Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
17-1314
ADVANTEK MARKETING,INC.,
Plaint~Appellant,
v.
749935.1
K. Andrew Kent
RINCON VENTURE LAW GROUP
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 215
Westlake Village, California 91361
Telephone: (805)557-0580
Facsimile: (805)373-0051
749935.1
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
2. The naive of the real party in interest (if the party named in the
3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
percent or more ofthe stock ofthe party or amicus curiae represented by me are:
None.
4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that
appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or are
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
~a~~~~ ~ i
Keith J. Wesley,Browne George Ross LLP;
Jaye G. Heybl and Brian M.Fitzgerald, Koppel Patrick Heybl & Philpott;
749935.1 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
749935.1 111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
Page
749935.1 1V
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Pages)
EDERAL CASES
Chang v. Chen,
80 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1996)........................................................................... 30
Gomez v. Toledo,
446 U.S. 635 (1980)......................................................................................... 27
In re Webb,
916 F.2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1990)....................................................................... 21
In ~e Zahn,
617 F.2d 261 (C.C.P.A. 1980)......................................................................... 15
749935. I V
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cont'd)
Pages)
Peterson v. California,
604 F.3d 1166(9th Cir. 2010)......................................................................... 13
Sharkey v. O'Neal,
778 F.3d 767(9th Cir. 2015)........................................................................... 30
Turner v. Cook,
362 F.3d 1219(9th Cir. 2004)......................................................................... 13
749935.1 VI
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cont'd)
Pages)
FEDERAL STATUTES
28 U.S.C. 1295(a)..................................................................................................1
28 U.S.C. 1338(a)..................................................................................................1
RULES
OTHER AUTHORITIES
749935.I V 11
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Counsel are unaware of any related cases within the meaning of Federal
749935.1 V 111
I. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The district court had subject matter jurisdiction of this action under 28
brought a claim for design patent infringement. The district court entered its final
analysis, denying leave to amend the design patent infringement claim for the first
time?
//
//
//
//
//
749935,1 1
III. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
housing unit called the "Pet Gazebo." An example of the Pet Gazebo is depicted
immediately below.
product award. It had a unique, novel design, and customers loved its portability.
for pet owners who wanted to take their pets with them, whether to a friend's
~a9~~s i 2
To protect its unique Pet Gazebo design from copycats, Advantek applied
Advantek elected to patent the skeletal structure of the gazebo, omitting the vinyl
cover, seen above, from the scope of the patent. The patent issued; thus Advantek
749935.1 3
After Advantek obtained its design patent, an Advantek executive
conspired with a former Advantek manufacturer to, among other things, create
and sell a knockoff version of the Pet Gazebo. The knockoff version, called the
"Pet Companion," is the subject ofthis infringement action and is depicted below.
Upon discovering the knockoff being offered for sale in the United States,
the Central District of California. Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
argued: (a) Advantek had surrendered a claim to the design of its gazebo with a
cover;(b) Defendants were selling a gazebo with a cover; thus (c) Advantek was
~~99~> , 4
estopped from asserting an infringement claim against Defendants' product
amend. In so doing, the district court erred as a matter of law for three primary
reasons.
First, it appears that the district court erroneously believed that Advantek
structure of Defendants' Pet Companion product. Advantek made this clear in its
motion for judgment on the pleadings. Nothing in the governing law prevents
' "Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe the claimed design of
the `006 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a-c), including but not limited to making,
using, offering for sale, and/or selling the patented design without the authority
of Advantek, and/or by contributing to and/or inducing such infringement of the
`006 patent." (Appx025)(emphasis added)
749935.1 S
Advantek from claiming that a component of Defendants' product infringes
Advantek's design patent in its component part. Indeed, as discussed below, this
Court has repeatedly confirmed that the infringement analysis extends throughout
the life cycle of a product and in the various contexts in which the product could
be viewed, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently reiterated that design patent
made by Defendants about them Pet Companion product were indisputably true.
As previewed above and explained in more detail below, if the skeletal structure
usage of the product, then the skeletal structure of Defendants' product could
pleadings e.g., does the consumer first assemble the skeletal structure and then
put the cover on it (as would seem logical)T, does the consumer at any later point
disassemble the structure, taking the cover off?; does the consumer ever leave off
the cover to, for example, provide more sun and air to her pet?; does the
749935.1 6
consumer move the Pet Companion from one location to another, or travel with it
(similar to the Pet Gazebo it allegedly sought to copy)?; does the consumer clean
the skeletal structure, clean the cover, or place bowls inside?; is the design of the
skeletal structure ever apparent in any ofthese instances? The district court could
complaint to further clarify the scope of the "accused product." The district
reversible error. Furthermore, had Advantek been given just one chance to
estoppel defense, it is more likely the district court would have grasped fully the
nature of Advantek's claims, thus avoiding this appeal. In short, the failure to
A. Relevant Facts
749935.1
traps to pet and farm housing products. (Appx021, Appx023) Advantek's CEO,
Joe Pomerantz, invented a novel design for an animal housing product designed
to look like agazebo i.e., the "Pet Gazebo" depicted on page 1 above which
issued as U.S. Patent No. D715,006 ("the `006 patent") on October 7, 2014.
(AppX014-018, Appx024)
requirement requiring Advantek to elect between (a) a design for the component
skeletal structure as a patentably distinct segregable part of the gazebo, and (b)
the gazebo design as a whole with the cover portion affixed to it. (Appx 181) In
this restriction requirement, the Examiner stated that "under the law a design
patent covers only the invention disclosed as an entirety, and does not extend to
patentably distinct segregable parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts
design of the patentably distinct segregable part that is the skeletal structure for
the gazebo design (Appx155), and obtained a patent on that component part on
749935.1 O
After the `006 patent issued, Mr. Pomerantz assigned the rights to
Advantek, which continues to own the entire right, title, and interest in the `006
patent. (Appx024) The Pet Gazebo has become one of Advantek's best-selling
Advantek's email server, phone and computer systems, and laptop to provide to
B. Procedural History
District of California on May 4, 2016. The case was assigned to the Honorable
Manuel L. Real.
749935.1 9
Before Defendants responded to the complaint, Advantek filed a first
amended complaint on June 24, 2016, adding claims for breach of contract and
(Appx041-065) Also on August 31, 2016, Defendants filed a Request for Judicial
without leave to amend. (Appx004-007) The district court did not explain why
leave to amend was not given. (Appx004-007) The district court did not hold a
hearing on the motion; it issued a ruling after taking the matter under submission.
Defendants.
to stipulation by the parties, the district court entered judgment against Advantek
749935.1 1
V. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of the doctrine of prosecution
history estoppel.
First, the district court erred in holding that "the allegedly infringing
Defendants' product infringes its design patent. Indeed, as discussed below, this
Court has repeatedly confirmed that the infringement analysis extends throughout
the life cycle of a product and in the various contexts in which the product could
749935.1 11
be viewed, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently reiterated that design patent
based on the look of the skeletal structure of Defendants' Pet Companion gazebo,
which is visible to consumers during the normal use and lifetime of the product.
made by Defendants about them Pet Companion product were indisputably true.
As previewed above and explained in snore detail below, if the skeletal structure
usage of the product, then the skeletal structure of Defendants' product could
infringe upon Plaintiff's design patent. The district court could not properly grant
key issue.
complaint. The district court's failure to explain why it denied leave to amend, in
itself, constitutes reversible error. Furthermore, had Advantek been given at least
one chance to clarify or expand upon its claim in an amended pleading, it is more
likely the district court would have grasped fully the nature of Advantek's claims,
749931. I 12
VI. ARGUMENT
A. Standard Of Review
This Court applies the procedural law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth
Circuit, when reviewing a district court's grant of a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 794 Fad 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(citing Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech Pha~inacal Co., 482 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir.
2007)). The Ninth Circuit reviews the grant of judgment on the pleadings de
novo, id. (citing Peterson v. California, 604 F.3d 1166, 1169(9th Cir. 2010)), and
"accept[s] all material allegations in the complaint as true and construes] them in
the light most favorable to [the non-moving party]," id. (citing Turner v. Cook,
362 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2004) (third alteration in original)). Issues of
statutory interpretation are also reviewed de novo. Id. (citing Qantas Airways
In Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, 739 F.3d
694, 702 (Fed. Cir. 2014), this Court clarified that the doctrine of "prosecution
affirmative defense involves three questions: "(1) whether there was a surrender;
749935.1 13
(2) whether it was for reasons of patentability; and (3) whether the accused design
is within the scope of the surrender." Id. The answer to all three of these
questions must be "yes" for prosecution history estoppel to apply.' For purposes
of this appeal, Advantek focuses solely on the third element i.e., "whether the
each element of which Defendants have the burden of pleading and proving. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1). Indeed, the district court recognized that Defendants bear
this burden, stating "Defendant[s] must prove that the accused product is within
In holding that the "accused design is within the scope of the surrender,"
the district court "determine[d] that the allegedly infringing product is exactly the
district court committed reversible error because Advantek never asserted its
In Pacific Coast, this Court found that only one of the three elements of the
test was not met (the accused design was not with the scope of surrender), but
because all three elements must be established, it held that prosecution history
estoppel principles did not bar Pacific Coast's infringement claim. See Pac.
Coast Marine Windshields Ltd., 739 F.3d at 702-05.
~499~s, 14
product. Rather, Advantek, which properly has a patent in the skeletal structure
of its Pet Gazebo, accused the skeletal structure of Defendants' product, which is
recognized as long ago as 1871, where the U.S. Supreme Court in Gorham Co. v.
WLiite, 81 U.S. Sll (1871), noted that the design patent in question was "a new
design for the handles of tablespoons and forks, which [were] under the name of
patent law today. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated: "[35 U.S.C.]
While the design must be embodied in some article, the statute is not limited to
designs for complete articles, or `discrete' articles, and certainly not to articles
separately sold ...." See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., 137 S. Ct. 429, 435
749935.1 15
damages, because consumers could not purchase those components separately
from the smartphones as a whole. Id. at 436. In reversing this Court, the
Supreme Court held that "the term `article of manufacture' is broad enough to
cover only an end product sold to a consumer gives too narrow a meaning to the
invest in product design, Advantek can protect the look of a component part and
stop the sale of a competing product that incorporates the same look for its
component part.
the skeletal structure was within the scope of a surrender during the prosecution
6 See Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vo~nado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826,
831 (2002)("plaintiff is `the master of the complaint"').
history of the `006 patent. That is not the case here, and certainly not a fact the
claimed design of the `006 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a-c), including but not
limited to snaking, using, offering for sale, and/or selling the patented design
Advantek alleged that Defendants were using Advantek's patented design i.e.,
the skeletal structure of the Pet Gazebo depicted in the Complaint without
permission.
"[B]y choosing to obtain a patent for the entirety of the design of the
749935.1 17
infringement of every infringing pet kennel product, whether or not
the accused additional parts, such as a cover, are combined with the
(Appx237)
in the package ghat can be added, or not, after the product's skeletal
disassembly." (Appx239-240)
"[N]othing precludes a buyer of defendants' products from using
them without a cover, once they are assembled, in which event the
entire structure and its design would be visible. And even when the
buyer elects to use the cover, the structure is still visible to anyone
who looks under the cover, such as when a pet owner puts a dog
water bowl or food bowl inside, and to anyone who cleans the
product." (Appx240)
The district court should have known that Advantek was accusing
Defendants' component skeletal structure, and not its cover, of infringement. The
district court's Order indicates the opposite. Had the district court recognized the
actual nature and scope of Advantek's claim, the district court would have
logically concluded that the accused product was not within the scope of a
surrender during the prosecution history of the `006 patent. Rather, the accused
product is solely within the scope of the elected design. Thus, prosecution
claim, is instructive. There, this Court found that prosecution history estoppel did
not apply on the grounds that the plaintiff did not accuse a design within the
Malibu Boats, LLC., 739 F.3d 694, 705 (Fed. Cir. 2014)("[s]ince the patentee
here does not argue that the accused design was within the scope of the
estoppel could arise"). Here too, had the district court recognized that the
component part of Defendants' product infringes a design patent for the look of
patentably distinct segregable parts; the only way to protect such segregable parts
is to apply fog separate patents." (Appx181)(emphasis added) The Examiner
continued: "[i]t is further noted that patentably distinct
combination/subcombination subject matter must be supported by separate
claims, whereas only a single claim is permissible in a design patent application."
(Appx181)
749935.1 G
the component itself. Indeed, the law ofthis Court confirms that the infringement
analysis extends throughout the life cycle of a product and in the various contexts
whether features of an accused product are visible during the normal use of the
product at any point during its lifetime. Indeed, "for purposes of design patent
visible during only one phase or portion ofthe normal use lifetime ofan accused
product. Instead, the comparison must extend to all ornamental features visible
during normal use of the product, i.e., `beginning after completion of manufacture
the article."' Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conag~a, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1380
Walg~eens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The plaintiff in International
Seaway sued for infringement of a design patent for Crocs clogs. The district
court granted summary judgment to the defendant, after comparing the exterior
portions of the patents-in-suit, but not the insoles of the designs, to the prior art.
The district court reasoned that when a shoe is in normal use, the insole is hidden
749935.1 21
by the user's foot; therefore the district court considered only "the sole of the
shoes as those are visible during use." Id. at 1237 (citing Intl Seaway Trading
Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 599 F. Supp. 2d. 1307, 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2009)).
This Court reversed, finding that the district court "misconstrued Contessa
as requiring that the normal use of a clog be limited to the tune when it is worn."
Intl Seaway, 589 F.3d at 1241. Rather,"normal use should not be limited to only
one phase or portion of the normal use lifetime of an accused product." Id. (citing
Keystone Retaining Wall Sys., Inc. v. Westrock, Inc., 997 F.2d 1444, 1450 (Fed.
The sale of a clog occurs after it has been manufactured and before it
is ultimately destroyed. Thus, the point of sale for a clog clearly
occurs during its normal use lifetime. At the point of sale, the insole
is visible to potential purchasers when the clog is displayed on a
shelf or rack and when the clog is picked up for examination.
Similarly, removing a clog from a wearer's foot also occurs after
manufacture and before destruction of the clog, so it also falls
squarely within the clog's normal use lifetime. The wearer may
remove the clog temporarily to stretch out his or her toes, leave the
clogs on the beach to go for a swim, or engage in countless other
activities that would leave the insole exposed.
Id. at 1241-42.
visible during assembly and disassembly of the product, a process which occurs
often during the lifetime of the Pet Companion, as these types of pet kennels are
small and transportable and are often used as portable housing for pets during
749935.1 22
camping and travel.9 Furthermore., the skeletal support structure of the Pet
Companion product is visible to ordinary users, using the product for its normal
use as a pet kennel. For example, the skeletal structure is visible when a user
places a dog food or water bowl in the Pet Companion product, when the user
cleans the inside of the Pet Companion product, or when the user replaces the
cover portion, for example, for cleaning or due to damage. Furthermore, the tarp-
like cover portion of the Pet Companion is not permanently affixed to the
prevent a user from utilizing the Pet Companion without the cover portion at all,
for example, when the Pet Companion product is set up indoors on a hot day in
least these reasons, the district court committed reversible error in disregarding
product.
9 Both Advantek with its Pet Gazebo product and Defendants with the Pet
Companion include statements regarding the portability of their respective
products in their marketing and/or packaging materials. Advantek notes that
Defendants in their 12(c) motion failed to allege any facts indicating the visibility
of their product's skeletal structure during ordinary use. Advantek submits that
Advantek is capable of further alleging the visibility of Defendants' skeletal
structure during normal use of the Pet Companion during its lifetime in an
amended pleading.
749935.] 23
iv. Affirming the district court's ruling would reward a
equitable defense.
Affirming the district court's ruling would result in this Court applying an
equitable defense to create an inequitable outcome and bad precedent. Take, for
example, a product designer who creates an innovative new lamp base design.
The designer responsibly applies for design patent protection. During the
prosecution, the designer restricts the scope of the patent to the base only i.e.,
the distinctive part of the lamp and excludes the relatively common,
uninteresting lamp shade. The designer makes this election in order to broaden
avoid infringement by copying exactly his innovative base design but adding a
wholly different lamp shade on top. By patenting the innovative base design
alone, the designer should be able to stop anyone from using his base, regardless
having the designer's iconic design. The designer sues the defendant to stop the
infringement. In response, the defendant asserts that it should not be held liable
because its lamp uses the coininon, uninteresting lamp shade in the designer's
74993.I 24
unelected embodiment. Thus, the defendant contends, it should be permitted to
Of course, it would be unjust and illogical ,to rule in favor of the defendant
and against the designer. The designer had done everything right. He had. created
the other hand, had done everything wrong. He had deliberately and shamelessly
copied a protected design. Nevertheless, under the district court's reasoning, the
history estoppel. There is nothing equitable about that outcome. Likewise, there
Advantek's patented design simply because they put atarp-like piece of plastic
over it. By affirming the district court's opinion in this case, this Court would
turn the law protecting design patents on its head and give deliberate infringers a
For these reasons, the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings should be reversed, and the case should be remanded
~~~~;~ ~ 25
C. The District Court Ignored Established Procedural Standards
Motion.
matters for the instant case is Ninth Circuit case law. See Afngen Inc. v. Sandoz
Inc., 794 F.3d 1347, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under Ninth Circuit precedent,
12(b)(6) because, under both rules, a court must determine whether the facts
alleged in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal remedy." Pit
Rives Vibe v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 793 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations
and internal quotation marks omitted)). "All allegations of fact by the party
opposing the motion are accepted as true, and are construed in the light most
Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir.
1989) (citing McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir.
1988)). Judgment on the pleadings is proper only "when there are no issues of
material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id.
749935.1 ?6
Defendants' 12(c) motion was apleading-stage challenge based entirely
Where, as here, an affirmative defense does not appear on the face of the
U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Seventh Circuit explained in Xechem, Inc. v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 372 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir. 2004), "[c]omplaints need
not contain any information about defenses and may not be dismissed for that
omission" (citing Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980)) (original emphasis).
"Only when the plaintiff pleads itself out of court that is, admits all the
claim be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)." Id.; see also Clifton v. Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt Pub. Co., 152 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1226 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
defense that was "not obvious from the face of the complaint"). No such
admissions were present on the face of the First Amended Complaint, and
Defendants' motion should have been denied by the district court for at least this
reason alone.
failed to establish any facts, conclusive or otherwise, about any pet products that
Defendants make, use, offer for sale, and sell. As set forth above, Advantek
749935.1 2/
obtained a design patent on a skeletal component part of its gazebo design, which
can be asserted if the skeletal structure is visible during ordinary use of the
product during its lifetime. Defendants' Rule 12(c) motion failed to conclusively
demonstrate, at the pleading stage, (a) that Defendants do not use a skeletal
component having a substantially similar design for any of their pet products, or
(b) that the skeletal structure of the Pet Companion is entirely invisible during its
ordinary use and throughout its lifetime. Instead, Defendants argued in their
12(c) Motion: "[n]othing in the First Amended Complaint suggests that the Pet
Companion is a gazebo without a cover, nor could it, because as is evident on the
face of the pleadings, the Pet Companion has a cover. Therefore, the Pet
Companion does not infringe the `006 Patent as a matter of law." (Appx051)
Defendants should not have been able obtain a judginent on the pleadings that
they purportedly do not infringe on the `006 Patent, based on the 12(c) Motion's
design is covered up (by a tarp, no less) and, thus, it can be assumed that the
consumer does not view the structure under the tarp at any point during the
While the district court recognized that Advantek argued in its opposition
(Appx005), the district court did not substantively address any of Advantek's
749935.1 2O
arguments. Instead the district court offered a conclusory statement that "[g]iven
that Courts may rely on facts subject to judicial notice in deciding a motion to
prosecution history in this matter. While the 12(b)(6) and pleading standards will
apply, this Court may consider the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No.
D715,006 ("`006 Patent")." (Appx005) Advantek had never argued that the
district court could not consider the prosecution history of the `006 patent.
Furthermore, the district court did not address the deficiencies in Defendants'
motion regarding particular facts of their own product, including that Defendants'
12(c) Motion fails to establish any facts about any pet products that Defendants
make, use, offer for sale and sell, or the visibility of the skeletal structure of
procedurally insufficient, it should not have been granted by the district court.
Amend.
prosecution history defense. Rather, the amendment added two non-patent claims
and was made p~io~ to Defendants raising their prosecution history estoppel
749935.1 29
defense. Thus Advantek was denied even a single opportunity to respond to the
further clarify the article of manufacture it was accusing. Making matters worse,
the district court made this denial without explanation, which, under Ninth Circuit
As this Court knows,"[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when
a district court's failure to set forth reasons for denying leave to amend constitutes
reversible error. See, e.g., Sharkey v. O'Neal, 778 F.3d 767, 774 (9th Cir. 2015)
("A simple denial of leave to amend without any explanation ... is subject to
v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003)("Dismissal with prejudice
and without leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear on de novo review
749935.] 3
Here, Advantek could have amended its complaint to clarify further that it
pictures of Defendants' gazebo without a cover that could have been included in
structure is visible during the normal use ofthe product. By denying Advantek an
opportunity to amend the complaint, the district court prevented Advantek from
having an opportunity to further clarify the scope and nature of its claims.
reversible error.
Advantek requests that the district court's ruling on Defendants' Rule 12(c)
product from infringing the `006 patent by the doctrine of prosecution history
estoppel. Advantek further requests that leave to amend the First Amended
Complaint be granted to the extent that such leave is necessary to allow Advantek
to allege additional facts to accuse the skeletal structure of the Pet Companion
product of infringing on the `006 patent. Advantek finally requests that the
749935.1 31
judgment in favor of Defendants be reversed, that this case be remanded. for
further proceedings, and that it be awarded its fees and costs on appeal.
749935.1 32
ADDENDUM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
X49935, 33
December 2, 2016 Judgment(Dkt. No. 45)
cash ~ 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 45 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:470
2
JS-6
J
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
10
11 ADVANTEK MARKETING,INC., Case No. 2:16-CV-3061-R(FFMx)
Hon. Manuel L. Real
12 Plaintiff, Magistrate Hon. Frederick F. Mumm
13 vs. JUDGMENT
14 SHANGHAI WALK-LONG TOOLS FSC: February 27, 2017
CO., LTD.; NEOCRAFT TOOLS CO., Trial: March 28, 2017
15 LTD.; ORION FACTORY DIRECT;
16 and DOES 1-10 inclusive,
17 Defendants.
18
SHANGHAI WALK-LONG TOOLS
19 CO., LTD.,
20 Counter-Claimant,
2l vs.
~~ ADVANTEK MARKETING,INC.,
23 Gaunter-Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
~~ 7I9379J 2:16-CV-3061-R(FFM x)
Appx~~~GMENT
Cash ~ 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 45 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:471
1 JUDGMENT
'1' 2:16-CV-3061-R(FFMx)
GMENT
Appx0~2
Cash 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 45 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:472
1 Respectfully Submitted:
JS-61
-1
8
y
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IU
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
II
19
20 Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings(Dkt. No. 24),
21 which was filed on August 31, 2016. This Court took the matter under submission on October 4,
22 2016.
23 "After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may
24 move for judgment on the pleadings." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A court may grant a motion for
25 judgment on the pleadings when, accepting all factual allegations as true, there is no issue of
26 material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Motions under
27 12(b) and 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are "functionally identical." Dworkin v.
28 Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1986).
Appx004
Cas 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 36 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:444
Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper only when a complaint
2 exhibits either a "(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or(2)the absence of sufficient facts alleged
under a cognizable legal theory." Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696,699(9th Cir.
4 1988). Under the heightened pleading standards of Twombly and Igbal, a plaintiff must allege
~~cnough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," so that the defendant receives
6 "fair notice of what the...claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at
7 570. The Plaintiff must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
8 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The
~) court will not accept "threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
12 Plaintiff opposes the Motion by arguing that Defendant's argument is inappropriate at this stage of
1~ the litigation and that even if it was, Defendants' have not met their burden of proving the
1~ Courts may take judicial notice of facts that are "capable of accurate and ready
17 Evid. 201(b)(2). It is generally accepted that records from the United States Patent and Trademark
9 App'x 927, 932 n.3 (9th Cir. 2014). Courts may rely on information subject to judicial notice
2U when deciding a Rule 12 motion. Id. at 932. Defendant has offered the relevant patent's
2I prosecution history from the USPTO website for judicial notice. Plaintiff does not dispute these
23 Given that Courts may rely on facts subject to judicial notice in deciding a motion to
24 dismiss, it is appropriate for the Court to consider the applicability ofthe prosecution history in
25 this matter. While the 12(b)(6) and pleading standards will apply, this Court may consider the
?( prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. D715,006("`006 Patent"). Success under the doctrine of
7 prosecution history estoppel "turns on the answers to three questions(1) whether there was a
~; surrender;(2) whether it was for reasons of patentability; and (3) whether the accused design is
Appx005 ,,
Cas 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 36 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:445
within the scope of surrender." Pacific Coast Marine Windshields v. Malibu Boats, LLC,739 F.3d
Plaintiff designed a pet kennel called the "Pet Gazebo" for which it received the `006
~1 Patent. During the course of applying for the patent, Plaintiff replied to a restriction requirement
5 from the Patent and Trademark Office. Plaintiff now claims that the Defendants are infringing the
6 `006 Patent by producing and selling a pet kennel similar to the Pet Gazebo.
7 Defendant argues that Plaintiff's decision to elect the iteration of the Pet Gazebo without a
9 submitted two different design drawings to the USPTO and was forced to choose one of the two. It
0 chose the skeletal shell of the Pet Gazebo rather than a kennel with a cover on it. In choosing one
1? cancelling figures showing a gazebo with a cover,"the applicant surrendered such designs and
conceded that the claim was limited to what the remaining figure showed[.]" Id. at 703.
14 Next, Defendant argues that the surrender was made for the purpose of patentability. Like
15 the surrender at issue in Pacific Coast Marine Windshields which was not made for the purpose of
16 avoiding prior art or other "reasons of patentability," here, the surrender was made for the purpose
17 of responding to the restriction requirement and securing the patent. Plaintiff argues that this is a
18 question of fact, however, there is no such question for a design patent. Design patents, by their
19 nature may only include a single claim. Id. The USPTO responded to Plaintiff's designs by
20 requiring it to restrict the claimed patents to either "a kennel without a cover" or "a kennel with a
21 cover." This was labeled a restriction requirement by the examiner and is thus clear that in order
22 to receive the patent, Plaintiff had to surrender one of the claims. There was no reason to
23 surrender the proposed kennel with a cover other than to secure a patent.
24 Finally, Defendant must prove that the accused product is within the scope of surrender.
25 Prosecution history estoppel "requires an examination of the subject matter surrendered by the
26 narrowing amendment." Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S.
?7 722, 737 (2002). Such an examination in this case reveals that the narrowing amendment
2~ surrendered a kennel with a cover. Here, Defendant has produced exactly that, a dog kennel in the
Appx006 3
Cash ~~ 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 36 Filed 11/03/16 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:446
1 shape of a gazebo with a cover on it. Even on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, taking all
factual allegations as true, this Court can determine that the allegedly infringing product is exactly
the same as the design forfeited by Plaintiffs. Plaintiff provided the description and image of
4 Defendant's product. Plaintiff does not dispute the diagrams and descriptions in the prosecution
5 history. On this information alone, the Court can determine that the scope of the surrender
6 encompasses Defendant's product. This case differs from the decision in Pacific where the
7 accused design and fell within an unclaimed range of the surrendered designs because here the
K kennel produced by Defendant is not within an unclaimed range ofthe narrowing amendment, it is
After considering all the factual allegations made by Plaintiff as true, Defendant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff's ordinary observer arguments are exactly the types of
1? infringement analyses which are barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. Because
13 this Court has found that the doctrine applies, it need not consider them.
16
~~a ~,
17 ~ Dated: November 3, 2016.
18 ~.~
19 MANUEL L. REAL
20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
?l
~~
~;
7j
~~
~~
~~
Appx007
October 7, 2014 United States Design Patent No. US D715,006 S
I I Il ifIII I I Illy ~l l l IID I II III CI I I ~ ~Illl I I I I I IIII fill
USUOD715006S
Appx014
Case 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:13
FIG. i
Appx015
Case 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:14
FIG. 2
Appx016
Case 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/16 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:15
FIG. 3
Appx017
Case 2:16-cv-03061-R-FFM Document 1-1 Filed 05/04/16 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:16
Fi:~ a
Appx018
PROOF OF SERVICE
Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case
are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the
CM/ECF system.
749935.1 34
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
ofFederal Circuit Rule 32(a) or Federal Rule of Federal Circuit Rule 28.1.
2. This brief contains 6,619 words, excluding the parts of the brief
of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) or Federal Rule of Federal Circuit Rule 28.1 and
X499>s ~ 35