Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01904/USCOURTS-ca13-18-01904-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc.
Appellant
Hafco Foundry and Machine Company, Incorporated
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY, 

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GMS MINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2018-1904

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of West Virginia in No. 1:15-cv-16143, 

Senior Judge David A. Faber.

______________________

Decided: March 16, 2020

______________________

ANDREW G. FUSCO, Bowles Rice, LLP, Morgantown, 

WV, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

JEFFREY A. RAY. 

 JAMES R. LAWRENCE, III, Michael Best & Friedrich, Raleigh, NC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by ANTHONY J. BILLER. 

 ______________________

Before NEWMAN, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2020
2 HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

Opinion of the court filed PER CURIAM.

Opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part filed by 

Circuit Judge NEWMAN.

PER CURIAM.

Hafco Foundry and Machine Company, Inc. (“Hafco”) is 

the owner of United States Design Patent No. D681,684 

(“the ’684 patent”), issued on May 7, 2013 for a “Rock Dust 

Blower.” This device is used to distribute rock dust in areas 

such as coal mines, where rock dust is applied to the mine’s 

interior surfaces, to control the explosive hazards of coal 

dust. Hafco developed and manufactured this device, and 

in April 2014 contracted with Pioneer Conveyer LLC, an 

affiliate of GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc. (together “GMS”), whereby GMS would serve as distributor of 

Hafco’s rock dust blower for sale to mining customers. In 

May 2015 Hafco terminated this arrangement, stating that 

performance was poor. GMS then produced a rock dust 

blower for sale to mining customers.

Hafco sued GMS for infringement of the ’684 patent. 

Trial was to a jury. GMS filed a pre-trial motion for patent 

invalidity, and the district court found that GMS had not 

presented any evidence that might establish invalidity. 

The jury then found GMS liable for willful infringement, 

and awarded damages of $123,650. The district court entered judgment on the verdict.

Both parties filed post-trial motions. On Hafco’s motion the court entered a permanent injunction against infringement. On GMS’ motion the district court remitted 

the damages award to zero, as not in accordance with the 

law of patent damages. The court offered a new trial on 

damages, and stayed the new trial pending this appeal.1 

1 Hafco Foundry & Mach. Co. v. GMS Mine Repair 

& Maint., Inc., Civ. No. 1:15-16143, 2018 WL 1582728, at 

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2020
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR 3

GMS raises two issues on appeal: whether it is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law on the issue of infringement; 

and, in the alternative, whether it is entitled to a new trial 

on the issue of infringement due to errors of law in the jury 

instruction. Hafco did not cross appeal on any issue relating to damages.

We affirm the judgment of infringement and the district court’s denial of GMS’ request for a new trial, the only 

two issues raised by GMS on appeal. We remand to the 

district court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion, including any proceedings necessary for a final 

judgment on damages.

Standards of Review

We review the denial of a motion for judgment as a 

matter of law (“JMOL”) under the law of the regional 

circuit where the appeal from the district court would 

normally lie. Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., 605 

F.3d 967, 973 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In the Fourth Circuit, the

district court’s ruling on a motion for JMOL receives 

plenary review. Anderson v. G.D.C., Inc., 281 F.3d 452, 457 

(4th Cir. 2002). The “decision to grant or deny a new trial 

is within the sound discretion of the district court, and we 

respect that determination absent an abuse of discretion.” 

Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294, 301 (4th Cir. 

1998).

On review of the jury’s factual findings, the evidence is 

viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. 

Dotson v. Pfizer, 558 F.3d 284, 292 (4th Cir. 2009). The 

*8–12 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 30, 2018) (“Dist. Ct. Op.”); id., 2018 

WL 1733986 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 10, 2018) (“Dist. Ct. Order”);

id., 2018 WL 1786588 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 12, 2018) 

(“Amended Order”); id., 2018 WL 3150353 (S.D. W. Va. 

June 26, 2018) (“Recon. Op.”).

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 3 Filed: 03/16/2020
4 HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

Fourth Circuit, in which this trial was held, “accord[s] the 

utmost respect to jury verdicts and tread[s] gingerly in 

reviewing them.” Lack v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 240 F.3d 

255, 259 (4th Cir. 2001); Price v. City of Charlotte, 93 F.3d 

1241, 1250 (4th Cir. 1996). See United States v. Foster, 507 

F.3d 233, 244 (4th Cir. 2007) (“A jury’s verdict must be 

upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the 

record to support it.”).

I

THE ’684 PATENT

The ’684 patent claims a design for a rock dust blower, 

as shown in the drawings: Figure 1 is a side view of the 

device, Figure 4 is a top view of the lid, and Figure 5 is a 

bottom view of the connector and stand:

GMS filed a pre-trial motion challenging patent validity on the ground that the ’684 patent is not a proper design 

patent because all the elements of the device are functional. GMS alternatively argued that the claim of the ’684 

patent should be construed to exclude all functional 

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 4 Filed: 03/16/2020
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR 5

elements of the claimed design. The district court denied 

the motion.

In its proposed jury instructions, GMS included an instruction that stated “[w]here a design contains both functional and non-functional elements, a design patent 

protects only the non-functional aspects of the design as 

shown in the patent drawings, if there are any such nonfunctional aspects.” This instruction was not included in 

the final jury instructions, and GMS neither objected to the 

jury instructions nor presented evidence on the functional 

aspects of the ’684 patent at trial.

In its post-trial motion, GMS argued that the design of 

its rock dust blower is plainly dissimilar to the claimed design, that there were errors of law in the jury instructions, 

and that it was unfairly prejudiced by its inability to introduce evidence of invalidity at trial. The district court ruled 

that substantial evidence supported the jury verdict of infringement, that the jury instructions were proper, and 

that it had not in fact precluded GMS from arguing invalidity at trial. Specifically, the district court stated that “If 

GMS wanted to argue the invalidity of the patent to the 

jury, it needed to offer evidence on this point. The court 

did not prohibit GMS from doing so.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 21. 

GMS did not argue that the functional aspects of the 

claimed design should have been excluded from the 

infringement analysis, or that it was prevented from 

making this argument at trial.

On appeal, GMS argues for the first time that, when 

certain functional and prior art aspects of the ’684 patent

are excluded, the design of its rock dust blower does not

infringe the claimed design of the ’684 patent as a matter 

of law. GMS does not challenge on appeal the district 

court’s invalidity or claim construction rulings. Because 

GMS never made this non-infringement argument at the 

district court, nor presented relevant evidence on the 

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 5 Filed: 03/16/2020
Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 6 Filed: 03/16/2020
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR 7

Infringement - Generally

Patent law gives the owner of a valid patent the 

right to exclude others from making, using, offering 

to sell or selling the patented design within the 

United States during the term of the patent. Any 

person or business entity that has engaged in any 

of those acts without the patent owner’s permission 

infringes the patent. Here, Hafco alleges that 

GMS’ rock dust blower infringes the ’684 design patent.

You have heard evidence about both Hafco’s commercial rock dust blower and GMS’ accused rock 

dust blower. However, in deciding the issue of infringement, you may not compare GMS’ rock dust 

blower to Hafco’s commercial rock dust blower. Rather, you must only compare GMS’ accused rock 

dust blower to the ’684 design patent when making

your decision regarding infringement.

Direct Infringement

To determine infringement, you must compare the 

overall appearances of GMS’ accused design to the 

design claimed in the Hafco ’684 Patent. If you find 

that, by a preponderance of evidence, the overall 

appearance of GMS’ accused rock dust blower is 

substantially the same as the overall appearance of 

Hafco’s claimed design, then you must find that the 

accused design infringes the Hafco ’684 design patent.

Two designs are substantially the same if, in the 

eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention 

as a purchaser usually gives, the resemblance between the two designs is such as to deceive such an 

observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing 

it to be the other. An ordinary observer is a person 

who buys and uses the product at issue. You do not 

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 7 Filed: 03/16/2020
8 HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

need, however, to find that any purchasers actually 

were deceived or confused by the appearance of the 

GMS rock dust blower.

In conducting this analysis, keep in mind that minor differences between the patented and accused 

designs should not prevent a finding of infringement. In weighing your decision, you should consider any perceived similarities or differences.

When evaluating designs, be it the claimed design, 

accused design, or prior art designs, you should always focus on the overall appearance of the design, 

and not individual features.

While these guidelines may be helpful to your analysis, please keep in mind that the sole test for infringement is whether you believe that the overall 

appearance of the accused GMS rock dust blower 

design is substantially the same as the overall appearance of Hafco’s ’684 design patent. If you find 

by a preponderance of the evidence that GMS’ accused rock dust blower is substantially the same as 

the ’684 design patent, then you must find that the 

accused GMS product infringes the Hafco ’684 design patent.

Jury instructions, J.A. 484–88. GMS states that the jury 

instructions are flawed in two respects: first, that the instructions “incompletely and prejudicially abridg[ed] the 

Gorham test,” referring to Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 

511, 528 (1871). Dist. Ct. Op. at 19 (quoting GMS’ Motion 

for JMOL). Second, GMS states that the jury should have 

been instructed “that the hypothetical ordinary purchaser 

is to view the patented and accused designs ‘in the context 

of the prior art.’” GMS Br. 32.

To challenge a jury instruction, it must be established 

that “(1) the district court erred; (2) the error is plain; ‘(3) 

the error affects substantial rights; and (4) . . . the error 

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 8 Filed: 03/16/2020
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR 9

seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation 

of judicial proceedings.’” United States ex rel. Oberg v. Pa.

Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 912 F.3d 731, 738 (4th 

Cir. 2019) (citing Gregg v. Ham, 678 F.3d 333, 338 (4th Cir. 

2012)). Objection to the presence or absence of an 

instruction must be timely raised during the trial 

proceeding, and the correct instruction offered and 

rejected. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide:

Rule 51(d)(1). A party may assign as error: (A) an 

error in an instruction actually given, if that party 

properly objected; or (B) a failure to give an 

instruction, if that party properly requested it 

and—unless the court rejected the request in a 

definitive ruling on the record—also properly 

objected.

See Bunn v. Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. KG, 723 F.3d 

454, 468–69 (4th Cir. 2013) (A party “fail[s] to preserve a 

challenge to the jury instructions” when it “has provided no 

record of an objection to the district court”). The Rules also 

provide that a court may consider a plain error in the 

instructions that has not been preserved if the error affects 

substantial rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2).

GMS concedes that it “does not contend it made a 

proper objection to the district court’s jury instructions at 

trial.” GMS Br. 30. However, GMS states that since the 

instructions were incorrect in law, GMS is entitled to a new 

trial, citing Rule 51(d)(2). The Fourth Circuit explained in 

Bunn that “[e]ven if a jury was erroneously instructed, 

however, we will not set aside a resulting verdict unless the

erroneous instruction seriously prejudiced the challenging 

party’s case.” Bunn, 723 F.3d at 468 (emphasis in original) 

(citing Coll. Loan Corp. v. SLM Corp., 396 F.3d 588, 595 

(4th Cir. 2005)).

GMS first assigns error to the jury instructions on the 

“ordinary observer”:

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 9 Filed: 03/16/2020
10 HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

1. The Ordinary Observer

Infringement of a design patent is determined from the 

viewpoint of the ordinary observer, comparing the patented 

design with the article’s overall appearance. Gorham, 81 

U.S. at 528 (“[I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving 

such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs 

are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to 

deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one 

supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is 

infringed by the other.”).

The jury instructions define the ordinary observer as 

“a person who buys and uses the product at issue.” J.A.

485. GMS made no objection to this definition. Although 

GMS now argues that “GMS’ rights were substantially 

affected by the district court’s failure to include a complete 

description of the ordinary purchaser,” GMS Br. 33, we are 

not directed to any request for such instruction or any 

explanation of the purported flaw.

GMS also states that the jury should have been

instructed that “small differences between the 

accused and the claimed design” will avoid 

infringement. GMS Br. 32–33. Such an instruction was not requested at the trial. Nor would it 

have been correct, for the patented and accused 

designs need not be identical in order for design 

patent infringement to be found. Braun Inc. v. 

Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 820 (Fed. 

Cir. 1992). The controlling inquiry is how the 

ordinary observer would perceive the article. 

OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 

1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Contessa Food

Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1377 

(Fed. Cir. 2002) abrogated on other grounds 

by Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 

665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (competing designs can be 

substantially similar despite minor differences).

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 10 Filed: 03/16/2020
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR 11

The jury was correctly instructed that the question is 

how the ordinary oberver would view the article as a whole.

See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 

1312, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Differences [between the 

claimed design and accused design] must be evaluated in 

the context of the claimed design as a whole, and not in the 

context of separate elements in isolation.”); Amini 

Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1372 

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (an element-by-element comparison, 

without consideration of the ordinary observer inquiry to 

the overall design, is procedural error). GMS has failed to 

establish that there was any error in the jury instructions 

on the “ordinary observer,” much less plain error

warranting a new trial.

2. Differences From the Prior Art

GMS states that the jury should have been instructed 

to “familiarize yourself with each of the prior art designs 

that have been brought to your attention,” citing the IPO 

Model Design Patent Jury Instructions at 25 (2010). GMS 

Br. 35–36. Hafco responds that GMS presented “not . . .

even a scintilla” of prior art to the jury. Hafco Br. 3. GMS 

does not state otherwise, arguing only that a 55-gallon 

drum is a standard size.

Although GMS states that “[a] properly instructed jury 

would have been drawn to the same things an ordinary observer would be drawn to—namely the ‘aspects of the 

claimed design that differ from the prior art,’” GMS Br. 18

(citing Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 676), the record 

shows no presentation of prior art, and Hafco states that 

GMS “never submitted a jury instruction regarding same.” 

Hafco Br. 3. GMS does not state otherwise.

Given that there was no prior art introduced at trial, 

no attempt by GMS to introduce the prior art, and no 

proposed jury instruction on this issue, the purported 

exclusion of this instruction cannot be error. Accordingly, 

GMS has not demonstrated that a new trial is warranted.

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 11 Filed: 03/16/2020
12 HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

CONCLUSION

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 12 Filed: 03/16/2020
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY, 

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GMS MINE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2018-1904

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of West Virginia in No. 1:15-cv-16143, 

Senior Judge David A. Faber.

______________________

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in 

part.

I concur in the court’s decision. I write separately because I would resolve the matter of damages, for when the 

facts are not disputed the jury’s application of incorrect law 

is subject to correction by the court, particularly when such 

correction implements the jury’s intent. I would accept 

Hafco’s proposed remittitur to $110,000, on undisputed application of the correct law.

The measure of damages

The jury awarded damages of $123,650, measured by 

GMS’s infringing sales. Hafco’s lost profits were $110,000. 

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 13 Filed: 03/16/2020
2 HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

These facts were attested at the trial, and are not disputed. 

The jury was correctly instructed on the law of patent damages; the instructions included:

A plaintiff in a design patent case can elect to prove 

either actual damages, known as compensatory

damages, or it may elect to prove the amount of

defendant’s profits from the sale of the infringing

product as its measure of recovery. With respect to

actual damages, if you believe GMS infringed the 

’684 Patent, Hafco is entitled to receive damages 

adequate to compensate it for infringement

beginning on April 20, 2015 to the present. Those 

damages can be in the form of lost profits or a 

reasonable royalty. The term lost profits means 

any and all actual reduction in business profits 

Hafco suffered as the result of GMS’ infringement 

of the ’684 Patent. . . .

In this case, Hafco seeks to recover lost profits

resulting from GMS’ infringement of the ’684 

Patent. If you conclude that Hafco has proved that 

it lost profits because of GMS’ infringement, the 

lost profits you award should be the amount that 

Hafco would have made on any sales that Hafco 

lost because of the infringement.

J.A. 487–489. These instructions were not challenged at 

trial, and are not challenged on appeal.

The district court agreed with GMS, on post-trial motion, that the $123,650 jury damages award does not “under any conceivable view of the evidence” represent Hafco’s 

lost profits. Hafco Foundry & Mach. Co. v. GMS Mine Repair & Maint., Inc., Civ. No. 1:15 -16143, 2018 WL 

1582728, at *8 (S.D. W.Va. Mar. 30, 2018) (“Dist. Ct. Op.”). 

All parties agree that the correct standard is Hafco’s lost 

profits. The district court remitted the damages to zero, 

and offered a new trial on damages. Hafco argues that “any 

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 14 Filed: 03/16/2020
HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR 3

remittitur of the damage award should have been to an 

amount no less than $110,000.00,” Hafco Br. 1–2.

Jury damages awards, unless clearly unreasonable or 

based on error in the jury instructions, are not readily modified. See Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 180 (4th 

Cir. 2001) (“A jury’s award of damages stands unless it is 

grossly excessive or shocking to the conscience.”) (quotation 

omitted). Hafco offers some theories why the jury could 

have measured damages by GMS’ sales, for the jury was 

not told that this evidence was irrelevant.

Hafco acknowledges that the jury instructions limited 

damages to Hafco’s lost profits. The district court correctly 

so observed. However, Hafco suggests that remittitur to 

Hafco’s lost profits of $110,000 would be a more reasonable 

action than remittitur to zero, for $110,000 reasonably implements the jury’s verdict and intent. See Minks v. Polaris 

Indus., Inc., 546 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]here 

a portion of a verdict is for an identifiable amount that is 

not permitted by law, the court may simply modify the 

jury’s verdict to that extent and enter judgment for the correct amount.” (quoting Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 

170 F.3d 1320, 1330 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing N.Y., L.E. & 

W.R. Co. v. Estill, 147 U.S. 591 (1893)))).

I would simply correct the district court’s judgment, 

and remit the damages award to the undisputed amount of 

$110,000. A new trial, on undisputed facts, is not needed 

to serve the purposes of the jury verdict.

Post-Trial Motions

In view of this expected appeal, the district court denied without prejudice Hafco’s motions for enhanced damages, attorney fees, and interest. Enhanced damages and 

attorney fees now await resolution on remand. However, 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 37(b) requires the appellate tribunal to determine post-judgment interest. See

Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 318 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 15 Filed: 03/16/2020
4 HAFCO FOUNDRY AND MACHINE CO. v. GMS MINE REPAIR

(“[T]he responsibility and authority for [determining 

whether a party to an appeal is entitled to post-judgment 

interest] is assigned to the appellate tribunal.”). On the 

remittitur that I recommend, this aspect would require our 

attention.

Case: 18-1904 Document: 49 Page: 16 Filed: 03/16/2020