Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., No. 2:2015cv00021 - Document 459 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. The Court DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause (ECF No. 427). See Order for details. Signed by District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr on 12/11/2018. (jrin)

Download PDF
Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc. Doc. 459 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division COBALT BOATS,LLC, Plaintiff, V, Civil Action No. 2:15cv21 SEA RAY BOATS,INC.& BRUNSWICK CORP., Defendants. OPINION & ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Cobalt Boats, LLC's ("Plaintiffs" or "Cobalt's") Motion to Show Cause Why Brunswick Corporation Should Not be Held in Contempt of the Court's Permanent Injunction (the "Motion"). Doc. 427. A hearing for this matter took place on November 29, 2018. For the reasons stated below,the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion. I. BACKGROUND On June 21, 2017, a jury returned a verdict finding that the swim steps on Brunswick's boats(the "Litigated Design") infringed claims 4 and 5 of Cobalt Boats''880 Patent. Doc. 338.' The jury found that Brunswick the Litigated Design infringed claim 4 of the '880 Patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, and that Defendant had infringed 5 of Plaintiffs '880 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents only. Id. Claim 5 is an independent claim and Claim 4 depends on Claim 1 of the '880 patent. Claims 1,4, and 5 are reproduced below: 'The parties also entered into a Stipulation prior to trial that "[t]o the extent that Cobalt prevails and obtains an injunction against Defendants, the injunction will apply equally to the Delrin washer used in the Sea Ray 220 and 240 Sundeck models sold in or before March 2017, and Defendants will not argue that such Delrin washers are outside ofthe scope ofthe injunction." Doc. 315 at 2. The Delrin washer used in the Sea Ray 220 and 240 Sundeck models is referred to as the "Stipulated Design." Dockets.Justia.com

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.