1 2
3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 10 CALIFORNIA EXPANDED CASE NO. C18-0659JLR METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, 11 et al., ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 12 Plaintiffs, v. 13
JAMES A. KLEIN, et al., 14 15 Defendants.
16 At the November 13, 2019, pretrial conference in this case, Plaintiffs California 17 Expanded Metal Products Company and Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC 18 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) informed the court that a dispute had arisen between the parties 19 about the proper interpretation of the court’s August 14, 2019, summary judgment order. 20 (See generally 11/13/19 Dkt. Entry (Dkt. # 125); see also 8/14/19 Order (Dkt. # 117).) 21 The court invited the parties to file a motion for clarification if they wanted the court to 22 weigh in on that dispute. (See generally id.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification the 1 following day. (See MFC (Dkt. # 127).) That motion is currently before the court. (See 2 id.) Defendants James A. Klein, Safti-Seal, Inc., and BlazeFrame Industries Ltd.
3 (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a response. (Resp. (Dkt. # 132).) Pursuant to a court 4 order, Plaintiffs did not file a reply. (See 11/15/19 Order.) 5 A. The Parties’ Positions 6 Plaintiffs indicate that the parties’ dispute centers on the court’s ruling on 7 Plaintiffs’ direct patent infringement claims. (See MFC at 2 (“The parties do not agree on 8 the scope of the Court’s ruling related to direct infringement . . . .”).) Specifically,
9 Plaintiffs direct the court to one sentence in the court’s summary judgment order at the 10 end of section on Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claims where the court states: “The court 11 therefore DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of literal 12 infringement and GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion on that claim.” (See id. (citing 13 8/14/19 Order at 25).) Plaintiffs ask the court to clarify “what ‘part’ of Defendants’
14 motion [for cross-summary judgment] did the Court grant.” (See id.) The thrust of 15 Plaintiffs’ argument is that the court’s order did not grant summary judgment in 16 Defendants’ favor on Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claims. (See id. at 2-5.) 17 Defendants’ agree with Plaintiffs that the parties’ dispute is over what the court 18 meant when it ruled: “The court therefore DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for
19 summary judgment of literal infringement and GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion on 20 that claim.” (See Resp. at 2 (citing 8/14/19 Order at 25).) Defendants argue, however, 21 that there is no need for clarification because “[t]he Court ruled (in a clear way) that 22 Plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that each accused 1 track product met each element of the asserted patent claims, and it therefore granted 2 Defendants’ summary judgment motion of no literal infringement.” (See id. at 5 (citing
3 8/14/19 Order at 24-25); see also id. at 8 (“The Court has ruled that no claim for literal 4 infringement by any track product remains in the case.” (citing 8/14/19 Order at 25).) 5 B. Analysis 6 When the court’s order is read as a whole, the scope of the court’s ruling on direct 7 infringement is clear. As it pertains to direct infringement, the order proceeded in two 8 distinct parts. First, the court found, as a matter of law, that the accused metal track
9 products include an “intumescent strip” that is “affixed . . . on” the sidewall surface 10 within the meaning of the Patents. (See 8/14/19 Order at 17-23, 25.) Thus, the court 11 granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on that issue and denied Defendants’ 12 cross motion on that issue. (See id. at 25.) Neither party disputes that portion of the 13 summary judgment order. (See generally MFC; Resp.)
14 Second, the court considered whether Plaintiff had proven that each of 15 Defendants’ accused products includes every limitation of the asserted patent claims. 16 (See id. at 23-25.) The court noted that resolution of the dispute over whether the metal 17 track products included an “intumescent strip” that is “affixed on” the sidewall surface 18 resolved only one of the limitations of the asserted claims and that “[a] plaintiff claiming
19 patent infringement bears the burden of proving that each accused product includes every 20 limitation of an asserted claim or an equivalent of each limitation.” (See id. at 23-24 21 (citing L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006).) On the 22 remaining claim elements, the court agreed with Defendants that Plaintiffs’ motion was 1 inadequately supported. (See id. at 24-25 (“Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions are, for 2 summary judgment purposes, woefully imprecise: despite a good-faith effort, the court
3 cannot determine which of the accused metal track products allegedly infringe all 4 elements of the asserted claims.”).) Thus, the court concluded that “[i]n view of these 5 deficiencies, the court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to show that 6 there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the accused metal track products include 7 the remaining limitations of the asserted claims.” (Id. at 25.) Or, stated otherwise, “[t]he 8 court further finds that Plaintiffs fail to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that the
9 accused metal track products meet the remaining limitations of the asserted claims.” (Id.) 10 When the court’s order is read as a whole, it is clear that the court ruled that 11 Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their summary judgment burden on the remaining limitations of 12 the asserted claims. (See id. at 23-25.) In fact, the court specifically stated that 13 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions “do nothing more than recite in conclusory fashion that all Safti-Seal products infringe all 14 claims, without actually identifying how and where,” and that this approach cannot carry Plaintiffs’ summary judgment burden. (Defs. MSJ/Resp. at 7.) 15 The court agrees with Defendants. 16 (8/14/19 Order at 24.) The portion of Defendants’ response and cross-motion that the 17 court cited and agreed with noted that “a patentee must prove that each product, or model 18 of product, it accuses of infringement actually meets all of the limitations of the claims it 19 asserts” and then argued that “Plaintiffs Motion falls far short of this standard,” which 20 meant that they had not shown “enough to obtain summary judgment.” (See Defs. 21 MSJ/Resp. (Dkt. # 104) at 7-8.) As the court explicitly stated, the argument at issue was 22 whether Plaintiffs had met “their burden to show that there is no genuine dispute of 1 material fact that the accused metal track products include the remaining limitations of 2 the asserted claims,” and the court concluded that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied
3 because they failed to carry that burden. (See 8/14/19 Order at 25.) 4 Defendants’ conclusion that the second portion of the court’s order on the 5 remaining claim elements “ruled that no claim for literal infringement by any track 6 product remains in the case” (see Resp. at 5-8) is not reasonable. Defendants are 7 well-aware that Plaintiffs’ failure to meet their summary judgment burden on direct 8 infringement is not the equivalent of Defendants meeting their burden on their
9 cross-motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claims. (See 10 Defs. MSJ/Resp. (Dkt. # 104) at 4 (“Summary judgment of noninfringement may be 11 granted if, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and 12 drawing all inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, there is no genuine issue whether patent 13 claims encompass the accused device.”).) The second portion of the court’s order that
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE
9 10 CALIFORNIA EXPANDED CASE NO. C18-0659JLR METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, 11 et al., ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 12 Plaintiffs, v. 13
JAMES A. KLEIN, et al., 14 15 Defendants.
16 At the November 13, 2019, pretrial conference in this case, Plaintiffs California 17 Expanded Metal Products Company and Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC 18 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) informed the court that a dispute had arisen between the parties 19 about the proper interpretation of the court’s August 14, 2019, summary judgment order. 20 (See generally 11/13/19 Dkt. Entry (Dkt. # 125); see also 8/14/19 Order (Dkt. # 117).) 21 The court invited the parties to file a motion for clarification if they wanted the court to 22 weigh in on that dispute. (See generally id.) Plaintiffs filed a motion for clarification the 1 following day. (See MFC (Dkt. # 127).) That motion is currently before the court. (See 2 id.) Defendants James A. Klein, Safti-Seal, Inc., and BlazeFrame Industries Ltd.
3 (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a response. (Resp. (Dkt. # 132).) Pursuant to a court 4 order, Plaintiffs did not file a reply. (See 11/15/19 Order.) 5 A. The Parties’ Positions 6 Plaintiffs indicate that the parties’ dispute centers on the court’s ruling on 7 Plaintiffs’ direct patent infringement claims. (See MFC at 2 (“The parties do not agree on 8 the scope of the Court’s ruling related to direct infringement . . . .”).) Specifically,
9 Plaintiffs direct the court to one sentence in the court’s summary judgment order at the 10 end of section on Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claims where the court states: “The court 11 therefore DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of literal 12 infringement and GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion on that claim.” (See id. (citing 13 8/14/19 Order at 25).) Plaintiffs ask the court to clarify “what ‘part’ of Defendants’
14 motion [for cross-summary judgment] did the Court grant.” (See id.) The thrust of 15 Plaintiffs’ argument is that the court’s order did not grant summary judgment in 16 Defendants’ favor on Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claims. (See id. at 2-5.) 17 Defendants’ agree with Plaintiffs that the parties’ dispute is over what the court 18 meant when it ruled: “The court therefore DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for
19 summary judgment of literal infringement and GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion on 20 that claim.” (See Resp. at 2 (citing 8/14/19 Order at 25).) Defendants argue, however, 21 that there is no need for clarification because “[t]he Court ruled (in a clear way) that 22 Plaintiffs had failed to produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that each accused 1 track product met each element of the asserted patent claims, and it therefore granted 2 Defendants’ summary judgment motion of no literal infringement.” (See id. at 5 (citing
3 8/14/19 Order at 24-25); see also id. at 8 (“The Court has ruled that no claim for literal 4 infringement by any track product remains in the case.” (citing 8/14/19 Order at 25).) 5 B. Analysis 6 When the court’s order is read as a whole, the scope of the court’s ruling on direct 7 infringement is clear. As it pertains to direct infringement, the order proceeded in two 8 distinct parts. First, the court found, as a matter of law, that the accused metal track
9 products include an “intumescent strip” that is “affixed . . . on” the sidewall surface 10 within the meaning of the Patents. (See 8/14/19 Order at 17-23, 25.) Thus, the court 11 granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on that issue and denied Defendants’ 12 cross motion on that issue. (See id. at 25.) Neither party disputes that portion of the 13 summary judgment order. (See generally MFC; Resp.)
14 Second, the court considered whether Plaintiff had proven that each of 15 Defendants’ accused products includes every limitation of the asserted patent claims. 16 (See id. at 23-25.) The court noted that resolution of the dispute over whether the metal 17 track products included an “intumescent strip” that is “affixed on” the sidewall surface 18 resolved only one of the limitations of the asserted claims and that “[a] plaintiff claiming
19 patent infringement bears the burden of proving that each accused product includes every 20 limitation of an asserted claim or an equivalent of each limitation.” (See id. at 23-24 21 (citing L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006).) On the 22 remaining claim elements, the court agreed with Defendants that Plaintiffs’ motion was 1 inadequately supported. (See id. at 24-25 (“Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions are, for 2 summary judgment purposes, woefully imprecise: despite a good-faith effort, the court
3 cannot determine which of the accused metal track products allegedly infringe all 4 elements of the asserted claims.”).) Thus, the court concluded that “[i]n view of these 5 deficiencies, the court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden to show that 6 there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the accused metal track products include 7 the remaining limitations of the asserted claims.” (Id. at 25.) Or, stated otherwise, “[t]he 8 court further finds that Plaintiffs fail to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that the
9 accused metal track products meet the remaining limitations of the asserted claims.” (Id.) 10 When the court’s order is read as a whole, it is clear that the court ruled that 11 Plaintiffs failed to satisfy their summary judgment burden on the remaining limitations of 12 the asserted claims. (See id. at 23-25.) In fact, the court specifically stated that 13 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions “do nothing more than recite in conclusory fashion that all Safti-Seal products infringe all 14 claims, without actually identifying how and where,” and that this approach cannot carry Plaintiffs’ summary judgment burden. (Defs. MSJ/Resp. at 7.) 15 The court agrees with Defendants. 16 (8/14/19 Order at 24.) The portion of Defendants’ response and cross-motion that the 17 court cited and agreed with noted that “a patentee must prove that each product, or model 18 of product, it accuses of infringement actually meets all of the limitations of the claims it 19 asserts” and then argued that “Plaintiffs Motion falls far short of this standard,” which 20 meant that they had not shown “enough to obtain summary judgment.” (See Defs. 21 MSJ/Resp. (Dkt. # 104) at 7-8.) As the court explicitly stated, the argument at issue was 22 whether Plaintiffs had met “their burden to show that there is no genuine dispute of 1 material fact that the accused metal track products include the remaining limitations of 2 the asserted claims,” and the court concluded that Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied
3 because they failed to carry that burden. (See 8/14/19 Order at 25.) 4 Defendants’ conclusion that the second portion of the court’s order on the 5 remaining claim elements “ruled that no claim for literal infringement by any track 6 product remains in the case” (see Resp. at 5-8) is not reasonable. Defendants are 7 well-aware that Plaintiffs’ failure to meet their summary judgment burden on direct 8 infringement is not the equivalent of Defendants meeting their burden on their
9 cross-motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claims. (See 10 Defs. MSJ/Resp. (Dkt. # 104) at 4 (“Summary judgment of noninfringement may be 11 granted if, after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and 12 drawing all inferences in the nonmovant’s favor, there is no genuine issue whether patent 13 claims encompass the accused device.”).) The second portion of the court’s order that
14 Defendants are trying to leverage certainly did not conclude that there were no genuine 15 disputes of material fact on Plaintiffs’ direct infringement claims, such that no rationale 16 trier of fact could find in Plaintiffs’ favor on direct infringement. (See 8/14/19 Order at 17 23-25.) To the contrary, the court explicitly stated that the court “DENIES Defendants’ 18 cross-motion for summary judgment of no literal infringement” (see id. at 25), making
19 Defendants’ claim that the court “granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion of no 20 literal infringement” (see Resp. at 5) nonsensical and disingenuous. 21 To ensure no further confusion, the court will issue an amended order pursuant to 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Rule 60(a) permits the court to “correct a clerical 1 mistake . . . arising from oversight . . . whenever one is found in a[n] . . . order.” Fed. R. 2 Civ. P. 60(a). Further, “[t]he court may do so . . . on its own, with or without notice.” Id.
3 As relevant here, Rule 60(a) “allows a court to clarify a judgment in order to . . . reflect 4 the necessary implications of the original order, [or] to ensure that the court’s purpose is 5 fully implemented.” Tattersalls, Ltd. v. DeHaven, 745 F.3d 1294, 1298 (9th Cir. 2014) 6 (citing Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012)). Clarifications 7 pursuant to Rule 60(a) are appropriate so long as the clarifications do not change an 8 order’s “operative, substantive terms,” and are instead done to maintain “fidelity to the
9 intent behind the original judgment.” See Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1078-80. 10 To correct its clerical mistake, the court will amend the sentence beginning at page 11 25, line 14 and ending at page 25, line 16 of the court’s August 14, 2019 summary 12 judgment order from: 13 The court therefore DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of literal infringement and GRANTS in part Defendants’ motion 14 on that claim.
15 to:
16 The court therefore DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of literal infringement. 17 The court will also amend the sentence beginning at page 43, line 14 and ending and page 18 43, line 17 of the court’s August 14, 2019 summary judgment order from: 19 The court therefore GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion 20 for summary judgment of direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 21 Defendants’ motion with respect to those claims. to: 22 1 The court therefore GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment of direct infringement, induced infringement, and 2 contributory infringement and DENIES Defendants’ motion with respect to those claims. 3 These amendments maintain fidelity to the intent behind the court’s original order. See 4 Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1078-80. No other amendments to the order are necessary. 5 Plaintiffs’ claims for direct and indirect infringement remain in the case, subject to the 6 terms of the court’s summary judgment order as amended.1 7 Dated this 22nd day of November, 2019. 8 A 9 10 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 The court also notes that, based on Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification, it appears as though Plaintiffs may no longer intend to assert at trial that “the Safti-Frame product . . . directly 21 infringe[s] any of the asserted claims that are directed to head-of-wall assemblies (i.e., those claims requiring studs and wallboard, among other things).” (See MFC at 3-4.) If that is indeed 22 the case, the court encourages the parties to so stipulate in order to narrow the issues for trial.