Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co

W.D. Washington

Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co

DecidedSeptember 24, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00562

StatusUnknown

This text of Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co (Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 JAY SCHUYLEMAN, CASE NO. C23-0562JLR 11 Plaintiff, SHOW CAUSE ORDER v. 12 BARNHART CRANE AND 13 RIGGING CO., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court are the parties’ experts’ dueling definitions of “person of ordinary 16 skill in the art” (“POSITA”). (Perkin Decl. (Dkt. # 61-4) ¶ 41; Klopp Decl. (Dkt. # 61-9) 17 ¶ 18.) The claim construction analysis “requires attention to the level of skill assigned to 18 a person of ordinary skill in the art.” AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, 19 Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Cocona, Inc. v. VF Outdoor, LLC, 20 No. 16-cv-02703-CMA-MLC, 2024 WL 4124720, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2024) (“The 21 POSITA must be defined before claims can be construed because claim[] construction 22 1 turns on a POSITA’s perspective.”). The parties do not substantively discuss their 2 experts’ definitions of a POSITA in their claim construction briefing. (See generally Pl.

3 Opening Br. (Dkt. # 62); Defs. Opening Br. (Dkt. # 63); Pl. Resp. Br. (Dkt. # 64); Defs. 4 Resp. Br. (Dkt. # 65).) Because the parties’ experts’ POSITA definitions are not far 5 apart, and in the interest of efficiency, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause by no 6 later than Friday, September 27, 2024 at 12:00 p.m. as to why the court should not 7 adopt the following definition of a POSITA: 8 In this case, a “person of ordinary skill in the art”—also known as a “POSITA”—is someone with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical 9 engineering, structural engineering, applied physics, or a related field with at least four years of engineering experience analyzing, designing, or 10 developing construction equipment for rigging or crane-related devices. 11 Any party that disagrees with the court’s proposed definition must file a brief in 12 response to this order that explains why the court should adopt its expert’s POSITA 13 definition and discusses all relevant factors to be considered in determining the level of 14 ordinary skill in the art in this case. See Env’t Designs, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.3d 15 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (listing factors but noting that “[n]ot all such factors may be 16 present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a 17 particular case”). 18 Dated this 24th day of September, 2024. A 19 JAMES L. ROBART 20 United States District Judge 21 22

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 JAY SCHUYLEMAN, CASE NO. C23-0562JLR 11 Plaintiff, SHOW CAUSE ORDER v. 12 BARNHART CRANE AND 13 RIGGING CO., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court are the parties’ experts’ dueling definitions of “person of ordinary 16 skill in the art” (“POSITA”). (Perkin Decl. (Dkt. # 61-4) ¶ 41; Klopp Decl. (Dkt. # 61-9) 17 ¶ 18.) The claim construction analysis “requires attention to the level of skill assigned to 18 a person of ordinary skill in the art.” AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, 19 Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Cocona, Inc. v. VF Outdoor, LLC, 20 No. 16-cv-02703-CMA-MLC, 2024 WL 4124720, at *3 (D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2024) (“The 21 POSITA must be defined before claims can be construed because claim[] construction 22 1 turns on a POSITA’s perspective.”). The parties do not substantively discuss their 2 experts’ definitions of a POSITA in their claim construction briefing. (See generally Pl.

3 Opening Br. (Dkt. # 62); Defs. Opening Br. (Dkt. # 63); Pl. Resp. Br. (Dkt. # 64); Defs. 4 Resp. Br. (Dkt. # 65).) Because the parties’ experts’ POSITA definitions are not far 5 apart, and in the interest of efficiency, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause by no 6 later than Friday, September 27, 2024 at 12:00 p.m. as to why the court should not 7 adopt the following definition of a POSITA: 8 In this case, a “person of ordinary skill in the art”—also known as a “POSITA”—is someone with a Bachelor’s degree in mechanical 9 engineering, structural engineering, applied physics, or a related field with at least four years of engineering experience analyzing, designing, or 10 developing construction equipment for rigging or crane-related devices. 11 Any party that disagrees with the court’s proposed definition must file a brief in 12 response to this order that explains why the court should adopt its expert’s POSITA 13 definition and discusses all relevant factors to be considered in determining the level of 14 ordinary skill in the art in this case. See Env’t Designs, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.3d 15 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (listing factors but noting that “[n]ot all such factors may be 16 present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a 17 particular case”). 18 Dated this 24th day of September, 2024. A 19 JAMES L. ROBART 20 United States District Judge 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schuyleman v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuyleman-v-barnhart-crane-and-rigging-co-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack