Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp
Decision Date | 19 December 2017 |
Docket Number | 2016-2386, 2016-2387, 2016-2714, 2017-1025 |
Citation | 877 F.3d 1370 |
Parties | TRAVEL SENTRY, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. David A. TROPP, Defendant-Appellant David A. Tropp, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Conair Corporation, Briggs & Riley Travelware LLC, Ebags, Inc., Eagle Creek, a Division of VF Outdoor, Inc., HP Marketing Corp., Ltd., L.C. Industries, LLC, Magellan's International Travel Corporation, Master Lock Company LLC, Outpac Designs Inc., Samsonite Corporation, Travelpro International Inc., TRG Accessories, LLC, Tumi, Inc., Wordlock, Inc., Defendants-Cross Appellants Victorinox Swiss Army, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Titan Luggage USA, Delsey Luggage Inc., Defendants |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
William L. Prickett, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Boston, MA, argued for cross-appellants Briggs & Riley Travelware LLC, Conair Corporation, Eagle Creek, A Division of VF Outdoor, Inc., HP Marketing Corp., Ltd., L.C. Industries, LLC, Magellan's International Travel Corporation, Master Lock Company LLC, Outpac Designs Inc., Samsonite Corporation, TRG Accessories, LLC, Travel Sentry, Inc., Travelpro International Inc., Tumi, Inc., Wordlock, Inc., eBags, Inc. and appellee Victorinox Swiss Army, Inc. Cross-appellants Travel Sentry, Inc., Conair Corporation, Eagle Creek, A Division of VF Outdoor, Inc., HP Marketing Corp., Ltd., L.C. Industries, LLC, Master Lock Company LLC, Outpac Designs Inc., Samsonite Corporation, Travelpro International Inc., TRG Accessories, LLC, Wordlock, Inc. and appellee Victorinox Swiss Army, Inc. also represented by Brian Michaelis.
Paul Whitfield Hughes, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Alan M. Grimaldi, Gary Hnath, Andrew John Pincus, Jonathan Weinberg.
Peter Ian Bernstein, Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser, Garden City, NY, for cross-appellant Briggs & Riley Travelware LLC.
Carolyn V. Juarez, Neugeboren O'Dowd PC, Boulder, CO, for cross-appellant eBags, Inc.
Robert J. Kenney, Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, LLP, Falls Church, VA, for cross-appellant Magellan's International Travel Corporation.
Neil P. Sirota, Baker Botts, LLP, New York, NY, for cross-appellant Tumi, Inc. Also represented by Jennifer Cozeolino Tempesta.
Before Lourie, O'Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
This is the third time we have had occasion to preside over this longstanding dispute regarding whether Travel Sentry, Inc. ("Travel Sentry") and its licensees infringe one or more claims of two patents issued to appellant David A. Tropp ("Tropp"): U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 ("the '537 patent") and 7,036,728 ("the '728 patent"). See Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp (Travel Sentry II ), 497 Fed.Appx. 958 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ; Tropp v. Conair Corp. , 484 Fed.Appx. 568 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In this most recent iteration, Tropp appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment that Travel Sentry and its licensees do not directly infringe any of the method claims recited in the '537 and '728 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). See Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp (Travel Sentry III ), 192 F.Supp.3d 332 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). Travel Sentry and several of its licensees cross-appeal from the district court's denial of their motions for attorney fees brought under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
We conclude that there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Travel Sentry directs or controls the performance of certain steps of the claimed methods. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's entry of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Travel Sentry and its licensees and remand for further proceedings. Because Travel Sentry and its licensees are no longer "prevailing parties" to whom an award of attorney fees could be made under 35 U.S.C. § 285, we dismiss their cross-appeal as moot.
The claims of the '537 and '728 patents are directed to methods of improving airline luggage inspection through the use of dual-access locks. Claim 1 of the '537 patent is representative, and recites:
'537 patent col. 6, ll. 6–37.
A comprehensive overview of the facts of these cases is provided in Travel Sentry II, 497 Fed.Appx. at 959–63. Only background relevant to this appeal is provided here.
Tropp, through his company Safe Skies, LLC, administers a lock system that permits the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") to unlock, inspect, and relock checked baggage. Id. at 960. Travel Sentry also administers a system that enables a traveler to lock a checked bag while allowing TSA to open the lock, search the bag as needed, and then relock it. Id. at 961. The identifying mark on Travel Sentry's locks is a red diamond logo, for which Travel Sentry holds a registered trademark. Id. Travel Sentry has entered into license and distribution agreements with several lock manufacturers, lock distributors, and luggage manufacturers, under which Travel Sentry receives payments in exchange for granting these entities the right to use and market its locks and master keys. Id. Travel Sentry, however, "retains the right to monitor the quality of the locks bearing its mark and to control the distribution of master keys, which have a distinctive shape and color." Id.
In October 2003, Travel Sentry entered into a three-page Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with TSA. Id. The MOU, which is the only written agreement between TSA and Travel Sentry concerning Travel Sentry certified locks, states that Travel Sentry will supply TSA with master keys (termed "passkeys") to open checked baggage secured with certified locks. Id. According to the MOU, the purpose of the agreement:
The MOU also sets forth the responsibilities of both parties to the agreement. With respect to TSA, the MOU provides that:
See id. at 961–62. With regard to Travel Sentry's responsibilities, the MOU states that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pernix Ir. Pain Dac v. Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.
...conditioning requirement. Alvogen relies on the Federal Circuit's opinions in Akamai, Lilly–Teva , and Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp , 877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017), but a close examination of those cases shows that they do not erect the rigid standard that Alvogen suggests.In Akamai , Lime......
-
Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson Labs., Inc.
...Cir. 2008) (quoting Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 668 (Fed. Cir .2000)), abrogated on other grounds by Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (alteration in original). In other words, the secondary considerations, must be commensurate in scope—"coextensive"—wi......
-
Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC
...Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , 545 U.S. 913, 930, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 (2005) ). As we explained in Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp , 877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017), Akamai "broaden[ed] the circumstances in which others' acts may be attributed to an accused infringer to support di......
-
F45 Training PTY Ltd. v. Body Fit Training U.S. Inc.
...part of a joint enterprise with regard to the infringing conduct. See Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1022; see also Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370, 1380 (Fed Cir. 2017); Lyda v. CBS Corp., 838 F.3d 1331, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2016); IOENGINE LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 18-452, 2019 WL ......
-
The Trouble With IP For Digital Health And Precision Medicine
...to legal obligations or technical prerequisites, and does not require penalties for non-compliance. See Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, 877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. Proving direct infringement when there are multiple actors may be easier in the generic drug context than for diagnostic testing met......
-
Prosecution Insights Gleaned from a Review of Recent Patent Examiner Training
...from later misconduct in litigation, without a showing of deceptive intent before the USPTO. Infringement Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp , 877 F.3d 1370, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement, determining tha......
-
When 30 Years of Practice Goes Against You: Patent Venue Ruling 'Ignores' Supreme Court Precedent
...from later misconduct in litigation, without a showing of deceptive intent before the USPTO. Infringement Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp , 877 F.3d 1370, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement, determining tha......
-
The PTAB Is Not an Article III Court, Part 2: Aqua Products v. Matal as a Case Study in Administrative Law
...from later misconduct in litigation, without a showing of deceptive intent before the USPTO. Infringement Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp , 877 F.3d 1370, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement, determining tha......
-
An Interview with Kent L. Richland
...from later misconduct in litigation, without a showing of deceptive intent before the USPTO. Infringement Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp , 877 F.3d 1370, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement, determining tha......