Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
161 Page 1 of 14
This is a patent infringement lawsuit for a design patent. Plaintiff Daniel Morren
applied for a design patent on December 17, 2009. The design is a diamond-shaped pattern
for dock flooring. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Plaintiff his patent,
Number D 615,671 on May 11, 2010. Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment
(ECF No. 14), which raises the "on-sale" doctrine as a defense to the validity of the patent,
was filed before a case management order issued and before the parties began discovery.
Because Defendants' evidence on the present record does not meet the high "clear and
I.
interrogatories and admissions, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue of
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a) and (c); Payne v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 767 F.3d 526, 530 (6th Cir. 2014).
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.162 Page 2 of 14
The burden is on the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, but
that burden may be discharged by pointing out the absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party=s case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Holis v. Chestnut Bend Homeowners
Ass=n, 760 F.3d 531, 543 (6th Cir. 2014). The facts, and the inferences drawn from them,
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indust. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). Once the moving party has carried its burden, the
nonmoving party must set forth specific facts in the record showing there is a genuine issue
for trial. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 574; Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195, 200
(6th Cir. 2010) (AAfter the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the
nonmoving party, who must present some >specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.=@) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In resolving a motion for summary
judgment, the court does not weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter; the
court determines only if there exists a genuine issue for trial. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct.
1861, 1866 (2014) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249). The question is Awhether the
so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.@ Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-252.
II.
In this lawsuit, Plaintiff asserts Defendants have infringed his design patent. Plaintiff
alleges Defendants created a mold incorporating his patented design and have been
manufacturing and selling dock parts that include his design. Plaintiff alleges he has not been
paid for the use of his design. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants do not have a license
2
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.163 Page 3 of 14
to use his design. Defendants assert that the patent is invalid because the invention, or rather
products incorporating the patented design, were offered for sale more than one year before
Defendants claim Plaintiff's patent is invalid under the on-sale doctrine. Specifically,
there was an offer to sell or an agreement to sell products containing Plaintiff's design more
than one year before Plaintiff applied for his patent. "Section 102(b) of the Patent Act of
1952 provides that no person is entitled to patent an 'invention' that has been 'on sale' more
than one year before filing a patent application."1 Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 57
(1998). Under the Pfaff test, the "on sale" clock begins running when two conditions are met:
(1) the invention is the subject of a commercial offer for sale, and (2) the invention is ready
for patenting. Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
When those two conditions exist, the inventor must file his or her application for a patent
within one year, or lose the right to patent the invention. Id. at 1047–48. The burden is on
the accused infringer to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that "''there was a definite
sale or offer for sale of the claimed invention prior to the critical date, defined as one year
prior to the U.S. filing date to which the application was entitled.'" Id. at 1047 (quoting Mas-
Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1216 (F3d. Cir. 1998)); see Leader Techs.,
1
In 2008 and 2009, when the relevant conduct occurred, the statute for the on sale doctrine
provided as follows:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - -
***
(b)the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or
in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for
patent in the United States, . . . . 35 U.S.C. § 102.
3
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.164 Page 4 of 14
Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting the clear and convincing
standard); Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1045–46 (Fed. Cir.
2001) (same). A single sale or offer for sale more than one year prior to the critical date will
invalidate the patent. Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transp. Sys. Div. of Gen.
Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Application of the on-sale bar is a question
of law based on underlying factual findings, which are reviewed for clear error. Helsinn
Healthcare, S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 855 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 827 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc).
"'[T]he question of whether an invention is the subject of a commercial offer for sale
is a matter of Federal Circuit law, to be analyzed under the law of contracts as generally
understood.'" Hospira, 827 F.3d at 1373 (quoting Group One, 254 F.3d at 1047). Only
offers which rise "to the level of a commercial offer for sale" will trigger the on-sale doctrine.
Id. at 1378 (quoting Group One, 254 F.3d at 1048). Courts look to the Uniform
amounts to a commercial offer for sale. Id. at 1373. Generally, courts should "focus on
those activities that would be understood to be commercial sales and offers for sale 'in the
commercial community.'" Id. "A sale occurs when there is a 'contract between the parties to
give and to pass rights of property for consideration which the buyer pays or promises to pay
the seller for the thing bought or sold.'" Helsinn Healthcare, 855 F.3d at 1364. And, an
offer for sale occurs when one party could make a binding contract by simple acceptance,
assuming consideration. Group One, 254 F.3d at 1048; Linear Tech, 275 F.3d at 1050 ("'An
offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another
4
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.165 Page 5 of 14
person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.'")
When deciding whether a commercial offer has been made, courts should consider
the circumstances in which the statement was made, including the status of negotiations, the
language in any relevant documents, the terms of any previous inquiries, and the prior course
of dealings between the parties. Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., 109 F. App'x 387, 392
(Fed. Cir. 2004); see Helsinn Healthcare, 855 F.3d at 1364 (identifying factors such as the
passage of title, the confidential nature of the transaction and the absence of commercial
marketing and noting that no one factor is dispositive). Offers to sell rights in a patent, and
offers to license a patent, including production and marketing rights, are not offers that trigger
the on-sale doctrine. See Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 1341
The second condition, that the invention is ready to be patented, can be satisfied by
at least two types of evidence. First, the accused infringer can show proof of reduction to
practice. Pfaff, 525 U.S. at 67. Second, the accused infringer can show that the inventor had
drawings or descriptions of the invention "that were sufficiently specific to a person skilled in
In this case, the invention is a design. "A design patent only protects the novel,
ornamental features of the patented design." OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122
F.3d 1396, 1404–05 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A design patent "protects the overall ornamentation
Co., Inc., 820 F.3d 1316, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For situations involving design patents, "an
5
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.166 Page 6 of 14
embodiment of the design" must have been sold or offered for sale. Cont'l Plastic Containers
v. Owens Brockway Plastic Prods., Inc., 141 F.3d 1073, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1998). And, a design
1079.
III.
Without dispute, no dock parts containing the patented design were produced or sold
more than one year prior to the date when Plaintiff filed the patent application. That
August 2008 between Morren Plastics and Twin Bay Docks. First, Defendants argue, in July
or August 2008, Morren Plastics offered to sell dock components or parts containing the
diamond design to Twin Bay. Although an agreement is not necessary for the on-sale
doctrine, Defendants argue the two companies did reach an agreement. Second, Defendants
argue that, in July or August 2008, Morren Plastics sold part ownership of a mold containing
The documents attached by Defendants to their motion establish the following facts.
Nelson Morren is the owner of Defendant Morren Plastic Molding. (ECF No. 15-1 N.
Morren Aff. ¶ 2 PageID.84.) Defendant Twin Bay Dock is currently one of Morren Plastic's
largest customers. (Id. ¶ 6 PageID.85.) Nelson Morren is the father of Plaintiff, Daniel
Morren. (Id. ¶ 10 PageID.85.) In 2008, Daniel worked for his father at Morren Plastic. (Id.
¶ 11. PageID.85.)
6
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.167 Page 7 of 14
In 2008, Nelson directed Daniel to draft potential designs for dock flooring. (N.
Morren Aff. ¶ 10.) After Daniel completed his sketches, Nelson, Daniel and Robert
Serschen met and approved the diamond pattern. (Id. ¶ 12 PageID.85.) Serschen was with
Twin Bay, although his specific role at Twin Bay is not identified. (Id. at ¶ 9 PageID.85.)
Nelson asserts that he and Serschen reached an agreement. "We further agreed that
consistent with prior purchases, [Morren Plastic] would mold dock floors with the new design
and Twin B[a]y would buy the dock product to create its docks. Twin Bay would also buy
all product from [Morren Plastic] incorporating the diamond pattern." (Id. at ¶ 13
PageID.85.) In July 2008, Nelson sent a letter to Serschen confirming the agreement and
outlining the costs for creating the dock floor mold. (Id. ¶ 14 PageID.86.) Defendants
Hello Bob, We now have firm quotations for inserts to fit into existing
mold base and the quotation for a complete new tool. If we elect the insert
only approach we will need to fit them into the base, and water lines, add
ejector pins, and add insert bolts. In either case, I am projecting the need for
texturing when it gets here.
7
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.168 Page 8 of 14
(ECF No. 15-4 PageID.105.) In August 2008, Twin Bay paid $20,000 to Morren Plastic "to
begin working on creating the diamond dock floor mold." (N. Morren Aff. ¶ 15 PageID.86.)
The invoice states that the $20,000 is the "deposit payment on new tooling costs for the
diamond dock floor." (ECF No. 15-5 PageID.110.) Nelson contends that "[Morren Plastic]
is half owner of the new mold and was able to sell the product as well as Twin Bay. Twin
Bay did not have exclusive rights to sell product from the new mold." (N. Morren Aff. ¶ 9
PageID.85.)
A.
Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment under their first theory that an offer
was made to sell dock products in July or August 2008. There remain genuine issues of
material fact whether Morren Plastic made a commercial offer to sell dock parts containing
The record contains insufficient evidence about important terms of the offer. From
Defendants' evidence, the Court cannot discern even the most basic of terms, such as the
price of any dock flooring product, the quantity offered, or the date of delivery.2 Compare
Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 366 F.3d 1336, 1340- (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding no
offer trigging in the on-sale doctrine because the letter did not mention, among other things,
2
The timeline on page 3 of the handwritten note indicates that Morren Plastic would provide
samples to Twin Bay on December 15, 2008. (PageID.107.) The timeline does not indicate when
products would be available or would be shipped.
8
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.169 Page 9 of 14
statement, or price per item), with Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.,
726 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding a commercial offer for sale where the purchase
purchased, the price per unit, a part number for the unit, and a requested date of delivery).
Considering the offer from another perspective, had Twin Bay accepted the offer and
formed an agreement, and pretending that the relationship soured between Morren Plastic
and Twin Bay and one of the two parties sued the other, this Court could not enforce the
Even if the Court could conclude that Defendants' evidence was clear and convincing
and supported the conclusion that an offer was made, the evidence does not establish that
the offer was commercial. "[N]ot every activity that inures some commercial benefit . . . can
be considered a commercial sale." Hospira, 827 F.3d at 1377. Twin Bay does not use dock
products; it sells docks and dock products to end users. Viewing the present evidence in the
light most favorable to Plaintiff, the offer and agreement plausibly are for manufacturing
services, see id. at 1373 (clarifying that contracts for manufacturing services do not constitute
a commercial sale of the invention), or mere preparation for a commercial sale, see id. at
1377 ("It is well-settled that mere preparations for commercial sales are not themselves
'commercial sales' or 'commercial offers for sale' under the on-sale bar.").
B.
For similar reasons, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on their theory
that an agreement was made concerning the mold itself, which necessarily included Plaintiff's
9
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.170 Page 10 of 14
patented design. There remain genuine issues of material fact whether the agreement
between Morren Plastic and Twin Bay regarding the creation of the mold constituted the
The handwritten note is not clear and convincing evidence of an offer to sell a mold.
Viewing the handwritten note in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Nelson Morren asks
Twin Bay to choose between two possible alternatives: (1) have a complete new mold built
for $92,250 or (2) have a set of inserts built for $58,616, which would be used in the existing
mold base. (PageID.105.) The evidence in the record does not clarify which choice was
made. In either case, Morren Plastic would purchase the new tooling, either a complete new
mold or a set of inserts, from a company in China. The invoice reflects that Twin Bay made
a payment toward the "costs" of the new tooling, not the purchase of new tooling.
(PageID.110.) Put another way, Morren Plastic and Twin Bay are buyers, not sellers. And,
the offer for sale would have come from the company in China. The offer for sale, therefore,
what was offered or what was sold. Morren Plastic retained some ownership of the mold.
(N. Morren Aff. ¶ 9 PageID.85.) And, because Morren Plastic needs the mold to create the
dock parts, Twin Bay does not possess the mold. Twin Bay is not paying to use the new
mold. The record contains no affidavit from any representative of Twin Bay explaining its
understanding of what was offered and what was purchased. And, even if the evidence does
establish an offer, the evidence falls short of establishing a commercial offer by clear and
convincing evidence. There is no evidence in the record establishing the sort of commercial
10
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.171 Page 11 of 14
practices between these two companies or in the manufacturing industry to show that tooling
C.
Although the Court concludes that there exists genuine issues of material fact for the
first prong of the on-sale doctrine, Defendants have established the second prong of the
doctrine. Even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the design was
patentable more than one year prior to the date on which Plaintiff filed his application. The
drawings created by Daniel Morren (ECF No. 15-3 PageID.102) before December 2008
were sufficient for a person skilled in the art to practice his design. And, a mold of the design
was created before December 2008, which demonstrates that the design was reduced to
practice.
IV.
As part of his response, Plaintiff raises two arguments that must be addressed. First,
Plaintiff asserts that none of Defendants' evidence has been authenticated and, therefore, it
is not admissible for purposes of the motions. Second, Plaintiff requests costs and fees
associated with the motion because it was brought in bad faith. Neither argument finds
A.
Plaintiff first argues that Defendants' motion should be denied because Defendants
failed to authenticate any of the documents attached to the motion. Plaintiff reasons that
because the documents have not been authenticated, the documents are not admissible, and
11
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.172 Page 12 of 14
Rule 56 was amended in 2010 and the rule "no longer draws a clear distinction
Mangum v. Repp, 674 F. App'x 531, 537 (6th Cir. 2017). Rule 56(c)(2) permits a party
opposing summary judgment to "object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact
functions much as an objection at trial, adjusted for the pretrial setting." Id. advisory
committee's notes to 2010 amendment. The standard is not whether the evidence, as
presented for summary judgement purposes, would be admissible at trial; rather, the
standard is whether the evidence could be presented at trial in an admissible form. Cannon
Int'l, Ltd. v. Blocker, 684 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2012); see McGuire v. Michigan Dep't of
Cmty. Health, 526 F. App'x 494, 496 (6th Cir. 2013) (explaining that, for summary judgment,
the content of the evidence must be admissible at trial, even though the evidence need not
be presented in an admissible form) (quoting Bailey v. Floyd Cty. Bd. of Ed., 106 F.3d 135,
B.
Plaintiff requests attorney fees and costs, asserting that Defendants filed this motion
in bad faith. Plaintiff cites 35 U.S.C. § 285, which authorizes a court to award reasonable
attorney fees "to the prevailing party" in "exceptional cases." Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON
Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1755–56 (2014). To be the "prevailing party" for the
purpose of this fee-shifting statute, the party must have obtain some relief on the merits which
12
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.173 Page 13 of 14
alters the legal relationship between the parties. Inland Steel Co. v. LTV Steel Co., 364 F.3d
At this point in the litigation, Plaintiff is not a prevailing party. Even if, somehow, the
statute could be interpreted as applying to motion practice alone, the denial of Defendants'
motion for summary judgment does not alter the legal relationship between the parties.
V.
Defendants have not, by clear and convincing evidence, established that there was a
sale or a commercial offer for sale of Plaintiff's invention more than one year before he
applied for his patent. The documents submitted by Defendants generally fail to provide
sufficient detail to be considered a commercial offer. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff, Defendant has not established that, in July 2008, it submitted a
commercial offer, to Twin Bay, for the sale of dock products containing the patented design.
Taking the same view of the evidence, Defendant has not established that it offered or sold
a mold containing the design to Twin Bay. The disputed issues of fact require the Court to
No discovery has occurred in this lawsuit. Although Defendants would likely have
had access to all of the evidence necessary to support this motion, it is possible for
Defendants to uncover additional evidence that might make this defense more viable.
Plaintiff, however, should be able to pursue discovery before Defendants get a second bite
13
Case 1:17-cv-00685-PLM-PJG ECF No. 27 filed 02/01/18 PageID.174 Page 14 of 14
ORDER
For the reasons provided in the accompanying Opinion, Defendants' motion for
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14