Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03012/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-03012-6/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

The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

1

underlying the present motion.

Zinus did vaguely allude to this argument in the “Legal Standards” section of its opening 2

brief, but it failed to discuss that theory in the“Application of the Law to the Facts” section of its brief.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ZINUS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIMMONS BEDDING COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 07-3012 PVT

INTERIM ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

ZINUS, INC.’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On October 2, 2007, Zinus, Inc. (“Zinus”) filed a motion seeking a summary adjudication

that its “Swirl Wrap” packaging method did not infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of

equivalents, the U.S. Patent Re. 36,142 (“the ‘142 Patent”). Defendants Simmons Bedding 1

Company (“Simmons”) and Dreamwell, Ltd. (“Dreamwell,” collectively “Defendants”) opposed the

motion solely with regard to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In its reply, Zinus made

two arguments it had not presented in its moving papers. First, it argued that the range of

equivalents Defendants seek is precluded by prosecution history estoppel. Second, it argued that the

doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to cover the Swirl Wrap packaging method because that

method was obvious from prior art, specifically U.S. Patent No. 4,711,067 (the “Magni patent”).

2

Defendants filed a motion to strike the two new arguments.

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 72 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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 Defendants already set forth their proposed construction of these terms in their opposition 3

to Zinus’ motion for summary adjudication.

ORDER, page 2

On December 6, 2007, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary

adjudication without prejudice, denying Defendants’ motion to strike as moot, and scheduling a Case

Management Conference. At the Case Management Conference Statement the court granted leave

for Zinus to file a motion for reconsideration of this court’s denial of Zinus’ motion for summary

adjudication.

On December 17, 2007, Zinus filed its motion for reconsideration. Defendants opposed the

motion. Having reviewed the moving, opposition and reply papers submitted by the parties, the

court finds it appropriate to issue this interim order. Based on the moving, opposition and reply

papers submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court will reconsider its ruling on Zinus’ motion for

summary adjudication. However, except for the issue of literal infringement, before again ruling on

Zinus’ motion for summary adjudication the court needs further briefing from the parties on two

matters as set forth herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zinus’ motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED

with respect to literal infringement. In its prior order, the court overlooked the issue of literal

infringement. Defendants never opposed Zinus’ motion with regard to the issue of whether Zinus’

Swirl Wrap packaging method literally infringes the ‘142 Patent. Thus, summary adjudication as to

literal infringement is warranted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than January 29, 2008, Zinus shall file a claims

construction brief covering the terms “Inserting . . . into” and “containment sleeve” as those two

terms are used in the ‘142 Patent, as well as the term “ribbon shaped film” as it is used in the Magni 3

Patent. No later than February 5, 2008, Defendants will file a claims construction brief responding

to Zinus’ claims construction brief. Zinus may, no later than February 12, 2008, file a reply to

Defendants’ claims construction brief.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in order to facilitate a determination of whether the Swirl

Wrap packaging method was obvious from or anticipated by the prior art so as to preclude use of the

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 72 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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

See Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 4

(“While use of a hypothetical claim may permit a minor extension of a claim to cover subject matter that

is substantially equivalent to that literally claimed, one cannot, in the course of litigation and outside of

the PTO, cut and trim, expanding here, and narrowing there, to arrive at a claim that encompasses an

accused device, but avoids the prior art. Slight broadening is permitted at that point, but not

narrowing.”). 

ORDER, page 3

doctrine of equivalents to establish infringement, the court will employ the “hypothetical claim”

procedure set forth in Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates, 904 F.2d 677,

684-685 (Fed. Cir. 1990). No later than January 29, 2008, Defendants shall file a supplemental

opposition brief setting forth a hypothetical patent claim which is sufficiently broad in scope to 4

literally cover the Swirl Wrap packaging method. See Wilson, 904 F.2d at 684. Defendants shall

also address in their supplemental brief the likelihood that the patent office would have allowed the

proposed hypothetical claim in light of the relevant prior art. No later than February 5, 2008, Zinus

shall file a supplemental reply addressing the likelihood the patent office would allow the proposed

hypothetical claim, and, if Zinus disagrees that the Swirl Wrap packaging method would literally

infringe the hypothetical claim, its argument in that regard as well. No later than February 12, 2008,

the Defendants may file a sur-reply, responding to the arguments in Zinus’ supplemental reply. 

Absent further order of the court, the motion will be deemed submitted on the papers.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is

continued to 10:00 a.m. on February 19, 2008.

Dated: 1/17/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-03012-PVT Document 72 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3