Engineered Products Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc.

313 F.Supp.2d 951

ENGINEERED PRODUCTS CO., Plaintiff, v. DONALDSON COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

No. C 98-2106 MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

April 13, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Bridget A. Sullivan, Craig J. Lervick, Cyrus A. Morton, Edward M. Laine, Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, Minneapolis, MN, Richard S. Fry, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Annamarie A. Daley, Christopher A. Seidl, Christopher J. Sorenson, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP, Stephen J. Holtman, Simmons, Perrine, Albright, Ellwood, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................957
 II. MOTIONS RELATED TO EPC'S CASE-IN-CHIEF ...................................959
     A. Admissibility Of Evidence Of Equivalents ..............................959
        1. The pending motions ................................................959
        2. Arguments of the parties ...........................................959
        3. Legal analysis .....................................................961
           a. The Festo decisions .............................................961
               i. The Supreme Court's decision ................................961
              ii. The decision on remand ......................................963
           b. The "elongated locking member" and "interengagable
notches" limitations ...........................................965
               i. Was there a "narrowing" amendment? ..........................965
              ii. Were the narrowing amendments for purposes of
patentability? .............................................969
             iii. Can EPC overcome the presumption of "total
surrender"?.................................................970
           c. The "disengagement means" limitation ............................975
               i. Arguments of the parties ....................................975
              ii. The prior rulings ...........................................975
             iii. Standards for reconsideration ...............................977
              iv. Does the Festo analysis apply to claim construction? ........973
               v. Does the prosecution history limit the prior claim
construction, literal infringement, or doctrine of
equivalents infringement? ..................................982
     B. Willful Infringement ..................................................986
        1. Arguments of the parties ...........................................986
        2. Analysis ...........................................................986
III. MOTIONS RELATED TO DONALDSON'S DEFENSES ..................................987
     A. Viability Of Donaldson's Double-Patenting Defense .....................987
        1. The pending motions ................................................987
        2. Arguments of the parties ...........................................988
        3. Analysis ...........................................................989
           a. The court's prior ruling ........................................989
               i. Summary judgment standards ..................................989
              ii. The first step in analysis of the defense ...................990
             iii. The second step in analysis of the defense ..................990
           b. Effect of the summary judgment ruling ...........................992
               i. Viability of the defense ....................................992
              ii. Impact on the motion for leave to amend .....................993
     B. Patent Misuse .........................................................993
        1. Arguments of the parties ...........................................993
        2. Analysis ...........................................................994
           a. Patent misuse ...................................................994
           b. Propriety of pre-trial determination ............................996
     C. Separate Patentability ................................................998
        1. Arguments of the parties ...........................................998
        2. Analysis ...........................................................999
           a. Separate patentability ..........................................999
           b. Relevance to literal infringement ..............................1001

c. Relevance of the proffered evidence of separate patentability ..1002
           d. Admissibility of the evidence of separate patentability ........1002
IV.  EXPERTS .................................................................1003
     A. Miller And Hall ......................................................1003
        1. James W. Miller ...................................................1003
           a. Arguments of the parties .......................................1003
           b. Analysis .......................................................1004
               i. Late disclosure and improper supplementation ...............1004
              ii. Patent attorneys as experts ................................1006
        2. Jerry Lee Hall ....................................................1008
     B. Expert On Lost Profits ...............................................1008
        1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................1008
        2. The "Daubert standard" ............................................1009
        3. Application of the "Daubert standard" .............................1011
     C. Untimely Expert Reports ..............................................1011
        1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................1012
        2. Analysis ..........................................................1013
           a. Applicable standards ...........................................1013
           b. Exclusion of Mr. Burton's March 1, 2004, report and
summary exhibits ..............................................1014
           c. Exclusion of Dr. Nieberding's evidence .........................1016
V.   WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE .....................................................1016
     A. The Pending Motions ..................................................1016
     B. Background ...........................................................1017
     C. Analysis .............................................................1018
        1. Arguments of the parties ..........................................1018
        2. Applicable law ....................................................1020
        3. Application of the law ............................................1021
VI. ADMISSIBILITY OF VIDEOTAPE ...............................................1023
VII. RELEASE OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT EXHIBITS ....................................1024
VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................1024

A plethora of pre-trial motions confronts the court in this patent infringement action. Although the motions are cast in terms of the admissibility of evidence, several of them are in reality motions for determination, as a matter of law, of key issues in the litigation. Consequently, this ruling on "pre-trial" matters addresses issues as involved and contentious as any summary judgment ruling and has at least as much likelihood as any summary judgment ruling to be outcome determinative on some claims and issues.

I. INTRODUCTION

This patent infringement action between plaintiff Engineered Products Company (EPC) and defendant Donaldson Company (Donaldson) arises from Donaldson's creation and sale of two air filter indicator devices: the Air Alert, sold from 1997 to 1999, and the Next Generation Air Alert (NG Air Alert), sold from 1999 through the present. EPC contends that Donaldson's devices infringe EPC's U.S. Patent Number 4,445,456 (the '456 patent), issued on May 1, 1984, and expired in 2001, for a mechanical air filter restriction indicator with a lock-up feature. Because the court has already described the procedural and factual context to this litigation in some detail in prior published rulings, see Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 165 F.Supp.2d 836 (N.D.Iowa 2001) (EPC I) (decision by former District Judge, now Circuit Judge, Michael Melloy, following a "Markman hearing"); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 225 F.Supp.2d 1069 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (EPC II) (ruling by the undersigned on the defendant's motion for summary judgment on defense of invalidity for obviousness-type double patenting); Engineered Prods. Co. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 290 F.Supp.2d 974 (N.D.Iowa 2003) (EPC III) (ruling by United States Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss on the parties' cross-motions regarding plaintiff's counsel's alleged conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety), the court will not reiterate all of that background information here.

However, the court finds that it would be helpful to an understanding of the various discussions of the claimed invention in the '456 patent to include Figures 3 and 4 from the '456 patent, which show the claimed air filter indicating device in infold and outfold positions.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The court also finds it helpful to reiterate that the present dispute was prompted, at least in part, by a decision of General Motors (GM) in the mid-1990s to add a progressive air filter restriction indicator to its light truck platform, the GMT-800 platform. This platform includes large passenger vehicles, such as SUVs, and hence, was expected to see enormous growth. EPC and Donaldson, the only domestic manufacturers of progressive air filter restriction...