Wyers Prod.s Group Inc. v. Master Lock Co.
| Decision Date | 12 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2009-1412.,2009-1412. |
| Citation | 616 F.3d 1231 |
| Parties | Philip W. WYERS and Wyers Products Group, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Mark Lee Hogge, Greenberg Traurig LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Robert Phillip Charrow and Laura Metkoff Klaus. Of counsel on the brief was Aaron P. Bradford, Lathrop & Gage LLP, of Denver, CO.
Aldo Noto, Andrews Kurth, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Frederick S. Frei and Lori Eden Burgess.
Before LOURIE, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge LINN.
Master Lock Company LLC (“Master Lock”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in favor of Philip W. Wyers and Wyers Products Group, Inc. (collectively, “Wyers”). A jury found that Master Lock failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that claims 15, 19, 21, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 6,672,115 (the “'115 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,165,426 (the “'426 patent”), and claims 1, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 7,225,649 (), would have been obvious. The district court denied Master Lock's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”). Wyers v. Master Lock Co., No. 06-cv-00619-LTB, 2009 WL 1309774 (“ JMOL Order ”). We reverse, as we find that the claims in the patents-in-suit would have been obvious as a matter of law.
The patents at issue in this case cover hitch pin locks that secure trailers to cars and sport utility vehicles. A hitch pin secures a draw bar or tow ball mount to a hitch receiver attached to a motor vehicle. The hitch pin passes through aligned apertures in the trailer hitch receiver and draw bar in order to secure the two members together. The patents describe a barbell-shaped lock with a stop portion on one end, a locking head on the other end, and a shank portion which passes through the aligned apertures of the hitch receiver and the towball mount.
The use of a lock in a trailer hitch receiver was well known in the art prior to the '115 and '426 patents. Like the patented inventions, U.S. Patent No. 5,664,445 (the “Chang patent”) discloses a lock with a lock head, a shackle having a stop member, a shank, and a latch. The lock is shown being used as a hitch pin lock. The following figure shows the prior art configuration:
Chang Patent, Figure 8
The use of barbell-shaped locks, such as those described in the patents-in-suit, was also well known in the prior art. U.S. Patent No. 4,711,106 (the “Johnson patent”) discloses a hitch pin lock. See Johnson patent col.1 ll.6-11; see also U.S. Patent No. 5,284,038 patent col.1. ll.6-10. The Johnson patent shows a barbell-shaped lock being used as a trailer hitch receiver lock:
Johnson Patent, Figure 1
Wyers' own patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,055,832 (the “'832 patent”), discloses a barbell-shaped locking device comprising a locking head, a shackle having a stop member, a shank, and a latch. See 832 patent also shows a barbell-shaped lock being used as a hitch pin lock in a manner very similar to Figure 1 of the Johnson patent. See id. figs.1-2.
The patents-in-suit claim improvements to the prior art locks. The 2 115 patent depicts the claimed invention.
'115 Patent, Figure 5
The claimed sleeve slides over the shank of the hitch pin lock, increasing the diameter of the shank and enabling use with trailer hitch receivers of different apertures, see '115 patent Abstract, particularly the 1/2 inch and 5/8 inch apertures that are the industry standard for certain towing applications. The '115 patent touts the invention's primary benefit, namely its size adaptability. Id. col.1 ll.15-18, col.2 ll.20-36, 45-47. The removeable sleeve is not claimed to improve the locking or towing functions, but is claimed to be desirable because it allows for “a single locking unit [to] be used for a number of varied size locking requirements,” id. col.2 ll.32-34, thus saving retailers shelf space. Claim 15 of the '115 patent is representative:
426 patent col.11 ll.17-20. The specifications for the '115 patent and '426 patent are very similar.
The '649 patent claims an improved locking device with an external seal designed to insulate the locking mechanism of the lock from the ingress of contaminants. '649 patent col.7 ll.13-15. Claim 1 of the '649 patent is representative:
Id. col.8 ll.13-47. The head cover, which encases the locking head, is preferably made of a “stiff yet resilient material,” and the seal structure is formed by the flange portion that extends inwardly from the cover. Id. col.3 ll.48-50; id. col.7 ll.7-15.
A major manufacturer, Master Lock, offered for sale locks that allegedly fell within the claims of the 3 426 patent claims except the use of the sleeve to adjust the operative thickness of the shank. Moreover, it was undisputed that Wyers' own Trimax T2 and T3 barbell-shaped locks on sale prior to the ' 115 patent priority date also satisfied every limitation of the asserted claims of the '115 and ' 426 patents but those for the sleeve. Master Lock asserted that the sleeve claims would have been obvious over the combination of the prior art locking devices, inter alia, in combination with U.S. Patent No. 3,963,264 (the “Down patent”), or in combination with Master Lock's 37D padlock. Thus, as the district court described, the relevant question for the jury's consideration with respect to the asserted sleeve patent claims was “whether Master Lock presented clear and convincing evidence that the use of a sleeve to adjust the operative thickness of a shank would have been obvious.” See JMOL Order, 2009 WL 1309774, at *3.
Similarly, the external seal is concededly the only feature of the '649 seal patent that distinguishes it from the Chang patent and the '832 patent. 4 Master Lock argued that the patented device would have been obvious over the combination of the prior art locking devices...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.
...claims obvious. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, "[o]bviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact." Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The underlying factual inquiries include: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the ......
-
R-BOC Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer
...And so, despite all the evidence regarding the R–BOC defendants' willfulness, like deliberate copying, see Wyers v. Master Lock Co. , 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed.Cir. 2010) ; Beery v. Gemstar Development Corp. , 70 F.3d 129 (Fed. Cir. 1995), we felt constrained not to find willfulness and awar......
-
Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
...expert testimony "to establish ... the existence (or lack thereof) of a motivation to combine references." Wyers v. Master Lock Co. , 616 F.3d 1231, 1240 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2010). But it has declined to adopt "a per se rule that expert testimony is required to prove infringement when the art is......
-
Lecat's Ventriloscope v. MT Tool & Mfg.
...Rather, "expert testimony is not required when the references and the invention are easily understandable." Wyers v. Master Lock Co. , 616 F.3d 1231, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In Wyers v. Master Lock Co. , 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010), for example, the district court denied the defendant's m......
-
EDVA Judge Invalidates Patent On Satellite-Based Emergency Notification System
...claimed invention is obvious even without expert testimony, if the invention is "easily understandable," citing Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should ......
-
Federal Circuit Clarifies Standard For Prior Art In Obviousness Analysis
...prior art it must be "reasonably pertinent to the particular problem solved by the inventor." Id. (citing Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). To be reasonably pertinent, the reference "'logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in consider......
-
Chapter §9.06 Graham Factor (4): Secondary Considerations
...in the Twenty-First Century: KSR v. Teleflex (U.S. 2007)").[256] Apple, 816 F.3d at 804 (quoting Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 417); citing also Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (stating ......
-
Appendix A-1 Paragraph IV Notice Letter
...cases, evidence of secondary considerations “simply cannot overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co. , 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In the context of compound patent challenges, obviousness “generally turns on the structural similarities between t......
-
Chapter §9.09 The Prima Facie Case of Obviousness
...of nonobviousness . . . simply cannot overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness.' " Id. at *21 (citing Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Thus, the district court weighed that evidence against the conclusion that the order and detail of the steps would ......
-
Chapter §9.03 Graham Factor (1): Scope and Content of the Prior Art
...(Fed. Cir. 1993). The Federal Circuit treats whether a reference is analogous art as a question of fact. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2010).[152] See Circuit Check, 795 F.3d at 1334, observing that (record citations omitted): [t]he district court . . . found ......