Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01370/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01370-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kat Industries, Inc.
Appellee
Kat Machine, Incorporated
Appellee
Red Dog Mobile Shelters, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC, A 

DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

KAT INDUSTRIES, INC., KAT MACHINE, 

INCORPORATED,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2016-1370

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas in No. 3:13-cv-03756-K, Judge 

Ed Kinkeade.

______________________ 

Decided: November 3, 2016 

______________________ 

ELVIN E. SMITH, III, Law Offices of Elvin E. Smith, III 

PLLC, Rockwall, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by CLYDE MOODY SIEBMAN, Siebman, Burg, 

Phillips & Smith, LLP, Sherman, TX.

RICHARD BRENT COOPER, Cooper & Scully, PC, Dallas, 

TX, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by 

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/03/2016
2 RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC v. KAT INDUSTRIES, INC. 

DIANA L. FAUST, BENTON WILLIAMS, II, ELLIOTT TEALE 

COOPER. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

Red Dog Mobile Shelters, LLC brought a suit for 

infringement against Kat Industries, Inc. and Kat Machine, Inc. (collectively, KAT), alleging that KAT’s Tuffy 

shelter infringes Red Dog’s U.S. Patent No. 8,534,001. 

The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. We affirm.

I 

Red Dog’s ’001 patent, entitled “Re-Deployable Mobile 

Above Ground Shelter,” discloses certain protective shelters having features whose purpose is to help the shelter 

stay in place during high winds or similar conditions. 

’001 patent, col. 3, lines 37–40. At least some of those 

features exploit the Bernoulli effect, which involves 

differences in air pressure related to differences in air 

speeds, to keep the shelter from moving from the substrate beneath it. Id., col. 3, lines 40–49. Disclosed 

features include “one or more members that elevate the 

floor above a substrate, a substantially enclosed sub-floor 

region bounded by the protected shelter and the substrate, and an air duct providing airflow communication 

between the substantially enclosed sub-floor region and 

an exterior region of the enclosure via” venting. Id., col. 2, 

lines 28–33 (summary of the invention). As to the claims, 

the district court in this case observed that although “the 

specification describes the shelter as being mobile, above 

ground, and as taking advantage of this Bernoulli effect[,] 

the claims do not strictly require the claimed invention to 

have these features.” J.A. 5.

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/03/2016
RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC v. KAT INDUSTRIES, INC. 3

According to the record on summary judgment that 

governs the decision on review, KAT manufactures mobile 

protective shelters that are designed to protect occupants 

during storms or tornadoes, and the particular one at 

issue here is the Tuffy shelter. Red Dog brought this 

infringement suit against KAT in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging 

that KAT’s Tuffy shelter infringed Red Dog’s ’001 patent. 

Red Dog asserted claims 44, 45, 47, 48, 55, 57, 60, 77, 89, 

90, 91, 92, 93, and 94 of the ’001 patent.

For purposes of this appeal, those claims may be divided into two groups: all of the asserted claims except 

claim 60; and claim 60. Essentially, three claim limitations are at issue. The first limitation appears in all 

claims except 60 (“support”): 

“multiple rails” (claims 44, 45, 47, 48, 55, and 77) / 

“elongate members” (claims 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 

94) “that extend along the first axis, are coupled 

to the enclosure, and support the protective shelter on a substrate” (claims 44, 45, 47, 48, 55, 57, 

77, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 94). 

’001 patent, col. 21, line 7, through col. 25, line 26 (emphasis added). The other two (“elevate”; “ballast”) appear 

in claim 60: 

“multiple rails that elevate the floor above the 

substrate” (claim 60); 

“a ballast disposed beneath at least one of a set 

including the floor, the first deck, and the second 

deck” (claim 60).

Id., col. 22, line 55, through col. 23, line 6 (emphases 

added). 

The district court treated Claim 44 as representative

of all the claims except claim 60. Claim 44 reads:

A protective shelter, comprising:

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/03/2016
4 RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC v. KAT INDUSTRIES, INC. 

an enclosure having at least a floor, at least one 

sidewall coupled to the floor, a door, and a roof 

coupled to the at least one sidewall, wherein the 

protective shelter has a first axis and an orthogonal second axis both parallel to a plane including 

the floor of the enclosure, and wherein the protective shelter has a greater first dimension along 

the first axis and a lesser second dimension along 

the second axis;

multiple rails that extend along the first axis, are 

coupled to the enclosure, and support the protective shelter on a substrate;

first and second deck sections coupled to the rails, 

wherein the first and second deck sections extend 

substantially symmetrically from the enclosure 

along the first axis; and

a ballast disposed in one or more locations in the 

protective shelter, including at least one location 

in a set including beneath the floor, in the first 

deck section, and in the second deck section.

’001 patent, col. 21, lines 7–27. All claims at issue, including claim 60, require multiple rails.

Both parties filed motions for partial summary judgment. Red Dog sought a summary-judgment ruling that 

would reject KAT’s defenses of inequitable conduct and 

laches, but the district court denied that motion, finding 

triable issues. KAT, for its part, sought summary judgment of non-liability on various grounds. As to grounds of 

invalidity and unenforceability, the district court denied 

the motion. But as to non-infringement, the issue now on 

appeal, the district court granted KAT’s motion, ruling 

that “there are no genuine disputes of material fact present in this issue and the Defendants are entitled to 

judgment [of non-infringement] as a matter of law.” J.A. 

7. 

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/03/2016
RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC v. KAT INDUSTRIES, INC. 5

The court concluded that Red Dog pointed to insufficient evidence to create a triable issue about whether the 

accused KAT shelter meets the “support” and “elevate” 

limitations. In particular, the court found the declaration 

of Red Dog’s expert insufficient, because the expert had 

“not interpreted the claims and the accused product in a 

manner consistent with the way a person having ordinary 

skill in the art would interpret” those claim terms in this 

patent. J.A. 9–10; see also J.A. 10–12. Those conclusions 

alone required summary judgment as to all asserted 

claims, but the district court also concluded that Red Dog 

lacked sufficient evidence to create a triable issue about 

whether the accused shelter meets the “ballast” limitation 

of claim 60. J.A. 12–15.

The district court subsequently dismissed all other 

claims and counterclaims without prejudice and entered a 

final judgment. J.A. 2. Red Dog appeals. This court has 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

II

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. 

See Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 

1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Wright v. Excel Paralubes, 

807 F.3d 730, 732 (5th Cir. 2015). Summary judgment is 

proper where “the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

Infringement, which is a question of fact, “is amenable 

to summary judgment when no reasonable factfinder 

could find that the accused product contains every claim 

limitation or its equivalent.” Akzo, 811 F.3d at 1339. 

That determination depends on claim construction. Id. 

Claim construction is a matter of law, with any underlying findings about extra-patent understandings or other 

facts outside the patent documents calling for clear-error 

review. Id. 

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/03/2016
6 RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC v. KAT INDUSTRIES, INC. 

Here, the district court’s analysis is best read as based 

ultimately on the meaning required by the patent itself: 

“[t]his is just simply not what ‘support’ means in this 

context,” J.A. 11; Red Dog’s “elevate” construction is 

“certainly not an interpretation that a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would apply to this patent,” J.A. 13. We 

review that context-based determination de novo. But 

Red Dog would not be aided even if we read the district 

court as making a finding about ordinary meaning outside 

the patent. Such a finding would call for the deferential 

review of the clear-error standard. Regardless, we conclude that the district court must be affirmed in its constructions of “support” and “elevate,” which exclude the 

accused shelters.

A 

The first dispute concerns the meaning of “support.” 

Claims 44, 45, 47, 48, 55, 57, and 77 each include a requirement that the patented product include “multiple 

rails that extend along the first axis, are coupled to the 

enclosure, and support the protective shelter on a substrate.” ’001 patent, col. 21, line 7, through col. 24, line 9. 

Claims 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, and 94 each require that the 

product include “multiple elongate members extending 

along the first axis that are coupled to the enclosure and 

support the protective shelter on a substrate.” Id., col. 24, 

line 41, through col. 25, line 26.

In order to reach the KAT shelters, Red Dog requires 

an interpretation of “support . . . on a substrate” that 

would cover certain raised elements in the KAT shelters 

that do not sit under the lowered, round central shelter, 

which sits on the soil (the substrate). J.A. 276, 298 figure 

2. Red Dog relied for such an interpretation on its expert’s explanation invoking Hooke’s Law and Newton’s 

Third Law. J.A. 268, 276–77. The expert drew his “support” conclusion from the assertion that the KAT shelter’s 

raised elements, by their stiffness, bear more load than 

the shelter’s bottom plate alone, J.A. 268, because, when 

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016
RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC v. KAT INDUSTRIES, INC. 7

the shelter sits on the soil and the soil produces an equal 

and opposite force, some of that force is transferred to the 

raised elements, J.A. 276–77. Although the expert performed calculations to show such transfer, J.A. 299–300, 

those calculations add nothing to the just-summarized 

explanation of why the “support” conclusion assertedly 

follows. 

The district court properly rejected Red Dog’s “support” interpretation. J.A. 11. To the extent that the court 

was making a factual finding that Red Dog’s interpretation is not the ordinary, extra-patent meaning of “support” (of the structure by rails) in a context like this one, 

we find no clear error based on Red Dog’s explanation. 

The physics analysis of forces does not clearly establish 

the meaning of “support” here. In any event, Red Dog 

does not meaningfully contend, and we see no basis for 

concluding, that the ’001 patent contemplates a notion of 

support by rails other than the common-sense one apparent from the written description—namely, rails sitting

beneath the shelter, see ’001 patent, col. 10, lines 21–26 

(shelter “supported above the underlying substrate[,] 

rest[ing] upon one or more . . . rails”); id., col. 4, lines 21–

28; id., col. 12, lines 55–62, which is consistent with the 

focus on creating “a substantially enclosed sub-floor 

region,” id., col. 2, lines 29–30; id., col. 3, lines 45–46 

(“substantially enclosed space beneath the shelter floor”). 

The district court properly rejected the claim interpretation urged by Red Dog. Without that interpretation, 

there is no basis here for finding that KAT’s shelter meets 

the “support” claim limitations. Summary judgment as to 

all of the asserted claims except claim 60 was proper. 

B 

Summary judgment also was proper as to claim 60. It 

is sufficient to discuss the claim term “elevate.” Claim 60 

mandates that the product have “multiple rails that 

elevate the floor above a substrate” and “first and second

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/03/2016
8 RED DOG MOBILE SHELTERS, LLC v. KAT INDUSTRIES, INC. 

decks supported by the rails.” ’001 patent, col. 22, lines 

64–65. We conclude that the district court properly held 

that the “rails that elevate the floor above a substrate” 

limitation could not, on this record, be found to cover 

KAT’s shelter, in which the raised elements (the asserted 

rails) are to the side of the shelter and do not lift its 

bottom plate above the ground.

Red Dog rests its contrary contention on two assertions together: first, KAT’s shelter is elevated because of 

the thickness of the bottom plate itself, whose top surface—the “floor”—is necessarily above the bottom surface 

and therefore above the substrate; second, the “rails” are 

doing the elevating, because the bottom plate is actually 

part of the rails. J.A. 280. That interpretation covers 

even a solid floorboard that sits flush on the ground.

We think that the district court properly concluded 

that Red Dog’s interpretation is not one a person of ordinary skill in the art would adopt, at least for this patent. 

As already noted, the ’001 patent clearly contemplates 

rails that lift the bottom plate above the ground, creating 

a gap between the floor panel and the ground. ’001 patent, col. 3, lines 45–46; id., col. 2, lines 29–30; see also id., 

col. 4, lines 24–39 (particular embodiment allowing “the 

free passage air from any locale beneath the shelter to 

any other locale”) (emphasis added). More generally, the 

district court explained, under Red Dog’s interpretation, 

“it would be impossible to create a floor that was not 

elevated,” because the floor would be the (twodimensional) top of some (necessarily three-dimensional) 

material, which “would have to have a thickness to it.” 

J.A. 12. Red Dog’s “expert’s application of ‘elevate’ does 

not make any sense.” Id.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1370 Document: 43-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/03/2016