Kirkland Erases Patent Trial It Says Never Should Have Happened
Brunswick Corp. couldn't quite escape a patent infringement trial in the Eastern District of Virginia after the Supreme Court's TC Heartland ruling. Instead it had to wait for Kirkland & Ellis to bail it out on appeal.
June 07, 2019 at 05:34 PM
3 minute read
Kirkland & Ellis has swum Brunswick Corp. to safety.
The recreational products company got hit with an $8 million judgment in 2017 for infringing the patent on a retractable swim step used on a competitor's boats.
Cobalt Boats won a sweeping victory before U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr., getting enhanced damages, attorneys fees and an ongoing royalty of $2,500 per swim step. But it was all washed out May 31 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On appeal, Brunswick and Kirkland argued that Brunswick never should have faced trial in the Eastern District of Virginia following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland ruling on patent venue, even though a Brunswick subsidiary does business there. Brunswick also argued that the damages were way out of line. Morgan had let Cobalt use the sale price of a boat as the starting point, and at one point referred to the entire market value rule as “the whole something rule.”
But the issue that ultimately got traction was Stewart's decision that a convoluted claim term— “configured to permit rotation of said step 180 degrees from a stored position above the water surface”—had a plain and ordinary meaning that could be construed by jurors.
B. Scott Eidson of Stinson Leonard Street argued to the Federal Circuit last month that the 180 degrees wasn't a hard-and-fast limitation, but instead simply a way of explaining that the top side of the step turns over to become the underside. “In the context of the invention, it flips over,” he told the Federal Circuit.
Kirkland partner John O'Quinn said the claim requires that the step rotate at least a full 180 degrees, and it was undisputed that Brunswick's step is deliberately designed not to rotate quite that far, to minimize the risk of swimmers slipping into the water. “The claims here don't say 'about 180 degrees,'” O'Quinn told the court. “The use of ordinary numbers does not suggest an approximation.”
The Federal Circuit agreed with O'Quinn and Brunswick in Cobalt Boats v. Brunswick. “Where a precise value is included in the claim without a term such as 'about,' we interpret the claim language as imposing a strict numerical boundary, absent evidence that such a construction would be inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence,” Judge Timothy Dyk wrote for a unanimous panel. Judges Jimmie Reyna and Evan Wallach concurred.
The court reserved judgment on venue and damages, though Dyk wrote that the court had “substantial reservations about the district court's damages rulings, which permitted Cobalt to present a damages calculation to the jury that used the profit of entire boats as its starting point—even though Cobalt concedes “that the swim step is not 'the basis' of demand” for Brunswick's boats.
The TC Heartland issue had almost led to a pretrial intervention, and much of the judges' questioning had focused on that issue. But the court ultimately left it for another day.
Quinn was joined on the briefs by Kirkland partner Nathan Mammen and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius partners Jason White and Michael Abernathy. Cobalt Boats was also represented by Troutman Sanders.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWho Got the Work: Latham & Watkins and Shumaker Defend NASCAR in Antitrust Case
4 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute read'Significant Relief': Big Law Firms Represent UFC in $375M Antitrust Settlement Agreement
2 minute read'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250