Verve, L.L.C. v. Crane Cams, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 99CV76096DT.,99CV76096DT. |
| Citation | 395 F.Supp.2d 558 |
| Parties | VERVE, L.L.C, Plaintiff, v. CRANE CAMS, INC., Crower Cams Equipment Co., Trend Products, Inc., and Competition Cams, Inc. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
James E. Wynne, Butzel Long P.C., Detroit, MI, for Defendants Crane Cams, Inc., Crower Cams Equipment Co., Trend Products, Inc., and Competition Cams, Inc.
John A. Artz, John S. Artz, Robert P. Renke, Artz & Artz, P.C., Southfield, MI, for Plaintiff Verve, LLC.
This patent infringement case involves the manufacture and sale of one-piece push rods for automotive internal combustion engines. Plaintiff Verve, L.L.C. does not manufacture push rods, but owns the rights in United States Patent No. 4,850,315 (the '315 patent), for a specific type of one-piece push rods. Plaintiff purchased the rights in the '315 patent from Mall Tooling and Engineering, which purchased the rights from the inventor.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants manufacture and sell one-piece push rods in violation of the '315 patent.1
At issue are Defendants' motions for summary judgment, which argue that the motions for summary judgment of invalidity will be DENIED, and their motions for summary judgment of non-infringement will be GRANTED IN PART.
Claims 1 and 13 of the '315 patent are in dispute in this litigation. Claim 1 states:
A push rod for an internal combustion engine comprising: a single piece of metal in the form of an elongated hollow tube having a middle portion, first and second end portions and rounded seats at the tips thereof, said middle portion having a larger outer diameter than the end portions, and said tube having a substantially constant wall thickness throughout the length and the tips thereon.
United States Patent No. 4,850,315.
Claim 13 sets forth a process for manufacturing the push rod described in Claim 1. Claim 13 states:
A method of making a one-piece push rod, said method comprising: (a) providing a hollow tube having a given outer diameter; (b) compressing at least the end portions of the tube provided in step (a) said tube having a substantially constant wall thickness throughout the length of the tube and the tips thereon; and (c) forming tips of the tube into the desired shape.
On May 16, 2001, the Court granted Defendants' first motion for summary judgment on grounds of vagueness and anticipation. Verve LLC v. Crane Cams, 145 F.Supp.2d 862 (E.D.Mich.2001). As to vagueness, the Court held that the meaning of the phrase "substantially constant wall thickness" was so unclear as to render the claim indefinite based on the lack of a definition of "substantially" in the intrinsic record, that is, the prosecution history of the '315 patent.
As to anticipation, the Court held that the '315 patent was invalid due to lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because two Japanese patents, JP 635 and JP 808, teach every element of the '315 patent.
The Federal Circuit reversed this Court's decision. See Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Incorporated, 311 F.3d 1116 (Fed.Cir.2002). First, the Court reversed as to vagueness and remanded the case
for further proceedings, including any appropriate recourse to extrinsic evidence concerning the usage and understanding of the term "substantially" in relevant context.
Second, the Court reversed as to anticipation, holding as follows:
[Plaintiff] stresses that the Japanese push rods [JP 635 and JP 808] are not wider at their mid-portion like the '315 rods, but are of uniform diameter along their length. The drawings in the Japanese patents and the '315 patent reflect this distinguishing difference. Although the defendants argue that the ball shape at the end of the Japanese rods is of narrower diameter than the rest of the rod and thus that the Japanese end portion is narrower than the middle portion, the invention as described and claimed in the '315 patent does not encompass a tube of uniform diameter along its length, whatever the diameter at the rounded tip.
The Japanese patents on their face do not show the push rods of the '315 patent. No question of material fact is present, for neither the structures, nor their differences, is disputed. On the undisputed facts, no reasonable trier of fact could find the '315 invention anticipated by these Japanese references. Summary judgment of invalidity on the ground of anticipation is reversed.
311 F.3d at 1121 (emphasis added).2
On remand, the parties engaged in further discovery concerning the scope and meaning of the '315 patent as well as whether or not the push rods manufactured and sold by Defendants infringed the '315 patent. The parties were directed to conduct discovery with a focus on the volume of push-rods sold by Defendants that meet the definition applied by the Federal Circuit. This task was complicated by the parties' continuing dispute as to the scope and meaning of the '315 patent.
The Court heard oral argument on Defendant's motion for summary judgment on non-infringement and obviousness on March 10, 2004. The hearing was continued on March 23, 2004. The March 23, 2004 hearing also served as a hearing to determine claim construction as required by Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996).
On March 26, 2004, the Court issued an order denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity without prejudice and granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to the rod identified in discovery as "Trend 3" on the ground that its wall thickness was undisputably not "substantially constant."
The Court's March 26, 2004 order also established the following claim construction for claim 1 of the '315 patent:
'315 Patent: Claim 1 Construction
middle portion: a lengthwise section or point of the rod located between the end portions, excluding any lengthwise section that narrows before connecting to an end portion.
end portion: a lengthwise section of the rod that includes, exclusively:
3) if present, any section of constant diameter which:
a) connects to either (1) or (2) immediately above, and also,
b) is smaller in diameter than the middle portion.
tip: the part of the end portion with rounded seats intended to make contact with another device
rounded seat: a rounded section at the tip intended to make contact with another device
substantially constant wall thickness: a difference in wall thickness between the thinnest and thickest widths of the rod's walls such that the thickest width is not more than 20% wider than the thinnest width
A rod does not infringe Claim 1 although it technically meets the definition if it has a constant diameter in the space between the rod's two end portions.
Order of March 26, 2004, pp. 2-3.
At the conclusion of the Markman hearing, the parties were instructed to engage in further discovery in light of the Court's claim construction.
On May 27, 2004, Defendants filed their renewed motion for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement.
On November 9, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on Defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment. Oral argument continued on March 8, 2005.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P 56(c). In this case, Defendants bear the initial responsibility of demonstrating that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Material facts are determined...
To continue reading
Request your trial