Opinion ID: 213621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Radar owns the asserted ’661 and ’810 patents, both of which are directed to “clevis links.” Clevis links are used in a variety of manufacturing contexts, including in automobile manufacturing where they connect the automotive radiator to the engine. The patented clevis links are considered an improvement over the prior art because they are stamped from a single piece of sheet metal rather than forged from heavier metals, making them more 3 RADAR INDUSTRIES v. CLEVELAND DIE economical and lightweight. As depicted below, a clevis link 10 connects with a tie bar 18 to form a linkage assembly 12: In the early-1990s, General Motors contracted with Standard Products to produce a linkage assembly, consisting of a tie bar and a clevis link. Standard Products awarded a contract for the production of the tie bar to Radar, but awarded a contract for the production of the clevis link to Cleveland Die’s predecessor, Tool Producers. In 1994, Tool Producers began supplying clevis links to Standard Products. Around 1995, Radar’s Vice President and owner, Mark Zmyslowski, notified Standard Products that the ’661 patent covered Tool Producers’ clevis links. However, Gary O’Keefe, Standard Products’ buyer, informed Zmyslowski that if he ever asserted the patent, Radar would lose the more profitable tie bar business. Radar then allegedly granted Standard Products a “Right to Have Made” license (“Have Made license”) to have the clevis links of the ’661 patent and later the ’810 patent manufactured on its behalf. In return, Standard Products allegedly assured Radar that it would be given the first opportunity to replace Tool Producers if Tool Producers ever ceased production of the clevis links. This agreement RADAR INDUSTRIES v. CLEVELAND DIE 4 was never memorialized in writing, and the parties now dispute whether an agreement was ever reached. 1 In 2001, Cleveland Die purchased the assets of Tool Producers from National City Bank in foreclosure proceedings. These assets included the “contract, records and tooling for making a clevis link for [Standard Products].” J.A. 152. Soon after, Cleveland Die succeeded Tool Producers in supplying links to Standard Products. Cleveland Die ceased production of the accused clevis links when Standard Products found another supplier for the links around July 2007. Apparently, early in 2008, Radar lost the contract for providing the tie bars to Standard Products. On May 31, 2008, Radar sued Cleveland Die, alleging infringement of the ’661 and ’810 patents. On August 20, 2009, Cleveland Die moved for sum- mary judgment that the accused links were not properly marked under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which requires a patent holder to mark all patented articles sold “for or under” it in order to obtain infringement damages. 2 Cleveland Die 1 Apparently, in 1999, Standard Products was ac- quired by a company called Cooper Standard. For convenience, we refer to Standard Products as the entity in question. 2 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) provides, in relevant part: Patentees . . . making, offering for sale, or selling . . . any patented article for or under them . . . may give notice. . . that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word “patent” or the abbreviation “pat.”, together with the number of the patent . . . . In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. 5 RADAR INDUSTRIES v. CLEVELAND DIE contended that Standard Products (and accordingly Cleveland Die) was licensed by Radar under the alleged Have Made license. Radar, on the other hand, contended that neither Standard Products nor Cleveland Die sold clevis links “for or under” Radar because, contrary to its earlier position, a Have Made agreement never in fact existed. The district court granted summary judgment on March 4, 2010, concluding that Standard Products was licensed and that the patent notice statute foreclosed any claim for damages in recovery of all relief sought in the infringement action. Radar, 2010 WL 777077, at . In addition, the district court denied Radar leave to amend its complaint to add additional clevis links that it believed were infringing. Radar Indus., Inc. v. Cleveland Die & Mfg. Co., No. 08-CV-12338, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2010) [hereinafter Denial of Discovery Motions and Motion for Leave]. It also denied several discovery motions, denying Radar leave to engage in additional discovery after the passage of the discovery deadline. Id. Radar timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). We review grants of summary judgment de novo. Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A. Inc., 558 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A denial of a motion to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 552 F.3d 430, 437 (6th Cir. 2008). 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) (emphasis added). Persons make or sell patented articles “for or under” a patentee when the patentee has expressly or impliedly authorized them to do so. See Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 185 (Fed. Cir. 1994). RADAR INDUSTRIES v. CLEVELAND DIE 6