Opinion ID: 211308
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Double Flipper

Text: In its summary judgment opinion, the district court concluded that the double flipper was noninfringing for the same reasons it found that the modified design calculators were noninfringing. Additionally, the court found that [b]ecause there are two closing layers in the double flipper, the lid structure does not cover the display panel in the closed position, nor does it expose the display panel when opened. Instead, when the lid structure covering the display is opened, the second portion of the housing covers the display panel (this second portion of the housing then opens.) Summary Judgment Order, slip op. at 11. On appeal, CCL argues that the district court impermissibly construed the claim term to require that the lid “directly” cover and alternatively, “directly” expose the display panel. CCL asserts that the presence of an intervening structure does not affect the covering and exposing functions of the lid. We disagree. The claim language requires that the lid pivot “between the closed position thereof covering said display panel and the rearwardly pivoted position exposing said display panel and forming a stand for supporting said calculator in a tilted position on a horizontal surface.” ’085 patent, col. 7, ll. 22-26 (emphasis added). Regardless of whether the lid in the double flipper covers the display panel in the closed position, the district court correctly concluded that when the lid structure opens (i.e., moves toward the rearwardly pivoted position), the display panel is not exposed because a second portion of the housing still covers the display. This finding, that the 05-1173, -1216 21 double flipper lacks a lid structure which exposes the display panel in the rearwardly pivoted position, permits an affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement because each and every limitation of the claim (i.e., the covering and exposing limitations) does not appear in the double-flipper. See Frank’s Casing, 389 F.3d at 1278. 3. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents While the district court’s examination of the accused calculators and the court’s findings of infringement were in the context of literal infringement, the court also found that CCL failed to produce evidence of the equivalency of Sun Coast’s products and the limitations of claim 1. . . . [such that] [t]here is no question of fact here as there has been no evidence presented to the Court of any infringement by an equivalent to the cited claim elements. . . . on which a reasonable jury could base a finding of equivalence. Summary Judgment Order, slip op. at 8 n.5. The court had no reason to formulate its own possible theories of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents when CCL had failed to offer any evidence supporting such a finding. Sun Coast clearly asserted that CCL failed to offer any evidence on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in its motion for partial summary judgment. Thus, the issue was squarely raised before CCL submitted its opposition brief. Accordingly, there was no obligation for the district court to provide CCL a further opportunity to supplement the record when it failed to present evidence of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in its brief in opposition to Sun Coast’s summary judgment motion. Further, the district court clarified that it “did not rely on either . . . [the Ram or Bhavnani] declarations in making its findings[,]” contrary to CCL’s assertion that the court improperly relied upon statements made in 05-1173, -1216 22 declarations attached to Sun Coast’s reply brief. Summary Judgment Order, slip op. at 9 n.6. Therefore, there was no obligation for the court to consider evidence (e.g., Chan’s declaration) that CCL only first presented in its response to the court’s minute order. As such, we do not disturb the court’s findings with respect to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. 4. Cross-Appeal Sun Coast’s cross-appeal challenges the district court’s denial of attorney fees. Specifically, Sun Coast asserts that the district court committed clear error by not finding that this case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and abused its discretion by (1) refusing to award fees to Sun Coast under § 285, (2) alternatively not awarding fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3) alternatively not awarding fees under its inherent powers. CCL asserts in response that the district court’s finding that this case was not exceptional is not clearly erroneous, and that Sun Coast has failed to show that the court abused its discretion in failing to award attorney fees. We detect no clear error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Sun Coast’s motion for attorney fees. First, under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the court found that Sun Coast failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence actual wrongful intent or gross negligence by CCL. Although the district court acknowledged that CCL committed numerous violations of the local rules, and an unjustified number of ex parte applications, its conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence or bad faith and vexatious litigation. “Taken in its totality, the record does not demonstrate with convincing clarity the egregiousness of CCL’s counsel’s conduct or a bad faith and vexatious multiplication of proceedings.” Attorney Fees Order, slip op. at 2. Second, 05-1173, -1216 23 the court similarly rejected Sun Coast’s argument for fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because the court found that CCL’s counsel had not multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously, and found that any protracted proceedings were equally attributable to Sun Coast’s failure to identify all the calculators at issue in its motion for summary judgment. Lastly, the court rejected Sun Coast’s argument for fees under the court’s inherent powers because it found that the conduct of CCL and its counsel was not sufficiently egregious to warrant sanctions. The district court judge is in the best position, after presiding over the preparation and trial of the case, to “weigh the relevant considerations, such as the closeness of the case, the tactics of counsel, the flagrant or good faith character of the parties’ conduct, and any other factors contributing to imposition of punitive sanctions or to fair allocation of the burdens of litigation.” Frank’s Casing, 389 F.3d at 1379 (citations omitted); Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The court fully considered Sun Coast’s arguments but found that CCL and its counsel’s conduct was not so egregious as to warrant an award of attorney fees. We can discern no clear error in the district court’s factual findings, nor any abuse of discretion in the court’s ultimate denial of attorney fees.