Ruehl v. AM Gen. LLC
Decision Date | 25 March 2020 |
Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 3:14-CV-317-TLS |
Parties | PHILLIP C. RUEHL and PC RUEHL ENGINEERING, INC., Plaintiffs, v. AM GENERAL LLC, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant AM General's Supplemental Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 74]. The motion is briefed and is ripe for ruling. The case is a dispute over ownership rights to a patent related to vehicular frame rails. In his Amended Complaint [ECF No. 22], Plaintiff Ruehl1 raises claims against AM General LLC ("AM General") for patent infringement and breach of contract. AM General filed Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Counterclaim [ECF No. 25], denying Ruehl's allegations, raising affirmative defenses, raising counterclaims for breach of warranty and breach of contract, and asking for a declaratory judgment that it either owns the patent in question or has an irrevocable license to use it.
LEGAL STANDARD
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ. P. 56(a). "[T]he burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing'—that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "If the moving party has properly supported his motion, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Spierer v. Rossman, 798 F.3d 502, 507 (7th Cir. 2015). "To survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must establish some genuine issue for trial such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in [his] favor." Gordon v. FedEx Freight, Inc., 674 F.3d 769, 772-73 (7th Cir. 2012).
Within this context, the Court must construe all facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Frakes v. Peoria Sch. Dist. No. 150, 872 F.3d 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2017). However, the nonmoving party "is only entitled to the benefit of inferences supported by admissible evidence, not those 'supported by only speculation or conjecture.'" Grant v. Trs. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Nichols v. Michigan City Plant Planning Dep't, 755 F.3d 594, 599 (7th Cir. 2014)). Likewise, irrelevant or unnecessary factual disputes do not preclude the entry of summary judgment. Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561, 564 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
When considering this motion, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to Ruehl as the nonmoving party. The following statement of facts, including footnotes, is directly quoted from the Court's March 28, 2017 Opinion and Order [ECF No. 69] denying both parties' Motions for Partial Summary Judgement [ECF Nos. 50, 54]:
1. Mother Necessity The parties agree Ralf Pionke of AM General contacted his former co-worker Philip Ruehl in late 2004 or early 2005 about consulting with AM General on a project to upgrade the frame rails for its Humvee line of trucks.
Mr. Pionke sent Mr. Ruehl drawings of the then-current side rail design on February 17, 2015 (via email), and on February 23, 2005 (via UPS). AM General claims Mr. Ruehl admitted that once he had its print drawings, which he did not receive until February 25, 2005, he looked at them and wanted to modify the spacers.2
2. February purchase order
Mr. Ruehl signed a purchase order on February 26, 2005. The front of this purchase order says: "This purchase order is issued to cover cost to provide engineering support for HMMWV frame rail feasibility study." (Feb. Purchase Order, DE 51-13 at 2.) It also caps the cost at $22,500. (Id.) It warns: "ACCEPTANCE OF THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON FACE AND REVERSE HEREOF." (Id.)
The back of this purchase order says:
(Feb. Purchase Order, DE 51-13 at 3.33) Mr. Ruehl acknowledges that his signature on this document commits him to its terms. 3. Original concept sketch: March 5, 2005
On March 5, 2005, Mr. Ruehl sketched the big idea at the heart of this case. But the parties disagree about the genesis of this idea.
Mr. Ruehl claims in his amended complaint he conceived the idea before signing the purchase order on February 26, 2005. But he testified on November 19, 2015: "The iterative process of inventing the concept was completed on March 5, 2005." (Ruehl Dep., DE 51-11 at 15.) And on April 14, 2016, Mr. Ruehl signed his declaration stating: "None of my invoices to AM General included charges for my work inventing my new frame rail concept, which was completed no later than March 5, 2005 (and, to my best recollection, earlier than that.)" (Ruehl Decl., DE 55-3 at 2.)
AM General argues there is no evidence Ruehl conceived the idea before signing the February purchase order other than his say-so. AM General argues the evidence demonstrates that the spacer concept was not completed until March 5, 2005, and that the idea continued to develop after that date: "[T]he undisputed evidence demonstrates that Ruehl, after reviewing AMG's frame rail drawings and signing the February PO, came up with a spacer concept and then spent three weeks further refining and developing this concept as part of the engineering support he provided to AMG." (AM General's Br. Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Partial Summ. J., DE 60 at 20.)
Not only do the parties disagree about the genesis of the idea, they also disagree about what happened to the idea after Ruehl sketched it on March 5, 2005. Ruehl claims the idea never changed or developed after that date, or perhaps even for some time before. Ruehl claims no one refined, tested, supported, or funded the idea after that date, or perhaps even for some timebefore. AM General, however, argues that the idea was subject to continued development, refinement, and testing during the following months.
The parties refer to the idea in various ways. Ruehl refers to it as an invention "comprised of a box-type frame rail assembly," and as "a much improved means of assembling frame rails." (Am. Compl., DE 22 at 4, 6.) He says the patent, entitled "Boxed Frame Member and Method for...
To continue reading
Request your trial