Duratech Industries v. Bridgeview Mfg Inc, No. 3:2005cv00090 - Document 175 (D.N.D. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Rodney S. Webb denying 151 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (LH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION Duratech Industries International, Inc., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. Bridgeview Manufacturing, Inc., Defendant. Case No. 3:05-cv-90 Memorandum Opinion and Order Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claims 1, 2, and 3 filed by Bridgeview (doc. #151). The Court will address the motion below, but because genuine issues of material fact remain, the motion is DENIED. I. Background Duratech sued Bridgeview for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement or patent invalidity regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,375,104 ( the 104 Patent ). On July 16, 2007, the Court issued its Markman Hearing Memorandum and Opinion, in which it construed the manipulator limitation as a means-plus-function limitation (doc. #100). The Court later denied all summary judgment motions due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact (doc. #134). Pursuant to the parties stipulation, the Court entered a judgment of noninfringement on December 18, 2007 (doc. #142). On September 12, 2008, the Federal Circuit vacated the Court s claim construction, finding that the Court 1 incorrectly construed the critical claim element of the 104 patent as a means-plus-function limitation (doc. #145). II. Discussion Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issues of material fact remain and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Summary judgment may be granted when no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). Bridgeview argues that all the limitations of claim 1 of the 104 patent are present in Duratech s 2650 Balebuster and 2800 Balebuster, including the claimed manipulator and container right side wall and back wall. Furthermore, Bridgeview contends that Duratech has conceded that its 2650 Balebuster and 2800 Balebuster contain the added limitations of claims 2 and 3. However, Bridgeview appears to have skipped a step from the Federal Circuit s Opinion to its current motion for summary judgment. While the Federal Circuit certainly vacated the application of means-plus-function treatment to the manipulator claim term, it did not provide an alternative claim construction of manipulator consistent with Bridgeview s current motion. Rather, the Federal Circuit merely remanded the Court s claim construction for further proceedings. 2 Duratech Indus. Int l, Inc. v. Bridgeview Mfg., Inc., 292 Fed. Appx. 931, 934-35 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, while the Court may not apply means- plus-function treatment, it must construe manipulator in a manner consistent with claim construction principles. Claim terms are generally assigned their ordinary and customary meanings, according to the customary understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art who reads them in the context of the intrinsic record. Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., - F.3d -, No. 2008-1466, 2009 WL 1553576, at *6 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2009). The specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). In this case, Bridgeview seeks a construction of manipulator consistent with its ordinary meaning. The Court is of the view, however, that such an overly broad construction would not be helpful to a jury because it could encompass virtually any structure that would drive the crop material into the disintegrator. More importantly, such a construction would contradict any sensible reading of the specification. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ( Courts may of course rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents. ) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 3 Viewing manipulator in light of the specification, it is clear the inventor sought to protect a more specific structure, namely, one with rollers.1 Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH v. Int l Trade Com n, - F.3d -, No. 2008-1358, 2009 WL 1377855, at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2009) ( We generally do not construe claim language to be inconsistent with the clear language of the specification; [u]sually, it is dispositive. ).2 The Federal Circuit recognized as much in its opinion, noting that [t]he 1 See col. 3 ll. 1-13 ( the support and manipulation mechanism includes at least two manipulator rollers rotatably mounted inside the container . . . wherein at least one roller is located on each side of the flail roller . . . The cross-section of the manipulator rollers may be substantially square . . . The paddles are positioned . . . through the axis of the manipulator roller . . . ); col. 3 ll. 33-37 ( The support mechanism further includes a number of hoops mounted . . . substantially perpendicular to the . . . manipulator rollers. ); col. 5 ll. 2029 ( The manipulation means 24 comprises at least two rollers 26 rotatably mounted inside the container . . . Each roller 26 extends between the front wall 100 and the back wall 102 of the container 10. Each roller 26 is rotatable about its own longitudinal axis in either direction usually by a hydraulic motor 262, though electrical motors may also be used. A pair of rollers 26 . . . defines a disintegration opening 28 . . . ); col. 5 ll. 34-36 ( In addition to rotating the baled crop material, the rollers 26 define a support surface on which the crop material 12 is supported. ); col. 6 ll. 22-23 ( In addition, the manipulator rollers 26 would continue to be rotatable in either direction . . . ); col. 8 ll. 38-39 ( The crop material 12 is loaded into the container 10 onto the rollers 26 and the hoops 22. ); col. 8 ll. 41-42 ( In addition to supporting the crop material 12, the purpose of the rollers 26 is to rotate the crop material 12 . . . ); col. 8 ll. 53 ( As the rollers 26 rotate the baled crop material . . . ); col. 8 ll 66-67 ( In accordance with the present invention, the manipulation means 24 which includes rollers 26 and walls 104 . . . ). 2 Bridgeview correctly notes that Duratech s reliance on a Canadian court case involving a similar patent to the 104 is misplaced. The analysis in that case, while interesting, is not controlling in this matter. However, in light of the specification, the Court believes that manipulator in this case involves a structure with rollers. 4 manipulator has rotating rollers which turn the bale above a simultaneously rotating disintegrator. Appx. at 932. Duratech, 292 Fed. Accordingly, the Court construes manipulator to mean a device that handles objects or materials with rollers. This definition is consistent with both the specification and the dictionary definitions set forth in the Federal Circuit opinion. Id. at 933-34. See Erbe, 2009 WL 1377855, at *6 (construing working in a manner consistent with both the specification and general dictionary definitions). Next, the Court proceeds to the second step of comparing the construed claims to the accused product. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., - F.3d -, Nos. 2007-1400, 2007-1446, 2009 WL 1371410, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2009). Applying the above claim construction, it is clear that all limitations of claim 1 of the 104 patent are not present in Duratech s 2650 Balebuster and 2800 Balebuster. The manipulator in claim 1 contains rollers inside the container to drive the crop material into the disintegrator. The alleged manipulator in Duratech s products, on the other hand, is comprised of a chain conveyor wholly distinct from the manipulator limitation in claim 1. The Court noted these differences more fully in its previous summary judgment order, albeit under a claim construction that is no longer applicable (doc. #134). Despite the different claim constructions, the fact remains that Duratech s alleged manipulator varies from the roller manipulator of claim 1. Therefore, due to the omission of the manipulator structure in its products, Duratech cannot 5 infringe claim 1. At the very least, questions of material fact remain as to whether the manipulator limitation is met in Duratech s products. Felix v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 562 F.3d 1167, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, Bridgeview s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claims 1, 2, and 3 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 10th day of June, 2009. 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
