Kolcraft Enters., Inc. v. Chicco United States, Inc.

KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. CHICCO USA, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 09 CV03339

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

August 30, 2018

Judge Edmond E. Chang

DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

Defendant, Artsana USA, Inc. ("Artsana"), by and through its attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), hereby submits its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in its favor and against Plaintiff Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. ("Kolcraft").

INTRODUCTION

Artsana has now closed its case. Judgment should be entered in Artsana's favor as no reasonable jury could enter a verdict in Kolcraft's favor.

ARGUMENT

Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a district court to enter judgment against a party who has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial if "a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue." Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) (motion for judgment as a matter of law), (b) (renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law). In deciding a Rule 50 motion, the court examines the evidence to determine whether the jury's verdict could reasonably be based on that evidence. Tart v. Illinois Power Co., 366 F.3d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 2004). The court does not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence. Waite v. Board of Trustees of Illinois Comm. College Dist. No. 508, 408 F.3d 339, 343 (7th Cir. 2005).

Kolcraft failed to present sufficient evidence at trial from which a reasonable jury could find in its favor, including but not limited to the following: (1) that Artsana's Accused Products (PTX-7, PTX-8, PTX-9, and DTX-296) infringe claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,376,993 ("the '993 Patent"); (2) that the Accused Products having the Redesigned Hub (PTX-8, PTX-9) infringe claims 28-30 of the '993 Patent; (3) that there is willful infringement of the '993 Patent; and (4) Kolcraft is entitled to damages with respect to method claims 28-31. Artsana adopts and incorporates its motion for summary judgment and statement of facts related thereto as if fully set forth.

Kolcraft has the burden of proving infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. Spectrum Pharm. v. Sandoz, 802 F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Kolcraft's burden of proof never shifts to Artsana. Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). If Kolcraft fails to prove that every element of an asserted claim has been met, then Kolcraft fails to prove that the allegedly infringing product literally infringes that patent claim. Cephalon v. Watson Pharm., 707 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Kolcraft has not present ed legally sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find literal infringement of any of the asserted claims of the '993 patent.

Artsana's Accused Products underwent multiple design changes after Artsana was notified about the '993 Patent. The Accused Products, each of which includes a playard, a bassinet insert, a changing table, and a play gym made up of a hub and four legs, can be grouped as (1) "Original Design" (PTX-7) (2) "First Redesign" (DTX-296); (3) "Second Redesign" (PTX-8) and (4) "Third Redesign" (PTX-9). In the "Original Design" one end of the leg is attached to a hub cavity via a securing pin and the other end had a snap connector that mates with a snap connector within a fabric pocket stitched to the top of the floor mat. The "FirstRedesign" removed the fabric pockets, replaced the mated snap connectors with hook and loop fasteners, and provided D-rings attached to fabric straps on the underside of the floor mat to receive the hook and loop fasteners. See the testimony of Peter J. Myers. The "Second Redesign" eliminated the securing pins in the hub cavity (the "Redesigned Hub"), and connected fabric sleeves encasing the legs to the hub with tethers. See the testimony of Peter J. Myers. The "Third Redesign" is substantially to the redesigned hub but moved the location of the fabric straps and D-rings on the underside of the floor mat.¹

No reasonable factfinder could find that: (a) any of the Accused Products contain every limitation of claim 20 of the '993 Patent; and (b) no reasonable factfinder could find the Accused Products having the Redesigned Hub are capable of performing every limitation of method claims 28-30 of the '993 Patent.²

A. Kolcraft Has Not Established The Accused Products Infringe Claim 20 Of The '993 Patent

Claim 20 of the '993 Patent requires, among its elements:

An apparatus comprising:

...

at least one connector to couple the play gym to the floor mat; and

... wherein the at least one connector comprises a plurality of connectors, and the play gym comprises:

a hub; and

at least two legs, each of the legs having a first end coupled to the hub and a second end dimensioned to be removably coupled to a respective one of the connectors, wherein the at least two legs are pivotably coupled to the hub,

wherein the connectors are pivotably coupled to the mat.

(1) The claim term "wherein the connectors are pivotably coupled to the mat" is not present in the Accused Products.

To infringe claim 20 of the '993 Patent, the Accused Products must have "at least one connector to couple the play gym to the floor mat . . . wherein the at least one connector comprises a plurality of connectors . . . wherein the connectors are pivotably coupled to the mat." No reasonable factfinder could find that any of the Accused Products contain these claim elements.

The Court construed "the connectors are pivotably coupled to the mat" as: "'[p]ivotably coupled' means linked, connected, or fastened such that the connector can rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point" and that "'[t]he connectors' is a generic term denoting all the connectors, including the 'at least one connector' and each of the 'plurality of connectors.'"³ The Court explicitly excluded "fixed couplings" from its construction of "pivotably." (ECF No. 285 at 6-7). The Court's construction requires that "all the connectors -- the single compound connector and each of the plurality of connectors -- must be pivotably coupled to the mat." (ECF No. 285 at 10). The Court cited Figure 5 of the '993 Patent as an example of a connector having multiple connector parts, each one pivotably coupled to the mat. The Court stated "Figure 5 of the '993 patent shows a rivet (62) which couples a rotating plate (60) to the mat (16)" and "[i]n Figure 5, both the rivet and the plate are pivotably coupled to the mat."⁴ Accordingly, both the rivet and the plate must be linked, connected, or fastened to the mat such that both of them rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point.

The Court construed "pivotably coupled" to mean "linked, connected, or fastened such that the leg can rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point." (ECF No. 285 at 11-12). Mr. Myers testified that he understood this construction. (Rough Tr. at p. 47). However, for all of Plaintiff's products, Mr. Myers never identified a "fixed point" around which the legs "rotate, turn, or move." His testimony on this issue does not establish, and a jury could not find, that the legs are pivotably coupled to the hub (i.e., that they are linked, connected, or fastened such that the leg can rotate, turn, or move around a fixedpoint."). The leg-mat connection of Artsana's Original Design had three parts: (1) a fabric pocket; (2) stitching connecting the pocket to the floor mat; and (3) a snap fixed to the pocket. During reexamination of the '993 Patent, Kolcraft identified sewing threads (i.e., stitching) as a connector in the context of connecting a fabric pocket to another material. Kolcraft's expert, Peter J. Myers, admitted that the fabric pocket of Artsana's Original Design is sewn to the floor mat with a line of stitching. Without the stitching, the fabric pocket would not be coupled to the floor mat.

The Court's construction requires that "all the connectors . . . must be pivotably coupled to the mat." Stitching is a fixed connection; a line of sewing threads do not "rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point." Therefore, not all the "connectors" in Artsana's Original Design are pivotably coupled to the mat. Like the '993 Patent's rivet (62) that attaches the plate (60) to the mat (16), the Original Design's stitching attaches the pocket to the mat. However, unlike the rivet, the stitching does not "rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point." In addition, the snap connector of Artsana's Original Design is not "pivotably coupled to the mat." The snap connector is fixed to the fabric pocket. Kolcraft's expert admits that the snap connector is connected to the fabric pocket, not the mat. The snap connector is not pivotably connected to the mat and it does not "rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point." No reasonable factfinder could find that Artsana's Original Design infringes claim 20 of the '993 Patent.

Both Artsana's First and Second Redesigns include three connector parts: (1) a fabric strap; (2) stitching that connects the fabric strap to the floor mat; and (3) a plastic D-ring that is contained within a fold created by the fabric strap being folded upon itself and stitched together. Kolcraft's expert, Peter J. Myers, admits that the fabric strap is "directly sewn onto the underside of the floor mat with four lines of stitching." Without the four lines of stitching, the fabric strap would not be coupled to the floor mat. Stitching is a fixed connection. The four lines of sewing threads do not "rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point," and therefore not all the connectors are pivotably coupled to the mat. Neither the fabric strap nor the D-ring is "pivotably coupled to the mat." As Kolcraft's expert admits, the fabric strap is stitched to the underside of the mat. The fabric strap is not pivotably connected to the mat and it does not "rotate, turn, or move around a fixed point;" it is secured to the mat on four sides via stitching. The...