Opinion ID: 210094
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Carbon Bats

Text: The district court held that the carbon bats did not infringe because Wilson provide[d] no evidence to support a finding that the carbon bats contain anything inserted or intended for insertion as is apparent from Miken's process of manufacturing multi-layered frames around what becomes an internal component. Id. at 10-11. It also rejected Wilson's argument for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, which relied upon its expert's load deflection tests to establish that the layers of the carbon bats were capable of independent movement. Id. at 11-12. The district court held that because these tests could not serve as a basis to find equivalency of the insert, they established at most the equivalency of the accused products as a whole. Id. at 11-13 (citing Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997) (holding that [t]he determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis)). It further held that to apply the doctrine of equivalents in this case would vitiate the `insert' limitation of claims 1 and 18 in contravention of the `all elements' rule, based on its understanding of the carbon bats as merely multi-layered frames. Id. at 13 (citing Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1316-17 (Fed.Cir. 1998)). Because the district court found that the carbon bats did not meet the insert limitation, it did not consider whether or not these bats contained a gap within the meaning of claims 1 or 18. Id. at 13 n. 4. On appeal, Wilson presents two arguments for literal infringement. First, Wilson argues that Miken's own expert admitted that Miken's carbon bats each have an insert. Second, Wilson contends that record evidence establishes that the carbon bats have separate internal structural members, each of which moves independently of the frame. Miken responds that Wilson has presented no evidence that any part of the carbon bats was ever inserted or intended for insertion into a hollow bat frame, and that whether or not the carbon bats contain separate internal structural elements capable of independent movement is not dispositive of the existence of an insert as that claim term has been construed. Miken further contends that the alleged insert of the carbon bats is not structurally distinct from the frame. Finally, Miken draws our attention to its expert's supplemental declaration, which clarifies that [a]s in all previous documents [including the declaration cited by Wilson] the term insert is used to identify an inner object or layer and the term frame is used to refer to an outer object or layer. The terms insert and frame are not used to imply any information regarding the nature of the manufacturing and/or assembly processes. J.A. at 1651. We agree with Miken that neither its expert's casual reference to layers of the carbon bats as inserts, nor the possibility that these layers comprise separate structures capable of independent movement  without more  suffice to establish literal infringement. Even when we view the evidence in a light most favorable to [Wilson] and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor, we conclude that Wilson points to no evidence that any component of the carbon bats was ever inserted or intended for insertion, and thus there is no genuine issue of material fact and [Miken] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed.Cir. 1985) (en banc). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment of no literal infringement as to the carbon bats. Wilson also argues infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Again Wilson asserts that any bat having multiple layers exhibiting independent movement in the nature of a leaf spring must infringe the insert limitation. As evidence of this, it offers its expert's load deflection tests, which compared the performance of the accused bats as manufactured to the same bats with the layers bonded together with epoxy. We agree with the district court that these tests demonstrate, at most, the equivalency of the accused products as a whole, Summary Judgment Opinion at 12, and that Wilson has not provided any factual basis or expert testimony to support an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis with respect to the insert limitation. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040 (noting additionally that the analysis should include [a] focus on individual elements and a special vigilance against allowing the concept of equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements). Moreover, Wilson's expert's explanation of the test results undermines Wilson's position; he opined only that [t]his increase in deflection, from the unglued to the glued, is the measure of independent movement, and the existence of a `gap.' He did not discuss the equivalence of any structural component of Miken's bats to the insert of claims 1 and 18. Even according to Wilson's own description, the load deflection tests merely demonstrate that a stiff, fixed, multi-wall bat underperforms a bat with a multi-wall structure allowing independent movement in the nature of a leaf spring. Regardless of whether the carbon bats were designed in order to achieve leafspring-like action as specified in the '398 patent, as alleged by Wilson, the '398 patent does not claim a bat with leaf-spring-like action, nor one with separate layers capable of independent movement. Rather, claims 1 and 18 require an insert, and with respect to this limitation, Wilson has provided no particularized testimony from an expert or person skilled in the art that [(a)] specifically addressed equivalents on a limitation-by-limitation basis; [(b)] explained the insubstantiality of the differences between the patented method and the accused product; or [(c)] discussed the function, way, result test. AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 F.3d 1320, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Wilson's lawyer argument and generalized testimony about the accused product . . . fail[s] to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that would prevent the grant of summary judgment. Id. Wilson also contends that there is at least a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a gap in the carbon bats. We do not address this issue because we, like the district court, find the lack of an insert to be dispositive. See Summary Judgment Opinion at 13 n. 4. Thus, we affirm the judgment of non-infringement with respect to the carbon bats.