Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Plaintiff,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Background
December 15, 2015. Hafco owns the patent for a Rock Dust Blower,
scope of the Rock Dust Blower Patent, “Hafco makes, offers for
Hafco and Pioneer Conveyor was terminated in early May 2015. See
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 1285
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd., 564 U.S. 91, 95-96 (2011). Once
745 F.3d 1180, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Microsoft Corp.,
that it does.”); Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“A patent is presumed to
quotations omitted).
2
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 1286
invalidity defense.”).
Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015). GMS argues
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has offered some
guidelines:
3
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 1287
* * *
quotations omitted).
4
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 1288
St. John Companies, Inc., 529 F. Supp. 2d 852, 859 (M.D. Tenn.
2007).
5
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 1289
PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc., 469 F.3d 1361,
patent. See ECF No. 47. GMS did not offer any testimony, expert
Indeed, the utility patent itself states that the “above detailed
designs for rock dust blowers in general and at least one other
competing can duster. See ECF No. 55-2 at 20-21, 45-46. Helbig
also testified at deposition that the can duster could have been
15.
6
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 1290
*
Furthermore, defendant did not assert the defense of
patent invalidity in its answer nor did it seek leave of the
court to assert the defense at such a late juncture. Patent
invalidity is an affirmative defense. See Commil USA, LLC v.
Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015). Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), a party must plead an affirmative
defense in their answer. In a patent case, regional circuit law
governs the question of waiver of a defense. Ultra-Precision
Mfg., Ltd. v. Ford Motor Co., 411 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
2005). In the Fourth Circuit, a waiver will be enforced if a
party fails to plead an affirmative defense if the opposing party
shows “prejudice or unfair surprise.” RCSH Operations, LLC v.
Third Crystal Park Assocs. LP, 115 F. App’x 621, 630 (4th Cir.
2004) (quoting Brinkley v. Harbor Recreation Club, 180 F.3d 598,
612 (4th Cir. 1999)). Hafco contends that it has been unfairly
surprised by GMS’s late assertion of the defense because it was
unable to conduct discovery on the issue.
7
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 1291
* * *
543 F.3d 665, 679-80 (Fed. Cir. 2008). After Egyptian Goddess,
Mass. 2014).
8
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 1292
this case until just before the final pretrial conference, the
described in Figures 1-5.” See ECF No. 46. Even though GMS
raised the issue claim construction late in the game, the court
construction was necessary. GMS did not call any witnesses nor
IV. Conclusion
record.
9
Case 1:15-cv-16143 Document 117 Filed 06/13/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 1293
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
10