and Production Co. (Shell) for infringement of his U.S. Patent No. 4,669,918 (the '918 patent). The `918 patent relates to construction and installation of fixed offshore platforms for oil drilling.
A fixed offshore platform comprises a jacket and a deck. Before Riles's invention, fixed offshore platforms were installed in the following sequence. The first step placed the jacket on the sea floor. Typically, a mud mat temporarily leveled and supported the jacket on the sea floor. Mud mats are large, flat steel frames attached to the base of the jacket. After landing the jacket on the sea floor and leveling it with the mud mats, foundation pilings were driven through the main legs of the jacket and into the sea floor to anchor the jacket. When the foundation pilings were connected to the jacket, the deck could be installed on top of the jacket.
Riles's `918 invention modifies the prior art installation sequence for fixed offshore platforms to allow installation without mud mats. The `918 patent first installs a foundation by pre-installing some or all of the pilings. Next, it sets the jacket or a portion of a jacket onto the pilings. Third, it installs additional pilings, if any. Fourth, it installs any remaining portions of the jacket with the deck on top of the jacket.
Only three limitations in the third step of claim 1 are at issue. Claim 1 reads:
1. The method of offshore platform installation, the platform including a plurality of pilings for respectively being driven at chosen sites in the mudline, which comprises the steps of locating the site for each of the pilings at the mudline, installing the pilings by driving them into the earth beneath the mudline so that each of said pilings extends only a short distance above the mudline, and installing a space-frame jacket having depending support legs onto said pilings using stabbing connections for transferring the compressive load of the platform by effecting metal-to-metal bearing contact between said legs of the jacket and the top of the pilings.
(Emphasis added.)
Fig. 7 is a partial view of a jacket leg, spacer, and male extension in the `918 patent. This figure illustrates the stabbing function:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The top 54 of a piling is open to receive a male extension 56 located on the lower end of jacket 14. The lower end of the male extension may include a hard rubber wiper ring 58 for sealing the annular space between the external surface of the male leg extension and the external surface of the top of the piling. After the male extension extends into the bottom of jacket leg 60, it can be permanently attached by welding. The extension can also have a spacer 62 located at a position just below the jacket leg.
Shell's accused method installed four temporary "leveling pilings" into the ocean floor at predetermined locations. Meantime, during its fabrication of the Spirit platform on shore, Shell placed a "leveling porch" within the jacket structure at each corner. Each leveling porch consisted of a flat, circular metal plate, a reinforcing strut above the metal plate, and a layer of wooden timbers below the metal plate. The jacket also included two "guide sleeves" below two leveling porches. Shell then lowered the jacket onto the temporary pilings, until the timber layers of the leveling porches came to rest on top of the pilings. Thereafter, within a few days, Shell inserted skirt foundation pilings in the conventional way through skirt sleeves at the four bottom corners of the jacket.
The following figure shows the jacket leg with a leveling porch, guide sleeve, and leveling piling for Shell's Spirit platform:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Before trial, the district court held a Markman hearing. In its September 7, 2000, order, the court adopted its earlier claim construction in Riles v. Amerada Hess Corp., Civil No. G-98-013. Thus, the district court defined the three limitations at issue:
"depending support leg" means "the lower portion of a space frame jacket leg which is angled to permit a stabbing connection to be made with a piling for support of the platform system;"
"stabbing connection" means "an end-to-end joining of two metal tubes by the insertion of an extension attached to the end of one of the tubes into the end of the other;"
"metal-to-metal bearing contact" means "a weight bearing contact between two metal surfaces."
Neither party contested the court's claim construction.
After trial, the jury returned a verdict that Shell, in installing the Spirit platform, infringed the `918 patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury also found that Shell's infringement was willful, and awarded Riles $8.7 million in damages.
On Shell's motion for a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and in the alternative, for a new trial, the district court held that the record does not support the jury's finding that Shell's process met the "stabbing connection" and "metal-to-metal bearing contact" limitations literally. On the other hand, the trial court determined that the record supports the jury's finding that Shell's process met all three limitations under the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, the trial court held that the record supports Riles's entitlement to attorney fees, but not enhanced damages.
Shell appeals the district court's decision to uphold the jury's finding that its process met the "stabbing connection" and "metal-to-metal bearing contact" limitations under the doctrine of equivalents. Shell also contests the jury's finding that its process met the "depending supporting leg" limitation both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, Shell's appeal also questions the amount of the jury's damage award.
Riles cross-appeals the district court's vacation of the jury's finding that Shell's process met the "stabbing connection" and "metal-to-metal bearing contact" limitations literally. Further Riles challenges the trial court's denial of enhanced damages. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (1994).
This court reviews a denial of JMOL by reapplying the JMOL standard. SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1354, 55 USPQ2d 1927, 1930 (Fed.Cir.2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(1) (). Thus, this court examines a JMOL decision to discern if it contains a legal error or if the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the jury's factual findings. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). With regard to factual findings, this court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the prevailing party, and does not substitute this court's view of the conflicting evidence for that of the jury. SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc., 225 F.3d at 1355.
"The assessment of damages is a question of fact, and is decided by the jury when tried to a jury." Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 72 F.3d 857, 866, 37 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed.Cir.1995), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 1111, 117 S.Ct. 1240, 137 L.Ed.2d 323 (1997). This court reviews a jury's damages award for substantial evidence. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1953, 1957 (Fed.Cir.2001). This court reviews the district court's enhanced damages decision for "an erroneous conclusion of law, clearly erroneous factual findings, or a clear error of judgment amounting to an abuse of discretion." Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1543-44, 35 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E2interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.
...that such an act has occurred directly or indirectly. 35 U.S.C. § 271. 2. Authority. First element: Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364,1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005); PSC Computer Prods., Inc. v. Foxconn......
-
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
...differences' distinguish the missing claim element from the corresponding aspects of the accused device.” Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1309–10 (Fed.Cir.2002). Each of the claims are discussed below, but ultimately, the Court must deny ION's motion.A. Claims 19 and ......
-
Medtronic Sofamor Danek Usa v. Globus Medical
...id.; and (3) that the reasonable royalty be based on "sound economic and factual predicates," Riles v. Shell Exploration and Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed.Cir. 2002). A reasonable royalty is set by multiplying an appropriate royalty rate by the royalty base. The royalty rate is often ......
-
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.
...‘sound economic and factual predicates' for that analysis.” Red Hat, Inc., 705 F.Supp.2d at 689 (quoting Riles v. Shell Exploration & Production Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citation omitted)); see also i4i, 598 F.3d at 857–58 (citing Lucent, 580 F.3d at 1325) (“any reasonable r......
-
Multimedia Patent Trust V. Apple: Motion To Strike Expert's Equivalence Analysis Denied Where Defendants Were Merely Disagreeing With Expert On The Underlying Facts
...If even one limitation is missing or not met as claimed, there is no literal infringement." Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1998))." The district court then discussed......
-
Tesla, Marconi, and the great radio controversy: awarding patent damages without chilling a defendant's incentive to innovate.
...Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 435 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). (275.) Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2002). (276.) Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999). (277.) Innogenetics, N.......
-
Practical Aspects of the Law of Misuse: Misuse in the Litigation Context
...lost profits requires the patentee to prove the “absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes”); Riles v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (concluding that patentee’s reasonable royalty model failed to support jury verdict because it ignored possible non-inf......
-
Economic damages from intellectual property infringement
...Appeals for the Federal Circuit limit the use of the book of wisdom. See William G. Riles. v. Shell Exploration and Production Company. 298 F.3d 1302, 1811 (Fed. Cir.2002); Integra Lifesciences, 331 F. 3d 860 (Fed.Cir.2003. The issue is best discussed with the attorney and client, especiall......
-
Evidence-based Patent Damages
...for return to the date when the infringement began.").48. LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 75 (quoting Riles v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).49. Id. at 76 ("It also makes sense that in each case there should be only a single hypothetical negotiation date, not sep......