The Braun Corp. v. Maxon Lift Corp., 4:01CV0076.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
Citation282 F.Supp.2d 931
Docket NumberNo. 4:01CV0076.,4:01CV0076.
PartiesTHE BRAUN CORPORATION, An Indiana Corporation, Plaintiff, v. MAXON LIFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Decision Date11 September 2003

Charles V. Vaughan, Charles R. Vaughan, Linda H. Havel, Vaughan and Vaughan, Lafayette, IN, Vincent O. Wagner, Lisa A. Hiday, Woodard Emhardt Naughton, Moriarty and McNett, Indianapolis, IN, Charles A. Laff, Martin L. Stern, Perry J. Hoffman, Adam C. Smedstad, Michael Best and Friedrich, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff/counter-defendant.

Michael D. Beck, Harold C. Moore, Maginot Moore and Bowman, Indianapolis, IN, Ronald S. Katz, Robert D. Becker, Eugene L Hahm, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Palo Alto, CA, for defendant/counter-claimant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLEN SHARP, District Judge.

This action involves two U.S. patents assigned to Plaintiff, The Braun Corporation, ("Braun"): U.S. Patents Nos. 6,238,169 ("169") and 6,464,447 ("447"). This is an action for patent infringement arising out of Maxon Lift Corporation's ("Maxon"), alleged infringement of Braun's 169 and 447 patents in violation of the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C §§ 271 and 281-285. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)

On June 2, 2003 the parties simultaneously moved for summary judgment on the issues of validity and infringement. Oral argument was heard in this matter on August 22, 2003, in Lafayette, Indiana. This matter is before the Court on Braun's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that 1) Maxon Lift Corporation's, WL-6A wheelchair lift ("WL-6A" or "accused product") infringes Braun's U.S. Patents Nos. 6,238,169 ("169") and 6,464,447 ("447"); and 2) the patents-in-suit are not invalid as Maxon alleges. For purposes of this motion, only claim 1 of each patent-in-suit is being considered to establish infringement.1 Braun, however, is not waiving its right to pursue other claims of the patents-in-suit if necessary. Maxon is liable for patent infringement if a single claim is infringed. See, Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 836 F.2d 1329 (Fed. Cir.1987).

Maxon, pursuant to its own motion, moves for summary judgment on multiple grounds. First, Maxon claims that the accused product does not fall within the scope of any valid claim of the 169 or 447 patents. Maxon claims that the push arm of the accused product, unlike the Braun push arm, which is telescoping, is a prior art rigid push arm. Further, Maxon alleges that unlike the prior art Braun device, the accused product includes a barrier/bridge plate with a nonlinear channel and a bolt that travels through the slot to raise and lower the barrier/bridge plate. And moreover, Maxon claims that unlike the patents-in-suit, the accused lift does not have a locking pin on the mounting block. Second, Maxon alleges that Braun's infringement action has become moot. Maxon supports this contention with the assertion that Braun has failed to supply any computation or evidence of damages and moreover that Maxon has abandoned the accused product and has no intention of reintroducing it.

A motion to strike the declaration of Barry E. Wolff in support of Braun's motion for summary judgment was also filed by Maxon. Maxon argues that Mr. Wolff is attempting to provide expert testimony regarding Maxon's WL-6A Wheelchair Lift, the product accused of infringing U.S. Patents Nos. 6,238,169 ("the 169 patent"), and 6,464,447 ("the 447 patent"), in violation of established federal law differentiating lay opinion from expert opinion. Maxon contends that Mr. Wolff is a lay witness and his Declaration improperly intrudes on an area which is properly addressed only by expert opinion. However, Braun argues that Mr. Wolff's testimony is admissible under both Rule 701 and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows for opinion testimony by a lay witness. In its most basic form, Rule 701 allows lay opinion testimony that is based on the witness's personal perception. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit allows lay opinion testimony based on a witness's specialized knowledge obtained in his or her vocation or avocation. U.S. v. Sweeney, 688 F.2d 1131, 1145 (7th Cir. 1982). The decision whether lay testimony meets the criteria of Rule 701 is one committed to the discretion of the trial court. Gorby v. Schneider Tank Lines, 741 F.2d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir.1984). Maxon claims however, that Wolff goes far beyond what is allowed by Rule 701.

Mr. Wolff's extensive personal experience in the wheelchair lift field gives him specialized knowledge to support his testimony about his patented invention and Maxon's accused product and how it works. Mr. Wolff has been involved in this field (wheelchair lifts) for sixteen years and has a Bachelor of Science degree in Industrial Technology and Applied Sciences and is an inventor of the patents-in-suit. This specialized knowledge of wheelchair lift technology and personal examination and study of Maxon's accused device permit him to testify on the structure and function of the patented invention, Maxon's accused wheelchair lift, and other technical issues. Furthermore, it has been held that an inventor is a competent witness to explain the invention and what was intended to be conveyed by the specifications and covered by the claims. See Voice Techs. Group, Inc., v. VMC Sys., Inc., 164 F.3d 605, 615 (Fed.Cir.1999); see also, Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 693 (Fed.Cir. 2001). This Court deems Mr. Wolff's opinion to be rationally based on his personal perception and finds such to be helpful in the determination of the fact(s) in issue. For these reasons, Mr. Wolff's testimony is admissible and Maxon's motion to strike the Declaration of Barry E. Wolff, is hereby, DENIED.2

I. Background
A. The 169 Patent

The 169 patent issued on May 29, 2001 and has been assigned to Braun. The patent contains 30 claims, but only claim 1 is at issue here. However, Maxon's motion for summary judgment pertains to all the claims in the patents-in-suit, while Braun's motion pertains to only claim 1 of each patent. The invention of the 169 patent-in-suit related to anmproved safety barrier mechanism. Wheelchair lifts are used to provide access to motor vehicles and the like for people who are wheelchair bound. Safety barriers located at the outboard, away from the vehicle, and inboard, closest the vehicle, ends of the platform are raised during platform movement to prevent a wheelchair from accidentally rolling off the platform and are lowered to act as ramps to facilitate movement of a wheelchair onto and off of the platform. When the wheelchair platform rests on the ground, the outboard barrier is lowered to provide a ramp onto the platform and the inboard barrier is raised to act as a stop. During lifting or lowering of the platform, both barriers are raised to act as stops to prevent a wheelchair from rolling off either end of the platform. When the platform is raised to the height of the vehicle floor, the outboard barrier remains raised to act as a stop and the inboard barrier is lowered to provide a ramp between the platform and the vehicle floor. Braun invented and patented an improved mechanism to automatically raise and lower the inboard safety barrier. In past, cables were used to raise and lower the inboard safety barrier, however, to overcome some of the disadvantages posed by these cables, Braun developed a linkage system in place of cables to actuate the inboard safety barrier in response to the operation of the lift.

In essence, claim 1 of the 169 patent, calls for a wheelchair lift comprising a support platform that is attached to the lifting mechanism for moving the platform between ground level, a transfer level position and a vertically stowed position, and back. One end of the lifting mechanism is attached to the platform and the other end is attached to the vehicle. The upper part of the lifting mechanism is in the form of a parallelogram and the lower part of the lifting mechanism includes an articulated lever assembly. The parallelogram actuates the articulated lever assembly to pivot the wheelchair platform from the horizontal transfer level position to a vertically stowed position.

B. The 447 Patent

Patent 447 was filed on May 25, 2001, as a continuation of the 169 patent application. The 447 patent issued on October 15, 2002. The 447 patent has the same inventors and differs from the 169 patent only in the manner in which it claims the subject wheelchair lift invention. The 447 patent has 37 claims, but only claim 1 is at issue in the present motion. However, Maxon's motion for summary judgment pertains to all the claims in the patents-in-suit, while Braun's motion pertains to just claim 1 of each patent. Claim 1 of the 447 patent calls for a wheelchair lift comprising essentially the same structure as claim 1 of the 669 patent, but using somewhat different language. The inboard end of a wheelchair platform is connected to a lifting mechanism which includes a parallelogram structure securable to a vehicle. The lifting mechanism moves the platform between ground level, transfer level, and a vertically stowed position, and back. Unlike claim 1 of the 669 patent, claim 1 of the 447 patent does not recite a lever mechanism to lower the inboard barrier plate. Instead, claim 1 of the 447 patent only calls for the articulated lever assembly to be linked to the barrier plate, without specifying the nature of the link.

II. Standard of Review

Summary judgment in favor of those accused of infringement is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court has properly construed the claims, and a finding of infringement would be impossible. Porter v. Farmers Supply Service, 790 F.2d 882, 884 (Fed. Cir.1986) (affirming summary judgment of noninfringement); Brenner v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Two Moms & A Toy, LLC v. Int'l Playthings, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • 19 Octubre 2012
    ...invention and what he or she intended to convey by the specifications and the claims contained therein. The Braun Corp. v. Maxon Lift Corp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 931, 934 (N.D. Ind. 2003); Myers v. Master Lock Co., No. 06-cv-00619-LTB, 2008 WL 2168977, at *9 (D. Colo. May 22, 2008). This testimo......
1 books & journal articles
  • Witness
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • 5 Mayo 2022
    ...expert opinion , but rather limited his testimony to his personal experience in writing paper. Braun Corp. v. Maxon Lift Corp. , 282 F. Supp. 2d 931, 933-34 (N.D. Ind. 2003). In a patent infringement case, the inventor was permitted to testify concerning the wheel chair lift product that wa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT