Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

August 29, 2017

THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD., TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OWT INDUSTRIES, INC., ET TECHNOLOGY WUXI CO. LTD., and RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Defendants.

          Jason C. White, Michael J. Abernathy, Sanjay K. Murthy, Nicholas A. Restauri, Jesse T. Dyer, Caroline S. Lourgos Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Margaret A. McGreal, Sean C. Cunningham, Erin Gibson, Stanley Panikowski, DLA PIPER LLP Attorneys for Defendants Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., One World Technologies Inc., OWT Industries, Inc., and Ryobi Technologies, Inc.

          Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber Judge

          DEFENDANTS' RULE 50(A) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AS TO INVALIDITY

          Sydney Schenkier Magistrate Judge

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         PAGE

         I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 1

A. Legal Standard for Judgment as a Matter of Law .................................................. 1
B. Legal Standard for Invalidity .................................................................................. 2
C. Legal Standard for Section 101 Unpatentability .................................................... 2

         III. TTI HAS PROVEN INVALIDITY OF THE '275 PATENT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE .............................................................................................. 3

A. Menard PCT Anticipates the '275 Patent ............................................................... 4
B. The Combination of Menard PCT and Cohen Renders Obvious the '275 Patent Asserted Claims......................................................................................... 11

         IV. TTI HAS PROVEN INVALIDITY OF THE '966 PATENT BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ............................................................................................ 12

         V. TTI HAS PROVEN THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE PATENT-INELIGIBLE ........... 25

         VI. CGI HAS NOT PROVEN IT IS ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF .................................... 26

         VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 27

         TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

         Page(s)

         CASES

         Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) .................................................................................................... 2, 3, 26

         Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) .................................................................................................................. 2

         Brown v. Snow, 94 F. App'x 369 (7th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................ 1

         Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 2, 3

         Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 1

         Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 47 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................... 1

         KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 2

         Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) .................................................................................................................. 26

         Spansion, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 629 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 2

         Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 3

         Williams v. Chavez, 248 F.3d 1162 (7th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................... 1

         STATUTES

         35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim

         35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................................................... 2, 3, 12

         35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................................... 2, 3, 12

         35 U.S.C. § 284 ............................................................................................................................. 27

         OTHER AUTHORITIES

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 (a)(1) ............................................................................................................ 1, 27

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), Defendants Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., One World Technologies Inc., OWT Industries, Inc., and Ryobi Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “TTI”) hereby move for entry of judgment as a matter of law that claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7, 224, 275 (“the '275 patent”) and claims 14, 17, and 18 of U.S. Pat No. 7, 635, 966 (“the '966 patent”) are invalid, including the claims from which the asserted claims depend.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Legal Standard for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

         Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to grant judgment as a matter of law if “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 (a)(1). The court “must presume that the jury resolved all factual disputes in favor of the prevailing party, and . . . must leave those findings undisturbed as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Substantial evidence requires more than a mere scintilla . . . and [the court] must review the record as a whole, taking into consideration evidence that both justifies and detracts from the jury's decision.” Id.; see also Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 47 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 1995) (“Conclusory allegations by the party opposing the motion cannot defeat the motion.”); Williams v. Chavez, 248 F.3d 1162 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming JMOL when plaintiff “offered no evidence to support [a] speculative and conclusory assertion); Brown v. Snow, 94 F. App'x 369, 372 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating that a “conclusory assertion is not enough to overcome judgment as a matter of law.”).

         B. Legal Standard for Invalidity.

         A patent claim is invalid as anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a single prior art reference describes “every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Spansion, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A patent claim is invalid as obvious if the “differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007).

         C. Legal Standard for Section 101 Unpatentability.

         Under section 101 of the Patent Act, “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010). The fundamental concern underlying these limitations is that “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotations, citations, and alterations omitted).

         Alice provides a two-step inquiry for adjudicating patent eligibility under section 101. The Court must first “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to” a “patent-ineligible concept[].” Id. at 2355. If so, the Court must then “determine whether [any] additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application …. [presenting an] ‘inventive concept.'” Id. (citations omitted). Determinations of ineligibility under section 101 can be made on the basis of representative claims of the patents at issue. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

         After finding an abstract idea, the Court must search for an “inventive concept” by determining whether “an element or combination of elements … amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quotations omitted; brackets in original). If the claims merely add “conventional” activity or recitations “limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, ” they fail under section 101. Id. at 2357-59 (quotations omitted). As the Court in Alice explained, taking an otherwise ineligible abstract idea and merely adding “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry” is also not enough. Id. at 2359 (quotations and alterations omitted). For example, applying an abstract idea on a generic computer or limiting the idea to a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.