Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00385/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00385-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
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 - 08-CV-0385

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOON PARK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-cv-0385 DMS (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; AND

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO

STRIKE AS MOOT

[Docs. 102, 110 & 145]

vs.

CAS ENTERPRISES, INC dba KREG TOOL

COMPANY,

Defendant.

____________________________________

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement,

and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment of validity and infringement regarding

United States Patent No. 7,374,373 (‘373 Patent). Plaintiff also moved to strike testimony and exhibits

submitted by Defendant in opposition to Plaintiff’s cross-motion. The motions came on for hearing

on December 18, 2009. Paul Adams appeared and argued on behalf of Plaintiff Joon Park. Frank

Farrell and John Haller appeared and argued on behalf of Defendant CAS Enterprises, Inc., dba Kreg

Tool Company. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted and Plaintiff’s motions

are denied as moot.

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS Document 180 Filed 12/29/09 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

- 2 - 08-CV-0385

I.

BACKGROUND

Three patents are at issue in this case: United States Patent Nos. 6,637,988 (‘988 Patent),

7,134,814 (‘814 Patent) and 7,374,373 (‘373 Patent). All three patents are part of a family of patents,

covering woodworking tools for drilling pocket holes. On February 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed the initial

complaint in this matter, alleging infringement of the ‘988 and ‘814 Patents. Defendant filed an

Answer and Counterclaim on June 18, 2008. Defendant filed First and Second Amended Answers and

Counterclaims on July 10, 2008 and July 17, 2008, respectively, adding the ‘373 Patent. Plaintiff filed

a motion to dismiss, arguing that Defendant lacked standing to counterclaim on the ‘373 Patent. The

Court denied the motion, and Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, in which Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant infringes: (1) ‘988 Patent claims 1, 12, and 20; (2) ‘814 Patent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10,

and 11; and (3) ‘373 Patent claim 14. 

On April 14, 2009, the Court held a Markman hearing, and on June 9, 2009, the Court issued

its Order construing the disputed claim terms. (Doc. 63., hereinafter “Markman Order”.) On June 12,

2009, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on invalidity of the three

patents. (Doc. 64.) On July 27, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

Markman Order.

Defendant filed the present motion on September 25, 2009 (Doc. 102). Plaintiff filed an

opposition (Doc. 108), and Defendant filed a reply (Doc. 112). Plaintiff filed his cross-motion on

October 14, 2009 (Doc. 110). Defendant filed an opposition (Doc. 136), and Plaintiff filed a reply

(Doc. 146). Plaintiff filed the motion to strike on November 13, 2009 (Doc. 145). Defendant filed

an opposition (Doc. 167) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 173.).

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,

430 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “A material issue of fact is one

that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to resolve the parties’ differing versions

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS Document 180 Filed 12/29/09 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 - 08-CV-0385

of the truth.” S.E.C. v. Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982). The moving party

carries the initial burden of demonstrating that summary judgment is proper. Adickes v. S.H. Kress

& Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). To meet this burden, the moving party must identify the pleadings,

depositions, affidavits, or other evidence that it “believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue

of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). If the moving party satisfies

this initial burden, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that summary judgment is not

appropriate. Id. at 324. The opposing party’s evidence is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences

are to be drawn in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). To avoid

summary judgment, the opposing party cannot rest solely on conclusory allegations. Berg v.

Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). Instead, it must designate specific facts showing there

is a genuine issue for trial. Id. More than a “metaphysical doubt” is required to establish a genuine

issue of material fact.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

(1986). 

III.

DISCUSSION

The instant motion addresses the ‘373 Patent, which covers a high-production, automated

pocket hole drilling machine. The accused products are Defendant’s DB55 and DB110 pocket hole

drilling machines. Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s products infringe Claim 14 of the ‘373 Patent. Claim

14 is dependent on claims 5 and 13. The disputed claim for purposes of this motion is Claim 13 which

provides:

The apparatus as claimed in claim 5, further comprising a clamp which is movable to

secure the workpiece, wherein said actuator provides a first point, a second point and

a third point, wherein the movement of said actuator from said first point to second

point causes clamping the workpiece by said clamp and the movement of said actuator

from said second point to third point causes said drilling module to move to cut the

pocket-hole in the workpiece by said first motor.

During claim construction, the parties disputed the scope of movement of the actuator between

the first, second, and third points. The Court noted that “one of the invention’s stated objectives is to

“improve[] clamping” over the prior art. (Id., col. 1, lines 40-41.) ‘Improved clamping’ suggests that

attention be paid to clamping the workpiece before other features of the invention are activated.” The

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS Document 180 Filed 12/29/09 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

- 4 - 08-CV-0385

Court rejected Plaintiff’s claim that the drilling module could move when the actuator moves between

the first point and second point. Thus, the Court construed the limitation to mean “movement of the

actuator from the first to the second point causes the clamp to engage the workpiece without

movement of the drilling module, while movement of the actuator from the second to the third point

causes movement of the drilling module.” (Markman Order at 24-25.) 

In the accused product, the clamp and drilling module move simultaneously. It is clear from

viewing the product lodged with the Court that the clamp and drilling module move together. This

conclusion is also supported by Defendant’s expert. (Witt Decl.) Thus, as Plaintiff concedes,

Defendant’s product does not literally infringe the ‘373 Patent. The issue, therefore, is whether the

accused product infringes under the doctrine of equivalents.

A determination of infringement, or in this case non-infringement, “requires a two-step

analysis. ‘First, the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second,

the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process.’” Terlep v.

Brinkmann Corp., 418 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (quoting Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech.

Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). The first step is a question of law, and the second step

is ordinarily a question of fact. Nystrom v. Trex Co., Inc., 424 F.3d 1136, 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Infringement will not be shown unless the plaintiff demonstrates “‘the presence of every element or

its substantial equivalent in the accused device.’” Terlep, 418 F.3d at 1384-85 (quoting Wolverine

World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Infringement can be found under

the doctrine of equivalents where the accused product performs substantially the same function, in

substantially the same way, to reach the same result. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products

Co., 339 U.S. 605, 308 (1950). Equivalence is assessed on a limitation-by-limitation basis, not from

the perspective of the invention as a whole. Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350,

1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used when it would entirely vitiate a

claim limitation. Carnegie Mellon University v. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1129 (Fed.

Cir. 2008). 

The Federal Circuit has stated: 

There is no set formula for determining whether a finding of equivalence would vitiate

a claim limitation, and thereby violate the all limitations rule. Rather, courts must

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS Document 180 Filed 12/29/09 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 - 08-CV-0385

consider the totality of the circumstances of each case and determine whether the

alleged equivalent can be fairly characterized as an insubstantial change from the

claimed subject matter without rendering the pertinent limitation meaningless. 

Freedman Seating, 420 F.3d at 1359. 

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s products infringe under the function/way/result test. Plaintiff

argues that the important aspect of the patent is that the workpiece is clamped before the drill bit tip

comes in contact with the workpiece. Under the function/way/result test, Plaintiff argues the ultimate

“result” is to “ensure the workpiece is firmly clamped, followed by a rapid drill bit tip contact with the

workpiece to create a crisp pocket hole with a low cycle time.” The function is “controlling the timing

of contact of the drill bit tip with the workpiece by setting (1) the distance between the workpiece and

drill bit tip; (2) the average speed at which the drill bit moves toward the workpiece; and (3) initial

movement of the drill motor.” The way is through a linkage between the lever, drill bit and clamp.

Defendant correctly argues that adopting Plaintiff’s equivalents argument would vitiate the

claim limitation that “movement of the actuator from the first to the second point causes the clamp

to engage the workpiece without movement of the drilling module.” (Markman Order at 25) (emphasis

added). Although the patent as a whole may disclose a machine that controls distance, speed, and

initiation time of the clamping structure and drill motor, the focus of Defendant’s motion is on the

limitation at issue. Claim 13 of the ‘373 Patent discloses an actuator which provides three distinct

points. One action, clamping the workpiece, occurs when the actuator moves between points one and

two. A separate action, moving the drilling module, occurs when the actuator moves between points

two and three. Defendant’s products do not contain three points; rather the clamp and the drilling

module move at the same time.

Plaintiff, making similar arguments as those rejected by the Court during claim construction,

argues the delay between clamping the structure and moving the drilling module could be only a

fraction of a second, and that nothing in the patent “would disclaim an operation of the lever in which

the drilling module moves simultaneously with the movement from the first point to the second point

so long as the clamping action is complete prior to contact of the drill bit with the workpiece.” This

argument is unpersuasive. The patent describes a two-step process in which the drilling module does

not move until after the workpiece is clamped and the actuator is moving between points two and

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS Document 180 Filed 12/29/09 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 The patent does not cover the DB55 which is a pneumatically driven machine, rather than an

1

electrically driven machine, but the lever sequence at issue is the same in both products.

- 6 - 08-CV-0385

three. Plaintiff’s equivalents arguments entirely read out the claim limitations that create three distinct

points, and in which the clamp moves first without movement of the drilling module.

Defendant’s position is also supported by its recent Notice of Allowance from the United States

Patent Office (USPTO), which allows a patent that covers Defendant’s DB110 product. (Farrell 1

Decl., Ex. D.) Defendant’s application originally was rejected by the USPTO as being anticipated by

the ‘373 Patent. (Newman Decl., Ex. 4.) Defendant filed a Request for Continued Examination

arguing that the ‘373 Patent teaches away from Defendant’s proposed patent because the ‘373 Patent

requires a two-step clamp assemblythat clampstheworkpiece first, then moves the drill when a handle

is moved. (Newman Decl., Ex. 16.) Defendant argued its invention was not taught by the ‘373 Patent

because its clamp assembly and drill are configured to move simultaneously. (Id.) The patent

examiner found Defendant’s arguments persuasive and stated that the ‘373 Patent “does not disclose

‘a handle operatively coupled to the clamp assembly and the drill to simultaneously move the drill

collet along the longitudinal axis and to move the clamp pad in the direction substantially

perpendicular to the work surface’ as claimed in [Defendant’s patent application.]” The patent

examiner found that the ‘373 Patent does not anticipate Defendant’s patent and that the prior art does

not render Defendant’s patent claim obvious. (Farrell Decl., Ex. D.) 

Thus, the patent examiner specifically examined Defendant’s product in light of the ‘373 Patent

and found a non-anticipated and non-obvious distinction between the two patent claims that warranted

granting Defendant’s patent. This is additional evidence that the products are not equivalent. See

Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., 9 F.3d 948, 954 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that the USPTO’s grant of

a patent for the accused product with knowledge of the patent at issue in the case meant the accused

product was nonobvious with respect to the patented product and was relevant to the equivalence

issue); General Atomics v. Axis-Shield ASA, 440 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“When the

PTO grants a patent that covers an accused product with knowledge of the asserted patents, a court

may consider it as evidence that the product is not equivalent to the invention disclosed by the asserted

patents.”). Accordingly, based upon the undisputed facts in the record, Defendant is entitled to

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS Document 180 Filed 12/29/09 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 - 08-CV-0385

summary judgment of non-infringement.

IV.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ‘373

Patent is granted. Plaintiff’s motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 29, 2009

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00385-DMS-NLS Document 180 Filed 12/29/09 Page 7 of 7