Weber-Stephen Prods. LLC v. Sears Holding Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 13 C 01686,13 C 01686 |
| Parties | WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiff, v. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION and SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Weber-Stephen Products LLC makes and sells Weber grills. Sears Holding Corporation and Sears, Roebuck & Company own and operate retail and online stores.1 Sears also makes and sells its own grills under the Kenmore brand name. Sears also sold Weber's grills until Weber stopped supplying Sears in 2012. Not long after that, Weber sued Sears, alleging, among other things, that Sears's Kenmore Elite grills infringed on three of Weber's patents. Sears countersued, seeking declarations of invalidity and non-infringement as to each patent.2
In three separate summary judgment motions (one for each asserted patent), Sears asks for judgment as a matter of law against Weber's patent-infringementclaims and in favor of Sears's corresponding counterclaims. For the reasons set out below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
This is the seventh written opinion in this case,3 and the fourth on a summary judgment record. See R. 424, R. 419, R. 285. The prior summary judgment opinions discuss the background facts, so the Court will assume the reader's familiarity with those facts and turn immediately to a description of the relevant patents.
These motions concern three Weber patents: the '874 Utility Patent; the '045 Grill Design Patent; and the '834 Grill Shroud Design Patent. Here, briefly, is a description of each.
Weber obtained U.S Patent No. 8,347,874 for a "Grease Drip Pan and Gas Tank Blocker for a Barbecue Grill." R. 347-1, '874 Patent at 2. The patent claims various "barbecue grill assembl[ies]," id. at 11, which all include "a cooking chamber, a frame assembly, and a tank blocking structure." Id. Some claims also include grease drip trays, grease drip pans, and fuel tanks. Id. at 10 (e.g., Claim 14).The gist of the patent is to use a tank-blocking structure to prevent the grill user from storing a spare gas tank in the grill cart and, for some claims, to integrate the tank-blocking structure with the grease-catching components. By integrating tank blocking (a safety measure that some grill users avoid for convenience's sake) and grease catching (something grill users must have), the inventors hoped to force the user to install the tank blocker in the first place and to keep the user from removing it. Id. at 8 ().
Figure 3 shows an example of the invention:
Image materials not available for display.
Id. at 5. Here, component Nos. 64 and 62 are the tank-blocking structure and No. 66 is a "recess (or holder or support) for supporting a grease drip pan," which is notitself shown in this figure. Id. at 9 (Detailed Drawing Description). Grease is collected in the "grease drip tray," which is component No. 80, and is "direct[ed] to the grease drip pan" resting on top of the tank-blocking structure. Id.
Weber's '045 design patent (U.S. Design Patent No. 609,045) claims "the ornamental design for a grill, as shown and described." R. 328-1, '045 Patent. This is a "perspective view of a grill embodying the invention."
Image materials not available for display.
And here is "a front view."
Image materials not available for display.
And "a rear view."
Image materials not available for display.
And finally "a left side view."
Image materials not available for display.
Worth noting is that several prominent features are drawn in broken lines and therefore not claimed as part of the patented design. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1503.02.II (broken lines indicate unclaimedfeatures). These include the temperature gauge, the "Weber" nameplate, the trim and handles on the grill cart doors, the casters, and the burner knobs.
Weber's '834 Design Patent (really U.S. Design Patent No. 564,834) claims "the ornamental design for a shroud for a barbecue grill, as shown and described" in seven figures. R. 334-1, '834 Patent at 2. Here is "a perspective view of a shroud for a barbecue grill showing our new design":
Image materials not available for display.
And here is "a right side view":
Image materials not available for display.
Weber's patent-infringement arguments are directed at four "series" of Sears's Kenmore Elite grills. According to Weber, the Kenmore Elite 500 Series grills infringe on the '874 utility patent. And, as to both design patents, Weber accuses the Kenmore Elite 500, 550, 600 and 700 Series grills of infringement.
The 500/550 grills look like this from the front:
Image materials not available for display.
R. 423-1, Exemplars.
And like this from the back:
Image materials not available for display.
And like this from the side:
Image materials not available for display.From the side and back, the 600 and 700 Series grills are similar enough to the 500/550 series that additional pictures are unnecessary here (though the Court has reviewed them and considered the differences). The main differences are visible from the front. Here is the 600 Series:
Image materials not available for display.
And here is the 700 Series:
Image materials not available for display.
The parties agree that the differences within a particular series are immaterial to the design patent infringement analysis. Stipulation at 1-2. But they ask the Court to consider each of the three series separately for infringement purposes. Id. The upshot of this is that if any one of a particular series of grills infringes on one of Weber's design patents, then all the grills in that series do too. Id. And, conversely, if any do not infringe, then none do.
Summary judgment is proper "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). A genuine dispute exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In evaluating summary judgment motions, courts must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). The Court may not weigh conflicting evidence or make credibility determinations, Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697, 704 (7th Cir. 2011), and must consider only evidence that can "be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence" at trial, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of showing that there is no genuine dispute and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Carmichael v. Village of Palatine, 605 F.3d 451, 460 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Wheeler v. Lawson, 539 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2008). If this burden is met, the adverse party must then "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256.
The analysis of the motions proceeds as follows. First, the Court will address the parties' challenges to each other's proffered expert-opinion evidence. Then, the Court will consider the '874 patent, addressing infringement and then validity. Lastly, the Court will turn to the design patents, assessing first the infringement question as to both and then validity as to both.
Summary judgment is about determining whether the evidence justifies a trial. To do that, the Court must first decide what counts as evidence. To remove a piece of evidence from consideration on summary judgment, "[a] party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence [at trial]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Here, Weber and Sears take aim at the admissibility of each other's expert evidence. Each challenged expert—Jim Gandy, John Holecek, and J. Michael Alden—will be addressed in turn.
Jim Gandy is Sears's design patent expert. R. 334-13, Gandy Rep. ¶ 1. Gandy opines that both the '834 patent and the '045 patent are invalid, each for several reasons. Gandy Rep. ¶¶ 2-6. Weber moves to exclude these opinions for two reasons. R. 372, Weber's '834 Resp. Br. at 1-2. Neither justifies exclusion.
First, Weber argues that Gandy is not qualified under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Id. The rule allows a witness to "testify in the form of anopinion or otherwise" if that witness is "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." Fed. R. Evid. 702. "[A] court should consider a proposed expert's full range of practical experience as well as academic or technical training when determining whether that expert is qualified to render an opinion in a given area." Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713, 718 (7th Cir. 2000). On-the-job experience counts as practical experience. See Walker v. Soo Line R. Co., 208 F.3d 581, 590-91 (7th Cir. 2000) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial