Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
NORDOCK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 11-cv-118
v.
Magistrate Judge William E Duffin
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
1. Stipulated Facts
The parties have not stipulated to any material facts.
8. The Systems, Inc. Hydraulic Dock Leveler that is at issue in this matter appears as
follows:
(Rebuttal Report of Systems Technical Expert, Adam Brookman Trial Exhibit 1009 at p. 13).
But it does not end there. Beyond the title, the rest of the 754 Patent makes clear that an
entire dock leveler is not intended as the article of manufacture.
The sole claim of the 754 patent reads, The ornamental design of a lip and hinge plate
for a dock leveler, as shown and described. A fair reading of this claim indicates that the
ornamental design is applied to the lip and hinge plate, not an entire dock leveler. Although
the lip and hinge plate may well be incorporated into a dock leveler, the plain language of the
claim recognizes that the lip and hinge plate are separately identifiable components that are
intended for a dock leveler, and do not constitute the entire dock leveler itself. This is fully
consistent with the recognition by the Supreme Court in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc.,
that the term article of manufacture is broad enough to embrace both a product sold to a
consumer and a component of that product, whether sold separately or not. (Emphasis
supplied.) Here, the plain language of the 754 Patent makes clear not only that the lip and
The description of Figure 1 of the 754 Patent reads, FIG. 1 is a perspective view
showing the lip and hinge plate for a dock leveler with the lip extended, and the hinge plate
secured to a deck frame shown in broken lines. This language clearly refers to the lip and
hinge plate for a dock leveler not to a dock leveler generally, and makes reference to a deck
frame shown in broken lines.
Similarly, the description of Figure 2 of the 754 Patent reads, FIG. 2 is a front view of
the lip and hinge plate for a dock leveler, and showing the deck frame, drive brackets and drive
bar opening in broken lines. Again, this language clearly refers to the lip and hinge plate for a
dock leveler not to a dock leveler generally, and again makes reference to other structures,
shown in broken lines.
A simple inspection of the 754 Patent reveals that each description of each of the seven
figures shown in the 754 Patent makes reference to the lip and hinge plate for a dock leveler
and makes reference to other partially shown structures shown in broken lines. As addressed
in greater detail in below, the effect of showing such partial structures in broken lines is that such
structures do not make up any part of the claimed design, and means that only the lip and hinge
plate, not the entire dock leveler, is the article of manufacture to which the design is applied.
Most importantly, however, is that nowhere in the 754 patent is an entire dock leveler
ever shown. Again, each and every figure contained in the 754 Patent shows only the lip and
hinge plate and never an entire dock leveler. Given the fact that the inventor himself not only
chose Lip and Hinge Plate For A Dock Leveler as the title of his invention but consciously
selected seven drawings, none of which depicts an entire dock leveler, to include in his patent, no
reasonable jury can conclude that the inventor somehow meant an entire dock leveler as the
relevant article of manufacture. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Again, nowhere
Figure 1 of the 754 Patent, which is illustrative of all the figures in the 754 Patent, is
reproduced here:
(Emphasis supplied).
As can be clearly seen in the remaining figures of the 754 Patent, only the lip and hinge
plate are shown in full. And indeed, in most of the drawings, virtually nothing else associated
that the article of manufacture to which the claimed design is applied is the lip and hinge plate
the article of manufacture to which the ornamental design is applied is an entire dock leveler.
Such a finding would go against the clear language of the 754 Patent, the structure actually
illustrated in each figure of the patent, and the clear disclaimer contained in the 754 Patent that
the structure shown in dotted lines is not claimed. As a matter of law, this Court can, and should,
hold that the article of manufacture to which the 754 Patent applies is not, and cannot be, the
(Rebuttal Report of Systems Technical Expert, Adam Brookman Trial Exhibit 1009 at p. 13).
In this photograph, the Systems dock leveler is shown in a raised position, with the lip
extended to show the lug hinge structure and whatever ornamental features make up the
claimed design. (It will be appreciated that, in normal use, the dock leveler is normally kept
lowered, with the lip hanging vertically downwardly, thereby covering the hinge structure and
rendering it completely invisible to ordinary observers. See Page 13 of the Expert Report of
Adam Brookman Addressing Professor Vissers Conclusion that Systems, Inc.s Dock Levelers
Infringe the 754 Patent, Trial Ex. 1009.) Even in this position, which best exposes the
underlying hinge structure, no reasonable jury can conclude that the ornamental design of the lip
and hinge structure claimed in the 754 Patent makes up more than only a small fraction of the
overall dock leveler product. No reasonable jury can conclude that the overall appearance of the
entire dock leveler is co-extensive with what is actually shown in the 754 Patent.
IV CONCLUSION
The relevant facts were established at trial and are already part of the record. More
importantly, the issue of what is the relevant article of manufacture can, and should be
determined by this Court on summary judgment, given that there are no genuine issues of
material fact. The 754 Patent is a legal document that can, and should, be interpreted by this
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
the following:
NORDOCK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 11-cv-118
v.
Magistrate Judge William E Duffin
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF PROPOSED MATERIAL FACTS PURSUANT TO
CIVIL L. R. 56 (b)(1)(B)&(C)
Defendant Systems, Inc. (System), in support of its motion for summary judgment,
hereby provides its Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Civil L. R. 56(b)(1)(B)&( C).
1. Stipulated Facts
The parties have not stipulated to any material facts.
(Rebuttal Report of Systems Technical Expert, Adam Brookman Trial Exhibit 1009 at p. 13).
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to
the following:
NORDOCK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 11-cv-118
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
Philip P. Mann declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that
the following facts are known or believed to be true:
1. I am one of the attorneys of record for SYSTEMS, INC., and make this
Declaration on personal knowledge.
2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of United States Design Patent
No. D579,754 (The 754 Patent), issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on
November 4, 2008.
3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Amicus Brief filed by the
United States in connection with Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Inc., 580 U. S. ____ (2016),
137 S.Ct. 429.
Dated August 25, 2017. Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Philip P. Mann
Philip P. Mann, WSBA No: 28860
MANN LAW GROUP
1218 Third Avenue, Suite 1809
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 436-0900
phil@mannlawgroup.com
(54) LIP AND HINGE PLATE FOR A DOCK 4,977,635 A 12/1990 Alexander 14/71.3
LEVELER
(Continued)
(76) Inventor: Denis Gleason, 18 Rebecca Court, Primary ExaminerT. Chase Nelson
Bowmanville, Ontario (CA) L1C 4N7 Assistant ExaminerKaren Acker
(74) Attorney, Agent, or FirmJeffrey S. Sokol; Cook &
(**) Term: 14 Years Franke S.C.
(22) Filed: May 31, 2007 The ornamental design of a lip and hinge plate for a dock
leveler, as shown and described.
Related U.S. Application Data DESCRIPTION
(60) Continuation of application No. 11/179,941, ledon FIG. 1 is a perspective view showing the lip and hinge plate
Jul. 12, 2005, now abandoned, which is a division of for a dock leveler with the lip extended, and the hinge plate
application No. 10/998,532, ledon Nov. 29, 2004, secured to a deck frame shown in broken lines;
now Pat. No. 7,013,519, which is a division of appli- FIG. 2 is a front view of the lip and hinge plate for a dock
cation No. 10/328,279, ledon Dec. 23, 2002, now leveler, and showing the deck frame, drive brackets and drive
Pat. No. 6,834,409. bar opening in broken lines;
FIG. 3 is a rear view of the lip and hinge plate for a dock
(51) LOC (8) Cl. ................................................ .. 08-06
leveler, and showing the deck frame, drive brackets and drive
(52) U.S. Cl. ..................................................... .. D8/323
bar opening in broken lines;
(58) Field of Classi cationSearch ........ .. D8/323329,
D8/354, 356; 14/69.5, 71.1, 71.3, 71.5, 71.7 FIG. 4 is a top view of the lip and hinge plate for a dock
See application lefor complete search history. leveler, and showing the deck frame in broken lines;
FIG. 5 is a bottom view of the lip and hinge plate for a dock
(56) References Cited
leveler, and showing the deck frame and drive brackets in
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS broken lines;
FIG. 6 is a side view of the lip and hinge plate for a dock
3,685,077 A 8/1972 Wiener et al. ................ .. 14/71
leveler showing the lip in its extended position, and the deck
3,835,497 A 9/1974 Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14/71
frame in broken lines; and,
3,882,563 A 5/1975 Smith et al. . . . . . . . . .. 14/71
3,967,337 A 7/1976 Artzberger .. 14/71.7 FIG. 7 is a side view of the lip and hinge plate for a dock
4,068,338 A 1/1978 Artzberger 14/71.3 leveler showing the lip in its pendant or lowered position, and
4,091,488 A * 5/1978 Artzberger 14/71.7 the deck frame in broken lines.
4,110,860 A * 9/1978 Neffet al. .... .. 14/71.7 The side view opposite FIG. 6 is a mirror image. The deck and
RE30,104 E * 10/1979 Burnham . 14/71.3 deck frame shown in broken lines in FIGS. 1 and 37, the
4,376,319 A * 3/1983 Bedford . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14/71.3 drive brackets shown in FIGS. 15, the drive bar opening
4,847,935 A 7/1989 Alexander et al. .... .. 14/71.3 shown in FIGS. 13, and the assist spring mounting bracket
4,920,598 A * 5/1990 Hahn ....................... .. 14/71.1 shown in FIG. 1 represent environmental structure in order to
4,928,340 A 5/1990 Alexander 14/71.3 show the claim in a condition of use and form no part of the
4,937,906 A 7/1990 Alexander 14/71.1 claimed design.
4,944,062 A 7/1990 Walker 14/71.3
4,974,276 A 12/1990 Alexander 14/71.3 1 Claim, 4 Drawing Sheets
4,979,253
5,001,799
A
A
12/1990
3/1991
Alexander ................ ..
A1eXandereta1~ ~~
14/71.7
14/711
ff,j
6,216,303
:
131*
15333 :i::::::.................... ..
4/2001 Massey
.
14/71.3
5,040,258 A * 8/1991 Hahn et a1. 14/71.3 6,317,914 B1* 11/2001 Preston N
III!
'1 I"
L_.___________.Ij'
I I
L: m
_.:_O. :0.
i Z:;::_ 1..
I
u,
_
__ q.
up
u.
4:- I
J..J[..
.1..-
,.l.__
____L4
1;]
n
n_____
I
n
H I
\_
A
rl
\_
FIG. 6
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
(I)
(III)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
Adams, Ex parte, 84 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 311 (1898) ........ 21
Alaska Dept of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA,
540 U.S. 461 (2004).............................................................. 31
American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.,
283 U.S. 1 (1931) ................................................................. 18
Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc.,
439 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................... 30
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
489 U.S. 141 (1989)................................................................ 2
Brand, Ex parte, 83 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 747 (1897) ......... 22
Brower, Ex parte, 4 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 450 (1873) .......... 22
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.:
222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) ..................................... 20, 28, 29
234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ............................13, 20, 21, 27, 29
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) .................................. 15
Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................... 14
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct.
1920 (2015) ........................................................................... 24
CasesContinued: Page
Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886) ................................. 11
Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885).... 11, 12
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665
(Fed. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1167
(2009) .......................................................................... 3, 28, 30
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230
(2009) .................................................................................... 23
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511
(1872) .................................................................2, 3, 18, 26, 30
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co.,
339 U.S. 605 (1950).............................................................. 29
Hadden, In re, 20 F.2d 275 (D.C. Cir. 1927) ....................... 18
Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 135 S. Ct. 907 (2015) ....... 30
Horvath v. McCord Radiator & Mfg. Co., 100 F.2d
326 (6th Cir. 1938), cert. denied, 308 U.S. 581 (1939) ...... 31
Hruby, In re, 373 F.2d 997 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ........................ 17
Johnson v. Johnston, 60 F. 618 (C.C.W.D. Pa. 1894) ........ 18
Kapp, Ex parte, 83 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 1993 (1898) ......... 22
Kellman v. Coca-Cola Co., 280 F. Supp. 2d 670 (E.D.
Mich. 2003)............................................................................. 4
Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) ................................ 23
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S.
370 (1996) ............................................................................. 28
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC,
134 S. Ct. 843 (2014) ........................................................... 31
Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437
(Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946 (1999) .......... 13
Nordock, Inc. v. Systems Inc., 803 F.3d 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2015), petition for cert. pending,
No. 15-978 (filed Jan. 28, 2016) ............................................ 5
Pullman Couch Co. v. Union, 39 U.S.P.Q. 100
(D. Md. 1938) ....................................................................... 22
CasesContinued: Page
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) ............................ 5
SEC v. Teo, 746 F.3d 90 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 675 (2014) ........................................................... 31
Schnell, In re, 46 F.2d 203 (C.C.P.A. 1931) .......................... 3
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.,
309 U.S. 390 (1940).............................................................. 27
Simpson v. Davis, 12 F. 144 (E.D.N.Y. 1882) .................... 22
SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp.,
926 F.2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ........................................... 30
Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136 (1888) ........................... 14
Untermeyer v. Freund, 58 F. 205 (2d Cir. 1893) ................ 12
WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Prods. Ltd., 542 F.3d 601
(7th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 13
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205
(2000) ...................................................................................... 2
Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F. 966
(6th Cir. 1920) ................................................................ 21, 28
Miscellaneous:
Blacks Law Dictionary:
(1st ed. 1891) .................................................................... 17
(10th ed. 2014) .................................................................. 17
8 Donald S. Chisum, Chisum on Patents (2014) .... 2, 3, 4, 18
P.J. Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act,
75 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Socy (1993) ......................... 13
H.R. Rep. No. 1966, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886) ... 12, 16, 25
Giuseppe Macri, Patent Trolls Are Already Abusing
the Apple v. Samsung Ruling, InsideSources
(Oct. 1, 2015), http://www.insidesources.com/
patent-trolls-are-already-abusing-the-apple-v-
samsung-ruling/ .................................................................. 24
1 James A.H. Murray, A New English Dictionary
(1888) .................................................................................... 17
Patent Law Codification and Revision: Hearings
on H.R. 3760 Before Subcomm. No. 3 of the Comm.
on the Judiciary, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) .................. 13
1 William C. Robinson, The Law of Patents for Use-
ful Inventions (1890) .......................................................... 18
S. Rep. No. 206, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886)...................... 12
The American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1992) ............. 11
MiscellaneousContinued: Page
11 The Oxford English Dictionary (1st ed. 1933) .............. 11
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (rev. 9th ed. 2015) ............... 2, 3, 28
Websters New International Dictionary of the
English Language (W.T. Harris ed., 1917)...................... 17
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
(1)
1
Design patents are also distinct from trade dress, which pro-
tects a distinctive visual appearance of a product as a unique signi-
fier of the source of goods. Design patents protect designs without
regard to whether consumers associate a specific design with a
particular source of goods. See 15 U.S.C. 1125(a); Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., 529 U.S. 205, 214 (2000).
2
In virtually all the reported cases, the accused article is of the
same nature as the patented one. 8 Chisum 23.05[2], at 23-186.
If a design were applied to an article different from the one claimed
in the patent, the existence of infringement would turn on the nature
3
The jury also found dilution of respondents trade dresses and
infringement of its utility patents. Pet. App. 4a. The court of ap-
peals affirmed the utility-patent verdict and damages, and vacated
the trade-dress verdict. Ibid. Those rulings are not at issue here.
4
While the 1887 Act was limited to knowing infringement, Con-
gress omitted the knowledge requirement in Section 289. 35
U.S.C. 289.
5
Section 289s total profit measure of recovery is unique in
intellectual property law. In copyright and trademark cases, the
plaintiff is entitled to recover the infringers profits only to the
extent they are attributable to the infringement. 17 U.S.C. 504(b);
WMS Gaming Inc. v. WPC Prods. Ltd., 542 F.3d 601, 607 (7th Cir.
2008). In utility-patent cases, the Patent Act does not permit the
recovery of an infringers profits. The patent laws previously
authorized that remedy, however, and the Court construed the
relevant provision to encompass only those profits attributable to
the infringement. Patent Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, 55, 16 Stat.
206; see Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 146 (1888).
6
In an infringement suit, the court determines the proper con-
struction of the patent claims, and the jury determines, based on
the courts construction, whether the defendant has infringed the
patent. See Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665,
679 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1167 (2009);
see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370,
372 (1996). In identifying the relevant article of manufacture
under Section 289, the jury can similarly take into account the
courts construction of the claims.
7
While petitioners were precluded from presenting certain evi-
dence (Pets. Br. 20), that evidence appears to have related primari-