Opinion ID: 808959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ProTool Bag and Electricians Bag II

Text: Travel Caddy appeals the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement by the Union Rich ProTool ordered a non-jury evidentiary hearing on obviousness and inequitable conduct. The record reveals that both Union Rich and Travel Caddy requested trial by jury in their respective pleadings and that, on August 20, 2007, Travel Caddy requested an evidentiary hearing before the court on inequitable conduct prior to a jury trial on the remaining issues. The record also reveals that: (1) the district court ordered a non-jury evidentiary hearing on validity and enforceability of Travel Caddy’s Patents; (2) Travel Caddy actively participated in the two-day hearing, presenting evidence and arguments on validity; and (3) it was not until January 6, 2009 – eleven months after the hearing – that Travel Caddy filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that it was deprived of its right to a jury trial on validity. See J.A. 6008. Given our decision to remand with respect to obviousness, we need not address this issue on appeal. Travel Caddy is free to reassert its right to trial by jury upon remand. OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY 24 Bag and the succeeding model of tool carry bags, the Electricians Bag II (CarryAlls Bag). The record shows the Travel Caddy patent drawings and the accused ProTool Bag and Electrician Bag: Travel Caddy Br. 10. Travel Caddy challenges the district court’s claim construction and argues that even if that construction were correct, summary judgment of noninfringement was improperly granted. The grant of summary judgment receives plenary review on appeal. 25 OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY The district court construed thirteen terms in the asserted claims: “between,” “connecting between,” “joined between,” “extending substantially entirely between the . . . side edges,” “intermediate,” “continuous, closed loop binding,“ “flexible fabric . . . panel,” “generally rigid, fabric covered . . . panel,” “generally semi-rigid, fabric-covered . . . panel,” “three-sided generally rigid fabric covered box,” “sewn into,” “margin,” and “rectangular perimeter shaped.” Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., No. 05-cv-2482, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100640 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 18, 2006) (Claim Construction). On this appeal the parties dispute only the terms shown in boldface, for example, in claims 1 and 19 of the ’104 patent: 1. A case for carrying tools or other items comprising, in combination: [a] planar, generally rigid, fabric covered first end panel having a generally rectangular lower section with a bottom side edge, a front side edge and a back side edge and a generally triangular upper section; a second, planar, generally rigid, fabric covered end panel having a configuration congruent with the first end panel and parallel to and spaced from the first end panel and with a bottom edge, a front side edge and a back side edge; a planar, generally rigid, fabric covered, rectangular bottom panel connecting between the first and second panels to form a three sided, generally rigid fabric covered box; OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY 26 a first, flexible, fabric front panel having a top edge and joined between the front side edges of the first and second end panels; a second, flexible fabric back panel having a top edge and joined between the back side edges of the first and second end panels; a single continuous, closed loop binding joining the fabric covering the generally rigid panels and the flexible panels, said binding extending over the joined fabric and stitched thereto along the side edges and bottom edges of the end panels and the top edges of the flexible panels. 19. A case for carrying tools or other items comprising, in combination: a planar, fabric covered first end panel having a generally rigid lower section with a bottom side edge, a front side edge and a back side edge, and an upper section; a second, planar, fabric covered end panel con- structed substantially identical to the first end panel and having a configuration generally congruent with the first end panel and parallel to and spaced from the first end panel and, said second panel also including a bottom edge, a front side edge and a back side edge; a planar, generally rigid, fabric covered, rectangular perimeter shaped, bottom panel between the first and second end panels to form a generally three sided, generally rigid, fabric covered box with the first and second end panels extending upwardly from the bottom panel, said bottom panel including 27 OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY a front edge, a back edge, and first and second side edges; a first, flexible, fabric front panel having a top edge and joined between the front side edges of the first and second end panels; a second, flexible fabric back panel having a top edge and joined between the backside edges of the first and second end panels; and a continuous, closed loop binding extending over fabric covering the bottom panel and the flexible panels, said binding stitched thereto along the side edges of the bottom panel and the side edges and top edges of the flexible panels. This court had previously reviewed the construction of these terms, in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of Travel Caddy’s request for a preliminary injunction. Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 260 F. App’x 316 (Fed. Cir. 2008). On appeal, Union Rich argues that the claim construction then presented to and accepted by the Federal Circuit is the law of this case, and is not subject to further review. In response, Travel Caddy contends that the district court’s previous claim construction was not final and that “claim construction rendered on appeal from a preliminary injunction ruling is not binding on this Court.” Travel Caddy Reply Br. 25. As a general rule, the law of the case doctrine “prohibits a court from revisiting an issue once it has been decided in pending litigation.” Transonic Sys., Inc. v. Non-Invasive Med. Techs. Corp., 75 F. App’x 765, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2003) OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY 28 (citing Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 (1983)). The doctrine provides that as a matter of sound judicial practice, . . . a court generally adheres to a decision in a prior appeal in the case unless one of three “exceptional circum- stances” exists: “the evidence on a subsequent trial was substantially different, controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues, or the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); see also Mendenhall v. Barber-Greene Co., 26 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The law of the case does not involve preclusion after final judgment, but rather it regulates judicial affairs before final judgment. It is a doctrine resting on the need for judicial economy. A court will not generally revisit an issue once decided in the litigation.”) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has made clear that “findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court during a preliminary injunction proceeding are not binding on the court during trial.” Transonic, 75 F. App’x at 774 (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)). Consistent with this principle, we have previously held that “a claim construction reached during an appeal from a grant of preliminary injunction is tentative and is not binding on the district court in subsequent proceedings.” Id.; see also Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 376 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“An appellate court’s preliminary injunction opinion has no conclusive bearing at the trial on the merits and is not binding on a subsequent panel.”). 29 OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY This issue most often arises in cases where the district court engages in an initial, tentative claim construction specifically for purposes of the preliminary injunction without a hearing and without significant discovery. See Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Enters., 302 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (district courts can “engage in a rolling claim construction,” particularly where the issues involved are complex and that construction at the preliminary injunction stage may evolve at later stages because “motions for a preliminary injunction may come for decision before significant discovery has occurred”); see also Transonic, 75 F. App’x at 774 (“A district court therefore is at liberty to change the construction of a claim term as the record in a case evolves after a preliminary injunction appeal.”). In contrast, where the district court has conducted a separate full Markman hearing prior to rendering its claim construction at the preliminary injunction stage, and there is no new evidence that would alter that construction, arguments concerning the preliminary or tentative nature of the claim construction are less availing. See Ecolab Inc. v. JohnsonDiversey, Inc., 95 F. App’x 322, 331 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (recognizing that, “in a preliminary injunction proceeding, claim construction is often tentative and is subject to revision following more plenary proceedings” and that “further proceedings in this case, such as a claim construction hearing, may shed additional light on the claim construction inquiry”). Although the general rule is that tentative claim construction for preliminary injunction purposes does not remove the issue from later review after the facts are elaborated, here, the district court’s claim construction decision issued after a full Markman hearing, and the parties have OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY 30 not identified any new factual findings. 6 Given this posture, there is some force to Union Rich’s position that this court’s prior decision affirming the district court’s claim construction constitutes law of the case. We need not decide this issue, however, because, even if the law of the case doctrine does not apply, we find that the district court correctly construed the disputed claim terms. 7