Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01065/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 35:271 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 1 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AERUS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROTEAM, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No: 05-CV-1065-B(WMC)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

PROTEAM’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

DENYING ITS MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF

AERUS’ PATENT

INFRINGEMENT CLAIM

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant ProTeam, Inc.’s (“ProTeam”) Motion for

Reconsideration of This Court’s April 12, 2007, Order Denying Its Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment on Plaintiff Aerus LLC’s (“Aerus”) Patent Infringement Claim. (Doc.

No. 158.) ProTeam argues that the Court erred in finding a genuine issue of material fact

as to whether ProTeam infringes Aerus’ U.S. Patent No. 4,724,574 (“the ‘574 patent”),

because ProTeam’s Accused Product (1) does not meet a claimed limitation in the patent

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 8
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 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

since no equivalent structure exists in the Accused Product; and (2) does not infringe under

the doctrine of equivalents since the Accused Product does not accomplish substantially the

same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result. 

Based on the reasoning set forth below, the Court DENIES ProTeam’s Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2007, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on Aerus’ Patent Infringement Claim. (Doc. No. 151.) As the Court

stated in that Order, ProTeam had moved for partial summary judgment on two grounds:

“(1) the ‘574 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the public use/on-sale bar;

and (2) ProTeam’s vacuums do not infringe because they do not meet each and every

limitation of the asserted claim 1.” (Id. at 3.)

The Court denied ProTeam’s motion as to invalidity, holding that “without

corroboration, Mr. Luisi’s deposition testimony [as to sale/public use one year prior to the

filing of the ‘574 patent] is insufficient to meet the clear and convincing burden for

invalidity under the on sale/public use bar.” (Id. at 5.) The Court also denied ProTeam’s

motion as to infringement, finding that there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether ProTeam’s vacuum had an equivalent corresponding structure as to claim 1 of the

‘574 patent. (Id. at 6.) ProTeam presently moves this Court for reconsideration as to the

Court’s holding as to this second ground for moving for partial summary judgment.

III. DISCUSSION

A. STANDARD OF LAW: Motion for Reconsideration

ProTeam makes the present Motion under Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1), which states:

Whenever any motion or any application or petition for any order or other

relief has been made to any judge and has been refused in whole or in part, or

has been granted conditionally or on terms, and a subsequent motion or

application or petition is made for the same relief in whole or in part upon the

same or any alleged different state of facts, it shall be the continuing duty of

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 8
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 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

each party and attorney seeking such relief to present to the judge to whom

any subsequent application is made an affidavit of a party or witness or

certified statement of an attorney setting forth the material facts and

circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1)

when and to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision

or order was made thereon, and (3) what new or different facts and

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown,

upon such prior application.

CivLR 7.1(i)(1).

A district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed by the Federal

Circuit under the standard of review used by the governing regional circuit, in this case the

Ninth Circuit. See Bd. of Trs. of Bay Med. Ctr. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs.,

Inc., 447 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has held that Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order.” 

Carroll v. Nakatini, 342 F.3d 934 at 945 (9th Cir. 2003). However, the Ninth Circuit

qualifies that the rule offers an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests

of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). 

Specifically, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 

Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)); see

Brooks v. Alameda, No. 04CV2069, 2006 WL 3068855, at *1 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 11, 2006)

(applying the same standard for motions for reconsideration brought under Civil Local Rule

7.1 and under the Federal Rules). The Ninth Circuit concludes that a motion for

reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time

when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll, 342 F.3d at

945. Furthermore, any newly discovered evidence should be “of such magnitude that

production of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.” 

Response Time, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 97 Fed.Appx. 726, 728 (9th Cir. 2004).

B. ANALYSIS

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 8
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 4 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

As the Court stated in its Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment on Aerus’ Patent Infringement Claim, 

ProTeam also moves for partial summary judgment that its vacuums do not

infringe claim 1 of the ‘574 patent because they do not meet the claim

limitation of a “means for retaining said body closure in a closed position.”

(Doc. No. 151 at 5.) ProTeam moved for summary judgment of non-infringement on the

grounds that its Accused Product does not literally infringe the ‘574 patent. ProTeam did

not make any arguments as to the doctrine of equivalents.

The Court explained the relevant standard of law:

“Literal infringement of a means-plus-function claim limitation requires that

the relevant structure in the accused device perform the identical function

recited in the claim and be identical or equivalent to the corresponding

structure in the specification.” Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. U.S.

Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A structure is an

equivalent if to [sic] the disclosed structure if “the two perform the identical

function in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result.” 

Id.

(Id.)

The Court denied ProTeam’s motion as to infringement, finding that there remained

a genuine issue of material fact as to whether ProTeam’s vacuum had an equivalent

corresponding structure as to claim 1 of the ‘574 patent. (Id. at 6.) ProTeam presently

moves this Court for reconsideration as to the Court’s holding as to this second ground for

moving for partial summary judgment.

As stated above, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly

unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 

Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945. 

1. No Intervening Change in the Controlling Law

ProTeam does not argue, nor has the Court found, an intervening change in the

controlling law as to literal patent infringement between April 12, 2007, when the Court

issued the Order in dispute, and now. The Court therefore turns to the second possible

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 8
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 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

grounds for a successful motion for reconsideration.

2. No Newly Discovered Evidence That Could Not Reasonably Have

Been Discovered Earlier and That Would Likely Change the

Disposition of the Order at Issue

As stated above, the Ninth Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration “may

not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945. 

Furthermore, any newly discovered evidence should be “of such magnitude that production

of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.” Response Time,

Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 97 Fed.Appx. 726, 728 (9th Cir. 2004).

ProTeam has not presented any newly discovered evidence, nor does it argue that

such newly discovered evidence exists, that could not reasonably have been discovered

earlier and that would likely change the disposition of the Court’s Order as to literal

infringement. We therefore turn to the third grounds for a successful motion for

reconsideration.

3. No Clear Error in Disputed Order

a. Literal Infringement

ProTeam argues that “[c]ontrary to the Court’s ruling, ProTeam’s accused devise

[sic] does not literally infringe Aerus’ patent since it does not meet the claimed limitation in

the patent because it does not include a ‘structural equivalent’ to the limitations found in

Aerus’ patent.” (Def’s Br. at 1.)

In the Court’s Order at issue, it laid out the relevant claim construction language:

The Court construed the limitation at issue, “means for retaining said body

closure in a closed position” to have the function “to retain the body closure

assembly in a closed position,” and to have the structure described at column

4 lines 62-65 and in Figure 9 of the ‘574 patent. The lines at column 4 states:

“The hollow handle 206 also has surfaces defining an opening 232 for

receiving a projection 234 of the latch 200 and normally lock the cover

assembly 112 in the closed position.” 

(Doc. No. 151 at 5.)

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 8
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 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

In ProTeam’s underlying Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ProTeam argued

no literal infringement as follows:

ProTeam’s upright vacuum does include a similar handle assembly having a

hand grip portion and a hollow elongated tube. However, the ProTeam

vacuum adds an additional “multifunctional” element called a “carry handle”

to the back of the vacuum that is not shown, described, or contemplated in the

‘574 Patent. This carry handle includes a support that a user can grab to carry

the vacuum or can be used to hang the vacuum on a wall for storage. It is this

separate carry handle that includes a pair of holes that receive a pair of

corresponding spring loaded prongs to lock the bag housing cover to the bag

housing. SSOF [ProTeam’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts], ¶ 17.

Thus, ProTeam’s vacuums do not infringe claim one because they do not

have an opening in the hollow elongated tube that accepts a prong to keep the

bag housing cover in a closed position:

(Doc. No. 108 at 15.) 

However, the Court reasoned in its Order:

ProTeam contends that its vacuums do not have this structure because

its vacuums use a carry handle attached to the hollow tube handle and the

carry handle has a pair of holes to receive the spring-loaded prongs to lock

the bag housing cover to the bag housing, rather than having any openings in

the hollow handle as shown in the ‘574 patent. Aerus argues in response that

the Court’s construction is not limited to a hole contained within the hollow

tube. It argues that “surfaces” should include any openings along the same

plane of the hollow handle tube that accomplish the same function.

Under the means-plus-function language of the claim, ProTeam’s

vacuum does not meet the corresponding structure identically since the

hollow handle itself does not have surfaces defining an opening. However,

there is at least a question of fact as to whether the carry handle of ProTeam’s

vacuum is an equivalent corresponding structure. It appears to perform the

same function; it keeps the bag housing cover closed onto the bag housing. It

arguably does so in substantially the same way, with substantially the same

result. Like the hollow handle structure of the ‘574 patent, the carry handle

of ProTeam’s vacuum has holes which receive the prongs from the bag

housing cover. When the prongs are inserted in the carry handle’s openings,

the bag housing cover is held in the closed position. Therefore, with respect

to equivalent corresponding structures, there remains a genuine issue of

material fact to preclude summary judgment. Thus, ProTeam’s motion for

partial summary judgment of no infringement is DENIED.

(Doc No. 151 at 6.) 

In its Order, the Court clearly considered ProTeam’s separate carry handle before

denying summary judgment of no literal infringement. While the Court acknowledged that

the ProTeam carry handle is not structurally identical to that described in the patent, the

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 6 of 8
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 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

Court noted that “[l]ike the hollow handle structure of the ‘574 patent, the carry handle of

ProTeam’s vacuum has holes which receive the prongs from the bag housing cover. When

the prongs are inserted in the carry handle’s openings, the bag housing cover is held in the

closed position.” The Court concluded that the ProTeam handle “appears to perform the

same function” and “arguably does so in substantially the same way, with substantially the

same result.” 

ProTeam mistakenly argues that the Court has confused the legal standard for

“structural equivalence” with respect to literal infringement with that for infringement

under the doctrine of equivalents. However, the Federal Circuit has explicitly stated that

“[l]iteral infringement of a means-plus-function claim limitation requires that the relevant

structure in the accused device perform the identical function recited in the claim and be

identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification.” Applied Med.

Res. Corp., 448 F.3d at 1333 (citing Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324

F.3d 1308, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). The Federal Circuit then specifies that “[o]nce the

relevant structure in the accused device has been identified, a party may prove it is

equivalent to the disclosed structure by showing that the two perform the identical function

in substantially the same way, with substantially the same result.” Id. (citing Kemco Sales,

Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2000)). This is exactly the legal

standard applied by the Court in its Order Denying Partial Summary Judgment, and the

Court finds that ProTeam’s argument here is without merit.

Therefore, based on the evidence and arguments presented by ProTeam in its

underlying Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Court FINDS that it committed no

clear error in holding that “there remains a genuine issue of material fact to preclude

summary judgment” as to whether the ProTeam handle is structurally equivalent and

therefore as to whether the ProTeam vacuum literally infringes the ‘574 patent. 

b. Doctrine of equivalents

ProTeam also asserts that “contrary to the Court’s ruling, ProTeam’s accused device

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 7 of 8
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 8 05-CV-1065-B (WMC)

does not infringe Aerus’ patent under the doctrine of equivalents, since it does not perform

substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to obtain substantially the

same result as described in the Aerus patent.” (Def’s Br. at 1.) However, the Ninth Circuit

has held that a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

litigation.” Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945. 

ProTeam could have, but did not, raise infringement under the doctrine of

equivalents in its original Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Furthermore, the Court’s

Order in dispute does not address the issue of infringement under the doctrine of

equivalents. Therefore, the Court FINDS that this issue is not appropriate for a motion for

reconsideration.

Since ProTeam has not met the standard for motions for reconsideration as set forth

by the Ninth Circuit, the Court DENIES ProTeam’s present Motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES ProTeam’s Motion for

Reconsideration of This Court’s April 12, 2007, Order Denying Its Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment on Aerus’ Patent Infringement Claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: August 8, 2007

Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

United States Senior District Court Judge

cc: Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

 United States Magistrate Judge

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-01065-IEG-LSP Document 193 Filed 08/08/07 Page 8 of 8