Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01099/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-01099-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

03cv1099

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIMENSION ONE SPAS, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

COVERPLAY, INC., an Oregon

corporation, and E. JESS TUDOR, an

individual,

Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 03cv1099-L(CAB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS’

MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

This is a patent infringement action and counterclaim pertaining to pool covers. In the

April 26, 2006 order on cross-motions for summary judgment, certain issues of Defendant

Coverplay’s inequitable conduct defense were bifurcated for bench trial before the case proceeds

further. Defendants and Counterclaimants Coverplay, Inc. and E. Jess Tudor (collectively

“Coverplay”) filed their motion in limine no. 1 to exclude the testimony at trial of Michael R.

Wall and James W. Campbell, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The court finds this motion

suitable for disposition on the papers and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local

Rule 7.1(d)(1).

/ / / / /

Case 3:03-cv-01099-CAB Document 305 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 The delay in ruling on this motion is attributable to the parties’ prolonged

settlement negotiations.

2 03cv1099

Plaintiff Dimension One Spas, Inc. (“Dimension One”) is the assignee of Patent No.

5,131,102 (the ‘102 Patent). Its invention is intended to prevent “the loss of heat energy and

increased maintenance for the removal of debris falling into the spa” which occurs when spas are

not covered. The problem with spa covers is their bulky size and weight, which makes them

difficult to remove and replace. In the late 1980s, Dimension One purchased a spa cover lift

device called the Starlite Lifting Device (“Starlite”), which had a patent application pending

(“Wall Patent” application). The inventors of the ‘102 Patent, Roger Ouellette, Edwin Sorensen

II, and Philip Salley (owners or employees of Dimension One, collectively the “Inventors”),

found the Starlite device did not work very well and was cost prohibitive, and they set out to

improve it. Their design made many improvements on the Starlite device, perhaps the most

significant being eliminating physical attachment of the spa cover lift to the spa cover. 

Associated with the improvements, the ‘102 Patent issued on July 21, 1992, and is entitled "Spa

Cover Lift Assembly." 

Defendant Coverplay, Inc. holds Patent No. 5,974,599 (the ‘599 Patent), embodied in spa

cover lifters known as the Cover*Up! and Forward Fulcrum, which Coverplay markets. 

Coverplay is wholly owned by Defendant Jess Tudor, who assigned the ‘599 Patent to

Coverplay.

On June 2, 2003, Dimension One filed this patent infringement action, alleging that

Coverplay infringed the ‘102 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or

importing spa cover lifts, including spa cover lifters known as Cover*Up! and Forward Fulcrum. 

Coverplay answered and filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the ‘102

Patent is invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed. This court issued an order construing the

claims of the ‘102 Patent on December 2, 2005. 

On October 15, 2004, Dimension One moved to amend its complaint, which motion was

granted by the Magistrate Judge on September 12, 2005.1

 The First Amended Complaint was

filed the same day. It added Tudor as a Defendant, and alleged additional state law claims for

Case 3:03-cv-01099-CAB Document 305 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 03cv1099

unfair competition. On Coverplay’s motion to dismiss, Dimension One was granted leave to

amend, and on February 17, 2006, it filed a Second Amended Complaint. Certain portions of the

Second Amended Complaint have been stricken per order filed May 19, 2006. In response to the

Second Amended Complaint, Coverplay filed an answer and a counterclaim, which included the

inequitable conduct defense, which is the subject of the upcoming bench trial. 

The inequitable conduct defense was addressed in the April 26, 2006 order on the parties’

cross-motions regarding the defense. Coverplay claimed inequitable conduct in two respects: (1)

the Inventors of the ‘102 Patent allegedly failed to disclose the Wall Patent and the application

leading to the Wall Patent to the PTO; and (2) the Inventors allegedly failed to disclose the

Starlite device to the PTO. The court granted Dimension One’s summary adjudication motion,

and denied Coverplay’s summary adjudication motion with respect to the first instance,

disclosure of the Wall Patent and the application leading up to it. With respect to the second

instance, disclosure of the Starlite device, the court found genuine issues of material fact as to

each element of inequitable conduct. Accordingly, only the second instance is bifurcated for

bench trial. 

In defending against Coverplay’s inequitable conduct claim, Dimension One intends to

call Wall and Campbell as witnesses. Wall and Campbell are co-inventors of the Wall Patent

and creators of the Starlite device. Both are listed as inventors on the face of the Wall Patent. 

They are anticipated to testify whether the Starlite device is cumulative of the Wall Patent.

Pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1), Coverplay moves to preclude their testimony, arguing that

Dimension One’s failure to disclose them during discovery or in their Rule 26 initial disclosure

is sanctionable. Dimension One disclosed these witnesses for the first time on July 17, 2006 in

preparation for the pretrial conference. This was long after the discovery cut-off, which

precluded Coverplay from conducting any discovery pertaining to these witnesses, and

prejudices it in its preparation for trial.

While Coverplay’s argument is superficially plausible, neither party’s papers filed in

support and in opposition of this motion present the entire relevant procedural background

leading up to Dimension One’s July 17 disclosure. When placed in context, it is evident that the

Case 3:03-cv-01099-CAB Document 305 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Not only must a defense be pled, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), but the inequitable

conduct defense must be pled with particularity as provided in Rule 9(b); see Ferguson

Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1344

(Fed. Cir. 2003).

4 03cv1099

party playing the “blind man’s buff” game, see United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S.

677, 682 (1958), is Coverplay, and not Dimension One. Coverplay’s alleged prejudice is largely

the result of its own belated pleading of the inequitable conduct defense.

Prior to pleading the inequitable conduct defense, Coverplay indicated it intended to

pursue it. (See Mem. of P.&A. in Supp. of Dimension One’s Mot. for Summ. J. of No

Inequitable Conduct with Respect to the Wall Patent, filed 9/13/05 (“MSJ P.&A.”), at 5.) 

Dimension One gathered this based on two prior representations made by Coverplay’s counsel. 

First, at the Markman hearing on October 1, 2004, Coverplay’s counsel discussed the Wall

Patent and the Starlight device in the context of claim construction. (See id.; 9/13/06 Garner

Decl., Ex. D.) Although some of the same facts were later used as the basis for Coverplay’s

inequitable conduct defense, the defense was not mentioned at that time, and was not alleged in

Coverplay’s answer or counterclaim.2

 Second, on April 4, 2005, Coverplay sent a letter to

Dimension One stating it “intend[ed] to file a motion for summary judgment . . . for invalidity of

[the ‘102 Patent] on the grounds of inequitable conduct for failure to disclose, at the beginning

of the prosecution of the ‘102 Patent, the Wall ‘Starlight’ device, as the closest (most relevant)

known prior art to the Spa Cover Lift Assembly device that is claimed in the ‘102 Patent.” (MSJ

P.&A. at 5; 9/13/06 Garner Decl., Ex. E.) However, no motion was filed, and Coverplay did not

amend its answer or counterclaim to include this defense.

Apparently in an attempt to smoke this issue out, on September 13, 2005, Dimension One

filed a summary judgment motion seeking a determination that Coverplay can not assert the

inequitable conduct defense because it had not pled it, and in the alternative, that it could not, as

a matter of law, prevail on its merits. As to the arguments on the merits, it was apparent from

Dimension One’s moving papers that its motion was based on the premise the Starlight device

was an embodiment of the Wall Patent, and that not disclosing the Wall Patent to the PTO was

the same as not disclosing the Starlight device. (See MSJ P.&A.) This interpretation of the

Case 3:03-cv-01099-CAB Document 305 Filed 12/15/06 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 03cv1099

defense, which had not yet been pled, was reasonably based on Coverplay’s very limited

representations up to that time. 

On September 26, 2005, with its opposition to Dimension One’s motion, Coverplay filed

a cross-motion for summary judgment in favor of the inequitable conduct defense. Although

Coverplay still had not pled the defense, it, for the first time, indicated that it intended to base it

on both, the nondisclosure of the Starlight device, and separately on the nondisclosure of the

Wall Patent application. (Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. on Inequitable Conduct with respect to the

Wall Patent and Cross Mot. for Summ. J. on Inequitable Conduct and Invalidity and Req. for

Att’y Fees and Costs, filed 9/26/06, at 5-6.) The fact discovery cut-off was September 30, 2005,

only four days after Coverplay’s filing. (See Minutes, filed 8/25/05.)

Some six months later, on March 13, 2006, Coverplay moved to strike Dimension One’s

Second Amended Complaint. Included in its points and authorities, were its answer and

counterclaim to the Second Amended Complaint, which for the first time pled the inequitable

conduct defense. Accordingly, by the time Coverplay finally pled its defense, it was more than

six months after the discovery cut-off. On April 13, 2006, Dimension One moved to strike the

new answer and counterclaim on the grounds they untimely asserted the inequitable conduct

defense. 

On April 26, 2006, the court ruled on the cross-motions regarding the defense and on

Dimension One’s motion to strike. The court declined to strike the inequitable conduct defense

because the answer and counterclaim to the Second Amended complaint was the first

opportunity Defendant Tudor had to file those pleadings, since he had been added to this action

with the First Amended Complaint. (Order Re: (1) Summ. J. Mot.; (2) Dimension One’s Mot.

to Strike Untimely Expert Opinions; and (3) Dimension One’s Mot. to Strike Untimely

Affirmative Defense and Countercl.; filed 4/26/06, at 8.) As to the merits of the defense, the

court found that the PTO examiner considered the Wall Patent during the prosecution of the ‘102

Patent application. The nondisclosure of the Wall Patent application therefore could not support

an inequitable conduct defense. (Id. 15.) However, there was a genuine issue of material fact

/ / / / / 

Case 3:03-cv-01099-CAB Document 305 Filed 12/15/06 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 03cv1099

whether the Starlite device was cumulative of the Wall Patent. (Id. at 17.) Prior to this ruling,

Dimension One did not consider Wall and Campbell as relevant to the case. 

Dimension One maintains it promptly hired a private investigator to locate these

witnesses. Once they were located, Dimension One identified them to Coverplay. On July 17,

2006, it served Coverplay with Dimension One’s Supplemental Initial Disclosures, which for the

first time listed Wall and Campbell. (Joanna Esty Decl., Ex. 4.) This disclosure coincided with

the parties’ preparation for the pretrial conference.

In light of the above, Coverplay’s argument that Dimension One did not disclose Wall

and Campbell in its August 9, 2004 and July 18, 2005 discovery responses is a red herring, since

the inequitable conduct defense was not even a glimmer in Coverplay counsel’s eye at that time. 

Furthermore, Coverplay’s claim that until July 17 it was “unaware that these witnesses

existed” is disingenuous. (See Defs and Counterclaimants Coverplay, Inc.’s and Jess Tudor’s P.

&A. in Supp. of Mot. in Limine No. 1 at 7.) Wall and Campbell are both listed as inventors on

the face of the Wall Patent, which Coverplay discussed at some length at the Markman hearing

on October 1, 2004. (Garner Decl., Ex. A & B.) 

Since Dimension One supplemented its initial Rule 26(a) disclosures within a reasonable

time of locating its additional witnesses, the court also rejects Coverplay’s contention that

Dimension One violated Rule 26(e) by failing to supplement its initial disclosures.

Coverplay’s argument for Rule 37 sanctions is also rejected. Rule 37(c)(1) provides in

pertinent part:

A party that without substantial justification fails to disclose information required

by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or to amend a prior response to discovery as required by

Rule 26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence

at trial . . . any witness . . . not so disclosed. . . . 

Rule 37(c)(1) gives the district court’s discretion “particularly wide latitude.” Yeti by Molly LTD

v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 37(c)(1) sanctions are

inappropriate in this case because Dimension One provided a substantial justification for the

delay in disclosing Wall and Campbell – Coverplay’s own delay in pleading its inequitable

conduct defense. This is also one of the material factors that distinguishes the instant case from

Case 3:03-cv-01099-CAB Document 305 Filed 12/15/06 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 03cv1099

Yeti by Molly and from Wong v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 410, F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir.

2005).

In its reply, Coverplay raises a number of additional objections to Wall and Campbell’s

anticipated testimony, which include relevancy, competency and credibility. Since these issues

were raised for the first time on reply papers, Dimension One did not have an opportunity to

oppose. Accordingly, the court declines to consider them at this time. Coverplay may raise

these issues at trial.

Last, the court is mindful of Coverplay’s need to adequately prepare for trial, including

Wall and Campbell’s testimony. In its opposition, filed November 8, 2006, Dimension One

offered to make them available for deposition before trial. To the extent Coverplay has not

taken Dimension One up on this offer to date; it is hereby encouraged to do so.

For the foregoing reasons, Coverplay’s motion in limine no. 1 is DENIED. The parties

shall cooperate to arrange for deposition of Wall and Campbell before January 9, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2006

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:03-cv-01099-CAB Document 305 Filed 12/15/06 Page 7 of 7